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

[Jim Robinson]

Just heard O'Reilly say that even though over 75% of the American people are opposed to illegal immigration, the Congress is unwilling to do anything about it. Now we all know that it is highly unlikely that representatives of either party are willing to commit to any meaningful immigration reform, so is it time for we the people through our state legislatures (requires two thirds of the states) to call for a convention to propose a constitutional amendment defining the federal government's role and responsibility for defending our borders? If so, how should such an amendment be worded and how would we go about getting two thirds of the state legislatures to act?

---

The essay below was posted by Publius at reply number 253:

To: Jim Robinson

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
--Article V of the Constitution of the United States

The Founding Fathers left us two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution.

1. The Congressional Method requires both Houses of Congress to approve a proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote. For over two hundred years, Americans have chosen to use this particular method to amend the Constitution, but it is not the only method established in Article V.
2. The Convention Method requires that the legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply for an Article V Convention. According to Hamilton, Madison and other Founders, along with several US Supreme Court decisions, Congress is then obliged to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states would send delegates to the convention who would in turn propose amendments directly, bypassing Congress.

The Framers also left us two methods to ratify amendments, and they authorized Congress to decide which method was appropriate. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress is limited to choosing one of the two methods.

1. The Legislative Method requires the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposed amendment.
2. The Ratifying Convention Method requires the ratifying conventions of three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposed amendment. The Ratifying Convention Method has been used only twice in our history: once to ratify the Constitution itself, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

One thing is perfectly clear: Article V gives the States Assembled in Convention the same proposal rights as Congress -- no more, no less. And no matter whether an amendment originates with Congress or a Convention for Proposing Amendments, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states before it can become part of the Constitution.

The Framers’ Safety Valve

Fearing a tyrannical Congress would block the amendment process, the Framers formulated Article V, wording it so as to fence off the Constitution from hostile or careless hands. They were careful to enumerate Three Forbidden Subjects.

1. Altering the arrangement known as slavery until 1808, a ban that has been lifted both by time and war.
2. Altering the arrangement of equal representation in the Senate.
3. Writing a new constitution.

The last Forbidden Subject is implied, rather than explicit, like the first two. The Framers took great pains to avoid using the term “constitutional convention”. Instead, the Founding Document refers to a “Convention for proposing Amendments...as part of this Constitution”. An Article V Convention is strictly limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of 1787, and it is forbidden to consider, compose, or even discuss a new constitution. No matter what amendments may be proposed, the Constitution must remain intact, else the actions of the convention become unconstitutional. Unless Article V is amended first to allow it, a Convention for Proposing Amendments can never become a true constitutional convention, i.e., it can never write a new constitution. And neither can Congress.

How It Would Work

The Founding Document is silent about a Convention for Proposing Amendments, except for establishing its existence and the criterion of its call by Congress. But some things can be extrapolated from the Constitution.

1. Delegates would be elected by the people, not appointed by a governor or state legislature. The sovereignty possessed by an Article V Convention is identical and equal to Congress’ as far as the amendatory process is concerned. As citizens are elected to Congress, so it must be for convention delegates.
2. Delegates would be apportioned to the states on the basis of population according to the Supreme Court’s “one man/one vote” decision. One possible formula would elect a delegate from each congressional district and two from each state, thus reflecting the makeup of the Electoral College.
3. An Article V Convention is the property of the states, and the language used by the states to request Congress to call a convention defines the purview of that convention. In its petitioning language, the states may ask for a convention to address one subject, a plethora of subjects, or even ask for a general convention to address any subject, i.e. a revision of the Constitution.
4. Upon convening, a Convention for Proposing Amendments would elect its own officers and establish its own rules of order. Because an Article V Convention, during the brief period of its existence, possesses the same sovereignty as the other three branches of government, Congress would not have the right to regulate it or restrict its purview. There is nothing threatening here, because according to Article V, Congress possesses identical powers.
5. Amendment proposals would go through deliberation and vigorous debate as would any amendment proposed in Congress. The convention would determine the bar for approving an amendment proposal to pass it on to the states for ratification. This could be a simple majority, a two-thirds majority, or anything that the convention chose.
6. Once all amendment proposals had been passed to the states for ratification or rejected, the convention would adjourn permanently, and the delegates would become ordinary citizens again.
7. Congress would then submit the proposed amendments to the Several States by deciding whether the states should use the Legislative Method or Ratifying Convention Method of ratification.
8. If Congress chooses the Ratifying Convention Method, each state would hold an election for delegates to its state ratifying convention, which would be apportioned according to population.
9. Each state legislature (or state ratifying convention, if Congress so chose) would vote up or down on each proposed amendment. If three-fourths of the states ratified an amendment proposal, it would become part of the Constitution.

The Practical Side of a Convention for Proposing Amendments

Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution prevents a sitting congressman or senator from taking a seat as a delegate at a Convention for Proposing Amendments unless he first resigns his seat in Congress. It is safe to say that few would be willing to give up the permanent power of Congress for the transitory power of an Article V Convention.

So who would be elected by the states? Yourself, your friends, and your neighbors.

There would be no need for a party endorsement or a campaign war chest. Anyone who raised a vast sum of money or took campaign contributions from vested interests would immediately fall under suspicion. After all, an Article V Convention is about the Constitution, not pork, perks and personal power.

Anyone who wishes to run for Convention Delegate will have to know his Constitution. He will have to express strong positions on possible amendment proposals and be able to defend those positions in public. He can’t hedge, waffle or use weasel words. Before the election, voters are sure to ask the candidate to submit his favorite amendment proposals in writing, which is the best way to avoid the slippery language of politics.

Most importantly, the candidate for Convention Delegate will have to be a person of integrity, respected in his community. And that eliminates most careerists of the current political class.

The conservative caricature of an Article V Convention is a disorderly mob of statists from Massachusetts, welfare recipients from New York, and New Agers and illegal aliens from California.

The liberal caricature of a convention is a gaggle of socially maladjusted individualists from Arizona, American Gothics from Indiana, Christers from Kansas, Johnny Rebs from South Carolina, and bearskin-clad mountain men from Alaska.

And to 49 states, the name of Texas conjures up the image of sharp businessmen skinning the other delegates out of their eye teeth.

They will all be there, and that is as it should be. At an Article V Convention, everyone will have an opportunity to make his case. And everyone will have to lay his cards on the table.

Here is a possible selection of things that one could expect at a convention.

1. A delegate from New York will introduce an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
2. A delegate from Georgia will counter with an amendment to remove the Militia Clause from the same amendment.
3. A delegate from North Carolina will introduce an amendment to extend the 14th Amendment to the unborn.
4. A delegate from New Jersey will counter with an amendment to legalize abortion on demand.
5. Hawaii will introduce an amendment to abolish the death penalty.
6. Oregon will revive the Equal Rights Amendment.
7. Maryland will attempt to give the District of Columbia statehood.
8. Illinois will introduce an amendment creating an explicit right to privacy.
9. Virginia will attempt to ban flag burning.
10. Alabama will try to ban unfunded mandates.
11. Utah will attempt to restrict executive orders.
12. Florida will try to ban asset forfeiture.
13. South Carolina will attempt to codify a state’s right to secede.
14. Delegates will introduce amendments to impose term limits on members of Congress, require a balanced budget, make treaties subservient to the Constitution, change or abolish the Electoral College, and repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

But it’s a safe bet that only congressional term limits, a balanced budget, repeal of the income tax, a fix to the border problem, and one or more possible solutions to the problem of the Electoral College will get out of convention and be sent to the states for ratification.

And it's possible that none of the proposed amendments will receive the three-fourths ratification necessary to add them to the Constitution!

So why go through all this?

Because we as Americans need to know that our system works for us. Recent events have placed doubts in many minds, and there are those among us who would argue that the system does not work anymore and needs to be changed.

Perhaps.

But that is the beauty of the Constitution of the United States. It is designed to be changed by the people, either through their national government or -- should that government fail to satisfy their mandate -- through a second system of amendment. The Framers bequeathed us two methods of amendment so that our government and its actions will always be under our control, not the government’s.

Perhaps it’s time for the American people to show that government who’s in charge.

253 posted on 03/27/2006 7:59:45 PM PST by Publius

[Publius]

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
--Article V of the Constitution of the United States

[pissant]

I'm an electrical engineer with experience in lighting, security and outdoor power distribution design. I'll kick in my time too.

[stopem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment_to_U.S._Constitution

http://www.answers.com/topic/convention-to-propose-amendment-to-u-s-constitution

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/tmcybpiracy/haguecomments.pdf

Hope this helps

[bennowens]

Can you see a 1700 page Constitution?

[Petronski]

There are two routes for constitutional change. One is a specific-language amendment passed by 2/3ds of both houses and 3/4ths of the states. It is limited to the exact language of the amendment.

The other is a constitutional convention. Once a constitutional convention is, well, convened, the entire constitution is subject to change. That is a BAD idea. Think of the potential for the left: delete the 2nd, delete parts of the 1st; add express right to abortion; ERA; gay marriage; etc.

BAD idea.

[Pukin Dog]

In California, we had a bill pass in the state legislature regarding illegal immigration supported by more than 70% of voters. A judge threw it out. That is what will happen on a national basis too. I cant stand Arlen Specter, but he made a point today that should be noticed, which is that there is no enforcement mechanism in place to use in the case of a border enforcement bill. We are not going to deport 13 million people, under any circumstances. There is no political will for that in Government. Short of that, what can we do besides hope to gain some benefit by at least registering and tracking these people?

[squarebarb]

Slightly off-topic, but what Bush doesn't realize is that even all those hard-working, just-want-to-support-my-family mexicans etc.

are being daily and hourly ORGANIZED by COMMUNIST groups, and since they are from socialist countries,

they'll VOTE SOCIALIST at any opportunity.

So even the honest types are BEING EXPERTLY ORGANIZED by every socialist/communist group in America. They are slaving away at "groups", at making posters, at organizing central committees as I type.

[pissant]

What we need is decent, likable politician like GWB, that ALSO wants to clamp down on the border.

Jeb, you listening???

[RightWhale]

The main Constitutional problem is anchor babies. Aside from that, there are plenty of laws on the books already that could be, but aren't, or are selectively, enforced.

[devolve]

the problems:


the solutions:



lock & load America!

#1 - defund the government

they obviously do not enforce taxation of non-citizens

[detsaoT]

I think most of the states are currently "red" states (maybe someone will post "the map?"). Now might be the least risky time to attempt something like this.

While I can appreciate that sentiment, I don't believe we have sufficient population of honorable leaders who I would trust to have the power to completely rewrite the Constitution. Even my own fair Commonwealth is sorely lacking in this regard.

Remember: Once a Constitutional Convention is called, there are no limits on what can be proposed, or on what can be altered.

Do you trust the Republican party of today to handle the Constitution in this manner?

I know I don't. And the problem exists from THE TOP DOWN!

[Mo1]

later read

[Wings-n-Wind]

Thanks for the post Jim

Methinks.... we should simply read the Preamble....
word for word....

The part that says:
We the people [citizens] of the United States of America.....and

...and preserve the blessings of liberty for OURSELVES... and OUR POSTERITY....

Yes = oversimplified.... but something like that!

Blessings

[MikefromOhio]

I don't know if we need a Constitutional Convention for this.

We already have the laws in place.

We need to get the balls to enforce them. Maybe some stricter language defining the penalties for repeat offenders, employers who knowingly employ illegals, etc, but a Constitutional Convention would be a zoo I'm afraid.

[NormsRevenge]

Here's what's on the menu.. so far.

-----

A Look at Major Immigration Proposals

The Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060328/ap_on_go_co/immigration_glance;_ylt=AqRWKGfyBYOJX37tebfT90ayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Highlights of major immigration proposals in Congress:

___
___

Senate Judiciary Committee's bill:

_Allows illegal immigrants who were in the United States before 2004 to continuing working legally for six years if they pay a $1,000 fine and clear a criminal background check. They would become eligible for permanent residence upon paying another $1,000 fine, any back taxes and having learned English.

_New immigrants would have to have temporary work visas. They also could earn legal permanent residence after six years.

_Adds up to 14,000 new Border Patrol agents by 2011 to the current force of 11,300 agents.

_Authorizes a "virtual wall" of unmanned vehicles, cameras and sensors to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border.

_Creates a special guest worker program for an estimated 1.5 million immigrant farm workers, who can also earn legal permanent residency.

___
___

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's proposal:

_Requires all employers to verify the identity and immigration status of their employees through an electronic system.

_Assesses civil penalties of between $500 and $20,000 against employers for each illegal immigrant they hire and criminal penalties of up to $20,000 per illegal immigrant hired and up to six months in jail for engaging in a pattern of employing illegal workers.

_More than doubles the number of employment-based green cards, from 140,000 to 290,000, and makes more employment based visas available to unskilled workers. It also would free up other visas by exempting immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from being counted in the annual pool of 480,000 visas, and increase country-by-country ceilings on family sponsored and employment-based immigrants.

_Cancels visas of immigrants who have overstayed their visas and requires them to return to their home country to undergo additional screening at U.S. consulates.

_Makes it a misdemeanor crime for an immigrant to be in the country illegally.

_Increases the number of visas available for high-tech workers.

_Does not address President Bush's proposal for a guest worker program.

___
___

House bill passed in December:

_Requires all employers to use within six years a database to verify Social Security numbers of employees or face civil or criminal penalties for hiring illegal workers.

_Requires mandatory detention for all non-Mexican illegal immigrants arrested at ports of entry or at land and sea borders.

_Establishes mandatory sentences for smuggling illegal immigrants and for re-entering the United States illegally after deportation.

_Makes illegal presence in the country a felony.

_Makes a drunken driving conviction a deportable offense.

_Requires building two-layer fences along 700 miles of the 2,000-mile border between Mexico and the United States.

_Does not address President Bush's proposed guest worker program for illegal immigrants already in U.S.

[Old_Mil]

I don't know. On the one hand, something really must be done about illegal immigration. On the other, a constitutional convention at this point in our history could be like opening pandora's box.

We might go into it with the goal of solving the illegal immgrant problem, and come out with gay marriage and a pro-abortion amendment to the constitution.

[cripplecreek]

It clearly has become a taxation without representation thing for we the people.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I'll vote for Lyndon LaRouche before I vote for anyone whose last name is Bush.

Which is to say, I'll never vote for anyone with that surname.

Besides, if George is a full-blown LULAC/La Raza booster, his brother Jeb is an outright Mechista.

Elevating him to the Oval Office-which thank goodness, will never happen-would be the equivalent of giving Manuel Obrador Lopez the keys to Air Force One.

[Publius]

"A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution"

[detsaoT]

I can't stress enough that this must, MUST be handled on a State-by-State basis.

The FEDERAL government is beyond all control. Abandon ANY hope of the yahoos in Washington doing ANYTHING to help you.

Call your State Delegate and Senator, and press them to start following in Georgia's footsteps. It is our ONLY hope!

[pissant]

Jeb will win hands down if he runs.

And GWB is a great President, IMO.