Is it time for a constitutional convention called by the people re: illegal immigration?

Sure, a republican form of government is not optional. And every state has a legislature of elected representatives, so every state has a republican form of government.
No issue there.

Also, the federal government must protect against invasion and domestic violence. Ok. It does that. Wherever foreign armies attack the US, the government will send the army. And when the Southern States resorted to domestic violence, the Feds sent in the Army.
No issue there either.

Perhaps you're suggesting that Mexican immigration is an "invasion"?

Anyway, the way to deal with the immigration issue is frontally: we have to stop the flow.
The way to do that is to build a wall and guard it.
Put Army, Air Force and Marine bases, and border state National Guard bases and police training facilities, all along the border. You don't have to shoot down immigrants: arrest them and send them back, but make it harder for them to get across in the first place by a guarded barrier.

Once the flow is stopped, there is the issue of 8 million illegals within the United States. More will no longer be coming, so were are not in the same position we were with the Carter amnesty. When he did it, more came. Have a guarded border wall, with the bases permanently there (that is important because it dramatically reduces costs. Incidentally it also tips New Mexico into becoming a Republican state, and shifts Arizona back to the right as well.

With the certitude no more can come, we can be compassionate and give a more or less general amnesty to those already here, put them into the regular economy paying taxes, and on the road to citizenship.

We're never going to root out all of the illegals, and turning everybody into a spy against his neighbor/bringing law enforcement to poke through companies, etc. is expensive, intrusive and empowers the nosey and aggressive "snitch" types that most of us really pretty much detest. So rather than trying to create a nation of snitches, and incidentally driving the illegals in America further underground, build the wall and regularize those on this side of it.

That really FIXES the problem, and doesn't invite a new one.
Obviously once there is regularization and a wall, the flow of illegals will slow to a trickle, and the existing ones will be integrated and protected by the general laws of society. This is better for absolutely everyone, in the long run.

That's the right way to do it.

I have been giving some thought to your idea and agree something has to be done to save this nation from politicians who are not representing the people. I noticed callifornia uses referendums and this may be one mechanism missing from the federal government.

Here is some info on national initiative and referendums:
.......................
So what about national I&R in the United States?

If I&R has been a means for dealing with the conflicts at the state level, why not resolve similar national conflicts with national I&R? Lincoln is said to have proposed a national vote to reconcile slavery. There have been 3 major efforts in the U.S. for national I&R: the Progressive movement (prior to 1920), the anti-war movement (during both World Wars I and II), and the environmental movement (during the 1970s).

An early advocate for national I&R was U.S. Senator and former Colorado Governor John Shafroth. The Shafroth Amendment was proposed as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1914. It would have given the people of every state I&R for determining women’s suffrage. When 8% of voters signed a petition, the issue would be determined by a majority vote at the next state election. Mounting pressure eventually forced Congress to deal with the issue. Had it become law, the Shafroth Amendment might very well have expedited resolution of women’s suffrage. Perhaps more importantly, it would have set a precedent as a means of addressing other difficult national issues.

When the U.S. entered World War I, isolationists and pacifists called for a national referendum, arguing that only the people should decide whether to go to war. Advocates proposed an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (also called the Peace Referendum) that would have required a nationwide popular vote to go to war, unless the U.S. was attacked or invaded. A similar movement emerged during World War II but was never approved by Congress.

After World War II, the use of the statewide initiative process declined and was largely forgotten by many activists until it was rediscovered in the 1970s by the environmental movement. Coincident with rediscovery of state I&R, was a renewed interest in national I&R. Senator Abourezk (D-SD) introduced the National Voter Initiative Amendment in 1977.

The NVIA would have taken an issue to nationwide vote, when 3% of voters in at least 10 states signed a petition. A majority of voters nationwide would decide the issue. The difference between the Shafroth and the Abourezk approaches merit elaboration. Shafroth empowered the people of the states, acknowledging that the Federal government is a collection of state governments. Abourezk did not account for the division of powers between Federal and State governments itemized in the U.S. Constitution or provide a means of addressing state issues. Shafroth did not provide a means for directly resolving national concerns. A well-designed system of national I&R should do both: work within the bounds of the constitution and provide a means for addressing issues reserved to the respective Federal and State levels.

National I&R Proposals

There have been two distinct approaches to obtaining a national I&R process in the United States. One is working through the states and the other is by getting Congress to pass an amendment establishing the initiative process.

In the states, several organizations, like USPIRG, have worked hard to generate support for a national I&R process. In addition to the “PIRGs”, another organization, “Philadelphia Two” has been working to establish a national initiative process. Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel heads the group. Though their approach is somewhat controversial (basically to set up an “electoral trust” that is not accountable to the government), they are working hard to build support for a national initiative process.

At the Congressional level, between 1895 and 1943, 108 proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution by adding national I&R were submitted. Seven would have created a general I&R, that would have allowed for consideration of any issue. The others created I&R for specific issues only or that had issue-specific prohibitions. For example, Abourezk would not permit the declaring of war, calling up troops, or amending the constitution and would permit statutory modifications by Congress with a two-thirds majority or simple majority after two years. Implementation of national I&R is more complicated in the U.S. than in other nations due to the unique Constitutional division of responsibilities between the Federal and State governments. In most countries, governments are centralized to either a greater or lesser extent. Other variations of national I&R that have been proposed in the U.S. include:

The first proposal for national I&R was in 1895 by Populist Party U.S. Senator William Peffer from Kansas. It provided for a national vote on an issue when 20% of voters nationwide or 20% of state legislatures requested it.

In 1907 U.S. Representative Elmer Lincoln Fulton from Oklahoma suggested that 8% of the voters in each of 15 states could put either a constitutional amendment or statute proposal to a national vote or that 5% of the voters in each of 15 states or their state legislatures could challenge a statute passed by Congress.

In 1911 Senator Bristow from Kansas proposed that the Initiative be used to reign in the court. Any law held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court would go to a vote of the people. This was the first proposal for using I&R as the method by which to reconcile conflicts between the equal branches of the Federal government.

Socialist Party U.S. Representative Victor Berger of Wisconsin introduced the most radical proposal ever. It would have abolished the Presidency, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Five percent of the voters in three-fourths of the state could propose a law or challenge a law passed by Congress.

U.S. Senator Bob La Follette from Wisconsin in 1916 proposed a non-binding national advisory referendum that would be held when 1% of the voters in 25 states petitioned.

The National approach would require some percentage (usually in the range of 3%) of voters nationwide to sign a petition. Because elections are managed by the states and there are no national voter rolls or other election systems, leaving states out of the process would require changes in election management.

Nullification advocates in the 1980s and 1990s suggested that Federal statutes should go to a nationwide vote when 10% of the voters in 1/3 of the states sign a petition challenging it. Nullification proposals were in reaction to “unfunded mandates” and directives imposed upon the states by Congress. A nullification mechanism would effectively be a national application of the referendum petition or challenge petition.

The State's Approach to National I&R

The question of national I&R in the U.S. is not whether it will be. Rather, the question is when it will be and what form it will have. When the Confederate States wrote their constitution, they substantially replicated the constitution they had lived under for over 70 years. Perhaps the most substantial variation cured a significant structural flaw in the U.S. Constitution: how Amendments are proposed for ratification. Recognizing that a constitution is the delegation of consent to govern and, therefore, a limitation on government, and acknowledging Congress’ inherent conflict of interest, the authority of Congress to draft proposed amendments was revoked. A proposed amendment would go to ratification when 25% of the states passed resolutions supporting the same proposal. This, in fact, is what the Founders had intended with Article V; but their intent was subsequently subverted by Congress.

The “States Approach” may be the best form for national I&R. The “States Approach” would permit a number of states (25%) to agree either by state initiative petition and vote or by state legislature resolution, that a question should be addressed nationally. When a number of states concur, the Federal statute (simple majority) or constitution (3/4 majority) is changed. Obviously, over-reaching Federal statutes could be stricken by the same means.

The “States Approach” acknowledges the respective constitutional roles of the State and Federal governments. It provides a means for addressing both state and national issues. It can cure both actions of omission and acts of commission by Congress and by individual state legislatures. It utilizes the existing election management systems of the states. It answers the problem of Congressional conflict of interest. It can deal with both Federal statutory or constitutional problems. It acknowledges the sovereignty of the people at every level. It might be a viable means for resolving conflicts between the equal branches of the Federal government or deadlocked Federal legislation. The fear of majoritarian abuse of I&R is reduced. National issues are resolved gradually via ongoing public debate and incremental approval by the states. A critical part of the Constitution is restored to the functionality intended by the Founders.

The “States Approach” also offers a practical means of implementation and can be achieved gradually by increasing the number of states with I&R until critical mass is reached. Critical mass is when the numbers of states with I&R is sufficient to press the issue of nationally.

Summary

National I&R in the U.S. would offer a mechanism to address national issues that partisan politics or Congressional inherent conflict of interest prohibits a solution. Several attempts have been made in Congress and in the states – but to no avail. However, as citizens enlarge their participation in their government, it appears inevitable that the U.S. will find a way to exercise this fundamental right in the near future.

http://www.iandrinstitute.org/National%20I&R.htm

"..I am just beside myself and have been for a while. He has turned his back on the people who put him there..."

I agree. The problem is that every so often a new outrage occurs, and the conservatives get upset for a few days. There is a call for action, and a few folks second the motion.

The problem occurs that a few of us, then, actually get conned into believing that the conservatives have finally had enough. And each time it seems we are once again mistaken.

My wife says that I rant a lot, but when push comes to shove, I don't translate that into action. I suppose many of us suffer under such calumnies!

The difficulty is that when we finally figure that enough is enough, and we throw out feelers as to whether or not "here and now" is the time to organize a response, any response,- we seem to be met with a cold, deep, silence.

I understand the impulse that drives folks to believe that the time for talking is over, and that- since the legislation is pending right now about fixing the "illegals" problem- just talking won't accomplish anything. That we need to "do something, organize a protest, anything" to put pressure on the Senate.

I just happen to disagree. There are huge protests now saturating the media, composed of those who champion the "rights" of illegals! What possible chance will we have of even being recognized, much less having our arguments fairly presented by the antique media? I suspect none at all.

No, I still think that now is the time to realize that conservatives are losing the propaganda war, by signing a blank "power-of-attorney" to the Republican party, and simply hoping that they will keep their promises to us.

Any takers left on that bet? Before we simply dump on all politicians, let's understand that they are representatives of their voters, and they sift through the expressions of public will, in order to divine what to do next. Some of them may even scan FreeRepublic on occasion. But we are frankly a thundering herd of cats with 75,000 different takes on the problem, and 76,000 solutions.

We may, and likely will, lose this one, but rather than dissolve into defeat, we need to finally determine to seek a "trial separation" of our marriage to the Republican party, and begin to put together a new conservative platform.

The problem is, we aren't herd animals like the Democrats. We each have strongly held views about a few broad principals, and some red hot anger about a few specific issues. Our strength is that there are some of the best thinkers around on this site, who never fail to impress me and I think many others. But we are all rowing different boats.

So far, we aren't going to find consensus on all of the issues around, and we can continue to debate each other ad infinitum.

Unless we begin to find enough common ground to assemble a sizable contingent of voters, then the RINOS, and even the "nervous Republicans", will not pay us more than lip service.

It seems that Americans need to really have their heads beaten into the concrete before we finally, grudgingly, admit that we can't keep going like this.

The last two things we all seemed to agree on was that we needed President Bush in place in order to redress the madness of previous Supreme Court decisions, and to fight the war on terrorism. We have gritted our teeth and closed our eyes to many domestic misdemeanors and felonies. And before you bristle that that is a reference to the delinquent proposed "Senate sanction" of actions taken to safeguard the nation- please understand that many who support the war on terror, do not support the surrender to "the political rights of illegals". The very fact that they consider themselves of sufficient power and security now to openly make political demands should alarm the voters of awesome danger ahead.

As to the Supreme Court, we seem to have gotten a couple of home runs. The jury is still out on that, and the maddening part of it is that sentence is apparently never really finalized.

It seems that a rational constructionist often gets infected with some weird Capitol Hill virus, and suddenly gets "unborn again", casting his votes with those who feel the need to change the law into what they "feel" it should be. I can't visualize a fix. There seems to be no way to screen out the madness of judicial misconduct, malfeasance and outright tyranny. We can only vote in to the Presidency someone who tries his best to appoint good prospects. (And in the case where he decides that a good friend of his deserves her chance- we can howl loudly enough to "correct" the situation).

As to the war on terrorism, in spite of the progress being made to stand up an Iraqi army capable of defeating terrorists on their own, they seem to be infected with the same fifth column that we are. We have Hollywood, the teachers unions, and the antique media undercutting all of the progress we have made in such a cost in blood, working their wormtongues to assist the terrorists at every turn.

While over in Iraq, the Middle East media, Al Jazzera, works on exactly the same wavelength, using exactly the same tactics of the truth embargo, and the team effort of defeatism. It's tough for us to rage that the bastards need to throw those pukes out of their studios, while we have the same spew issuing from our media outlets.

We need to win the PR war. Not in just the short term, but now and forever. We need to build an agenda of those things that we all agree on, and then present that to the FR crowd, the Republican base, and then the average voter.

I believe that we cannot win this contest of good and evil unless we organize for the long term. Those folks who have sold their souls to the Unholy Trinity of abortion, pedolphilia and re-distribution, will certainly not give up easily. Does anyone really believe that a time will come that they will say, "You know- now that the truth has come out- it seems that everything I have voted for, supported and sold all for... has turned out to be a package of lies, a nurturing swamp of real, tangible evil..."

It ain't gonna happen, folks. The millions of dead behind the iron curtain, the millions of dead behind the bamboo curtain, and the millions of dead behind the muslim curtain forestall any form of atonement. Some sins in their magnitude transcend any form of contrition. Which leaves only the undecided voters. And we aren't going to ram any quick Constitutional Convention, or any need third party down their throats without some serious work first. They won't take us seriously until we take us seriously.

I don't have the talent to begin such a task, I just argue from the sidelines that I have seen REAL talent here on this site, and I hope that if we encourage those who DO have the talent, that perhaps a powerful Conservative Caucus can emerge. Does anyone think there was anything divinely inspired by Gingrinch and his allies when they put together the Contract with America? I for one don't think so. I think they just said- "You know, the only way we are going to reach the voter... is to reach the voter. Now who has some ideas about what America needs badly?"

I am just outrageous enough to think it was no more difficult than that... at least to start. Then the hard work began. But if at that point they had all suddenly said, "Ahhh... this is pointless. It'll never change anything", then they would have been right. And it wouldn't have changed anything. Because it wouldn't have been completed.

People are pissed. And I can't say I blame them. We need to begin to agree on some things, and then hold some politicians to their promises.

The difficulty is, that without a solid, specific, clearly articulated core of conservative principals that we can hold up and say... "If you vote against any one of these principals- consider us gone, come next election cycle."

But this won't happen until we can form a Conservative Caucus, solid as granite, and serious as a landslide.

It just isn't the time yet, ... apparently.

Call me and the others when we're bleeding. But don't wait till we're bled out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.