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

[Jim Robinson]

"A judge threw it out."

I know. And this is one of the reasons I've been so adamant about keeping the Democrats out of power. We must eliminate as many liberal activist judges as humanly possible. We only have a chance of doing this with a Republican president and Senate. And then, obviously, it's only a chance. We have zero chance with the Democrats in power.

[Dane]

There has never been a Constitutional Convention.

Also since there are no real ground rules on how one would be run, other things could come up such as repealing the 2nd amendment(etc.etc).

But if some want to try, no problem by me.

[Pukin Dog]

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

Cant.

The Borders are a Federal issue. States have no standing when it comes to the borders beyond security. Immigration is also a Federal matter. Anything the states could do could be overruled by the Federal Government. That is just the way it is.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You're dreaming.

The American people will never elect another Bush to the presidency.

This Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton insanity needs to be put to a stop.

[HitmanLV]

The problem with a constitutional convention is that while it can be convened for a particular reason, what happens at the convention isn't limited at all to that one reason.

The entire USC is on the table at a new constitutional convention.

I don't trust liberal/leftist types with an opportunity to influence a rewrite of the USC.

[DakotaGator]

Jim, the situation is grave. This country is so far outside of constitutional government that the government is not only trampling on the Bill of Rights but is allowing and promoting invasion. That the invasion is by illegal aliens vice more traditional armed forces makes it no less an invasion.

As far as calling a Constitutional Convention, I hesitate. It is not that we do not need one. My hesitation is that a Constitutional Convention is without limit in what it can do and thus can be easily diverted.

Instead, I propose a Council of States to deal specifically with the question of invasion by illegal aliens. This Council of States, though without constitutional power, would with its very formation send shock waves through Washington.

And here's why...by its very composition, a Council of States can change itself from a body considering and counseling on a single issue to a Constitutional Convention with all of the awesome power of such. A Council of States is a clear warning to the federal government that the Several States and The People have had enough and are preparing to assert their sovereignty.

It is far past time that the Federal Government need be reminded of true sovereignty.

[Don Corleone]

This would be treading on very shaky ground. A "Constitutional Convention" could quickly spread to undermining the Constitution in its entirety...the libs nirvana!

[CowboyJay]

Yes. It is time. I will be glad to donate any and all personal time I can spare to getting it done. I would personally like to see some type of national referendum & initiative package passed. It is obvious that our government has been subverted to the highest levels of office, and that we no longer have an effective way to redress grievances.

How do we get it done?

[Pukin Dog]

We only have a chance of doing this with a Republican president and Senate.

You know I agree completely. My post this morning was about this very thing. We stand to risk the very thing that could allow us to win on this issue down the road, if we risk the majority now through reactionary politics.

All of a sudden, Frist is everyone's best friend, when I cant remember anyone having much use for him during the confirmation hearings of many Federal judges. To me, the majority is the #1 issue, and if we have to give a little now, to get more in the future, I think we should. A constitutional convention is a great idea, but only when we have a much stronger majority in Congress.

[ZULU]

Its time for the American people to take back our government from the political pimps and prostitutes who have stolen it.

The overwhelming number of Americans do not want amnesty.

Congress and the President have apparently determined to ignore the expressed wishes of the vast majority of their constituents and pander to special interest groups who have no concern for public opinion or the good of America.

Its more than high time for strong methods to be taken to stop this.

We should clearly contact ALL our Congressmen and specially Giuliani, McCain and other Republican presidential aspirants and swear we will not vote for them if they support this nonesense and will actively work for their defeat if they do not listen to us.

We have a COngress - a REPUBLICAN Congress - which has worked to undermine the very basic fabric of our Republic - the free and open exchange of political ideas and fair campaigning for office with McCain-Feingold. They are now apparently planning to grant amnesty to thousands of illegal invaders. They have sat on their hands while the First and Second Amendments have been violated by our courts.

Its time for a change.

The Democrats and Republicans MUST be taught they have no constitutional monoploy on government.

[hosepipe]

True the illegals encouraged by the White House and Congress is almost treasonous.. at least an episode of sedition.. The problem grows.. even now is the gorilla in the alley.. Not only NOT STOPPED but actually encouraged..

One would hope this little website has some impact.. else this growing problem will keep growing dwarfing Frances problems.. Already it may be too late.. Except for heroic surgical measures.. I think the mention of Dubya in the near future may promote spitting on his name.. I'm close to that already.. Thoughly disgusted with the lawyerly gibberish being spoken about the illegals.. The Balkaniazation of the United States is on progress.. Pat Buchanan is and was right..

Was WWII a threat, so is this, the illegal insurgency.. Except WWII was "over there" , this is "over here"... Complicated by our public schools teaching little or nothing about civics.. for many years now.. ON PURPOSE.. Most today will not even know when America has been Balkanized... Pity.. They don't even know what the word means let alone "the Difference".. All promoted by republicans not democrats.. Amazing..

Interesting times these.. <<- (a chinese curse)..

[Czar]

I'm afraid, Jim, that with distrust of the federal government at an all time high, the cure of a Constitutional Convention might be far worse than the disease.

Politicians haven't had the noose pulled tightly enough yet around their crooked little necks. We need to keep turning up the heat, target the worst illegal alien panderers, and input large amounts to get their opponents elected (those who are certified as being strongly anti-illegal alien).

If that fails, other actions will have to be considered.

[tgslTakoma]

I guess I could help design the circuit for the lights.

Darn! I was hoping that you would offer to design the circuit for the high-voltage fence.

And I'm not really kidding about that idea, either.

[pissant]

Equating Bush with Clinton is ridiculous.

Slickster raised your taxes. Bush cut them.

Slickster was travelling the world apologizing for America. Bush crammed his boot onto the neck of the islamofascists.

Slickster pushed the phony "assualt" weapons ban, Bush let it die its natural death...and made Ashcroft change the Fed govt's official position to stating the 2nd Amendment applies to INDIVIDUALS.

I could go on and on.

[La Enchiladita]

Sorry, BG!

Stay in touch.

[Killborn]

Thanks. I'm not a huge fan of the Pres.'s inaction. But I like these threads less. :(

[igottabenutz]

Maybe put a bunch of giant bug-zappers along the border. We would have an alarm system AND entertainment. :)

[Jim Robinson]

That's a great post! How would you like to post a copy of it to this thread?

[clawrence3]

Agreed - an open Constitutional Convention would be a disaster with other "popular" measures besides illegal immigration.

[La Enchiladita]

Go after the employers. NOW.

We must demand this of Congress.