Joel:

There's nothing in the current constitution - you know, the one we've been protected by for 200+ years - which prohibits states from enforcing federal immigration laws on their own. Everything you propose here could be done without an Article V convention.

There's also an existing procedure by which Rep. McConnell could propose his amendment in Congress and get it put out for approval by the states. It's been done with other relatively trivial issues, I'm sure he could gather enough support to pass the amendment on for approval by the states.

And BTW, the reason why we 'elites' (apparently meaning every citizen with even a bit of common sense) oppose an Article V convention is that we don't want to put the fate of the nation and the future of our rights which are protected by the current constitution in the hands of a mob of racist lunatics like the ones who would support this amendment.

I hereby sentence you to read the Texas Constitution - including all 500 amendments - to see what a pile of garbage our national constitution would turn into after an Article V convention.

Dave

As usual South Carolina will have to lead the way to do what the rest of the country is too cowardly to do. "Dum Spiro Spero"

Dave,

Out of curiosity, how many of the Texas Constitution's amendments are actually amendments of amendments of amendments*...?


_{* Et ad nauseam.}

Dear Dave:

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

"everything you propose" -- you mean what South Carolina Senator McConnell proposes.

It is not "Rep. McConnell" but South Carolina Senator McConnell; he is not a member of the US Congress and cannot compel it to propose an amendment. Anyway, you obviously did not understand that Sen. McConnell, like millions of us intelligent Americans (the kind you cannot relate to or understand), has observed the reality that Congress is too corrupt and incompetent and unpatriotic to act on behalf of we the people to effectively deal with the invasion of illegal immigrants and the effective protection of our borders.

The point, dear Dave, of having what the Constitution (which apparently you do not respect enough to use what it has provided us) is to rid what we ALREADY have: a government already in the "hands of a mob of racist lunatics" masquerading as Republicans, conservatives, Texas intellegensia, and competent Blogcritics editors, globalization advocates, and corporate leaders.

And Dave, try reading our US Constitution and understanding the ratification requirements for amendments that would prevent happening what you Texas idiots may have done (assuming your view of the Texas amendments has validity, which is surely not a good assumption to make).

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

As the resident BC redneck swamp rat, I'd LOVE to get my hands on the Constitution in an Article V convention.

And you can bet that if one takes place I WILL be there, as a delegate.

And with bells on.

And I, and people like me, are just why I don't want to see it happen.

'Cause it won't be pretty when all us rednecks get to town.

Since you'll require a counterweight, Clavos, I'll come too. Between the two of us we can come up with some doozies.

Trying to actually counter Joel's ridiculous article is a fruitless task. But an Eternal Sunshine Constitutional Convention of the Spotless Minds...sounds like fun!

I suspect that you're right, too.

But I'll be long gone.

"But an Eternal Sunshine Constitutional Convention of the Spotless Minds...sounds like fun!"

It does indeed, Handy.

See ya there!

I believe I am on record as supporting undocumented workers 100%.

After they take back the big chunk of territory that the US ripped off from Mexico, we First Nations folks will deal with them in our own way.

Learn Spanish, folks. You are going to need it.

How about the Native American's?
Will the Mexicans give them that same land back?

"a mob of racist lunatics like the ones who would support this amendment".

Dave very truly describes himself as an elite, as evidenced by the above statement. We're all a bunch of Billy Bob's who can't see the light through our overgrown backwoods perspectives. We (70% of Americans) obviously need a hard-handed Gov't, guided by the elites to fix our lives and country.

Of, course it's all about racism and bigotry.
How about facts (in New Mexico).

According to Mike Cutler, former senior agent with the INS:

- 86% of warrants issued for murder are for illegal immigrants.
- 75% of people on the FBI's most wanted list are illegals.
- 48% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals, illegaly here.
- 66% of all drivers stopped by police have no driver's license, registration or insurance. Of these, 98% are illegals.
- Employee's of Las Cruces Courts must work 6 days a week in order to keep up with the 40 to 50 illegals passing through the system daily. They've had this schedule for the past 5 years.

I could write two pages more stuff. Aside from the criminal elements of illegal immigration, it's worth noting another issue pertaining to the article, that is the Constitution. Doesn't all the cost of the crisis (which could be avoided if our Gov't would act)amount to taxation without representation. This my problem with those who claim to uphold the Constitution, except for the parts that don't fit in with they're ideology.

Martin:

Are you blind?

Did not I, a member of the Mohawk Nation, indicate in my last post that we First Nations folks would deal with them in our own way?

Literacy classes are FREE at your local public library.

I didn't realize the Mohawk nation extended to the Mexican lands. I guess I will have to get that Library card. Good luck with them, I suppose you'll have no reason to document them and they'll have free access to all your hunting grounds and tribal lands.

The Mohawk Nation is ONE of the First Nations--which is a current usage term for Native American.

I will be sure to tell all my brothers in New Mexico on MOnday that YOU [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] have decided that THEY do not exist and have no claim to the part of the US that was ripped off from Mexico.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Mohawks need to mind their own business ..stay out of the southwest!

But they do make good carpet...

According to Mike Cutler, former senior agent with the INS...

[sigh]

Not this old chestnut again.

Michael Cutler is indeed a former INS agent and a prominent anti-illegal immigration advocate, but these 'statistics', or variations thereon, have been popping up all over the internet and elsewhere, attributed to various locations and sources. They're not his.

Just go to s n o p e s dot com, type 'immigration statistics' into the search box and gasp in wonderment at how familiar the results look.

Joel, what exactly would you have a convention do? I get that you want to change things, challenge the status quo, et cetera. But the freedom to move is pointless without picking a direction. You can't say "this is wrong" without saying what is right. You definitely can't have a Constitutional amendment saying "this is wrong".

I checked out that Article V site. They don't have anything specific that they want to do, but they want to do it now. The impression is one of a fidgety child. Or one of an army with a fill-in-the-blank for a banner, unsure of where to march.

Obviously your Mohawk brothers had no room for you in their TeePee and sent your fat ole ass to Mexico. Just because you are upset that BushCo. puts you through their rigorous "enemy combatant" screening process, is no reason to call all Mormon's gringo's.

Dear Baronius:

Over the years there have been countless proposals for constitutional amendments that Congress has refused to seriously consider. Our group at www.foavc.org made a decision to advocate for a convention without explicitly supporting specific amendments. It is up to the convention delegates undoubtedly influenced by public opinion to discuss and debate any amendments they think merit consideration and have a chance of being ratified. Our fundmental concern is that the Constitution should be obeyed by Congress and that the Article V convention was put there for good reason, and unless it is removed by an constitutional amendment, we damn well have a right to one.

There are many electoral reforms that I believe merit consideration, including for example: making Election Day a national holiday, replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote, and removing restrictions on political competitiveness engineered by the two major parties so that third parties are fairly treated. A balanced budget amendment has long been advocated by many. An amendment that would provide more ways to remove a President because of not obeying the Constitution or undermining it by, for example, signing statements should be popular. A federal, national mechanism for ballot initiatives is favored by many. An Article V convention would stimulate in a most unique way a national civic discussion of ways to improve our nation. The new Sabato book presents a whole set of possible amendments. There is no substitute for citizens using their time and minds to seriously consider amendments. Try it, you just might like it.

Hell, let's invite Moonraven and Joel and I'll show up at the convention too. I imagine that we can then arrange to purchase a permanent location and sell tickets and the show should run for a good decade before anyone agrees on so much as the first paragraph of the thing.

Dave

BTW, folks (and Joel) some lunatics called the Twelve Lights League would also like to have an Article V convention, apparently so that hunting homosexuals for sport and turning our public schools into Madrassas will be legal.

Dave

Now to get to the meat of this issue. A number of attempts have been made to initiate Article V convenions and several have come close. In none of those cases were the requirements for a convention as outlined in the Constitution actually met. Contrary to what Joel implies in his article, there was no conspiracy at work and no attempt to suppress such a convention. They just couldn't quite get 2/3 of the state legislatures to sign on for a convention. One attempt missed by 1 state and another by 2.

The other problem here is the ambiguity of Article V. It doesn't clearly specify whether such a convention would be limited to considering a single, specific amendment, or whether it might be like another constitutional convention to rewrite the whole document. Almost everyone who has looked at the subject seriously comes down on the side of a one amendment convention because that fits with the procedure for amendments proposed by congress under Article V.

Of the conventions proposed, the only ones to come anywhere near qualifying with enough support from state legislatures were ones which concerned a single, specific amendment. The one which came closest was an amendment to provide for the direct election of Senators, which was picked up and passed by the Senate before it ever came to a convention. Others are still hanging out there like the Balanced Budget Amendment which is 2 states short of qualifying.

In fact, if you could get 2 more state legislatures on board we would almost certainly have an Article V convention to produce a Balanced Budget Amendment, and that might not be such a bad thing. I've got no problem with single-issue amendments so long as they go through one of the processes under Article V and get to be approved by the state legislatures. I'm only really concerned about a full-blown rewrite the constitution convention.

Another thing which Joel glosses over is the fact that an Article V convention would NOT necessarily be a happy free-for-all of the flower children of the nation gathering to save us all in a cyclone of love and brotherhood. It would in fact be a convention much like Congress, but even more politically controlled because under Article V the delegates would be selected by the state legislatures - much the way that Senators were originally selected. So what you'd have is professional politicians rubber stamping an amendment which had already essentially been approved by the major officeholders of every state and of almost enough states to ratify the amendment itself.

So the sad truth is that we wouldn't get to go to the convention, it would be the same weasels we already elected or their clones, which is why every amendment we have has gone through the Congress because it's already sitting there and isn't that different in composition from a convention.

Over the years there have been countless proposals for constitutional amendments that Congress has refused to seriously consider.

Specifically for the reason that they did not get enough legislatures to approve them for an Article V convention. The one time they DID get enough support or close to it the Congress took care of the amendment making a convention unnecessary, as noted above.

Put out an amendment, get 35 states to approve a convention for it and let's go from there. Or hell, just get 2 more states to approve the balanced budget amendment. That would be a good start.

Certainly that would be a lot more productive than the fairycake of some sort of populist constitution rewriting party you're flogging here.

Dave

Virtually nothing that Nalle says is factually correct (he is still awaiting the crucially needed lobotomy) and I don't want to waste any more time trying to correct his biased, stupid beliefs that he has so successfully used on this website to dumb-down so many people. Those who want to learn the Truth about the Article V convention go to www.foavc.org; also just read the Constitution and learn from a few sentences exactly what it says and the one and only requirement it clearly specifies (which has been more than satisfied). Those who want to read not only first rate articles but also really smart, informed discussion go to watchblog.com.

We just want our country to stop the illegal immigration, and the congress to actually do what is demanded of them. To stop aiding those who thumb their nose at our laws, come and take what they want and when they want. We are sick of how Congress has been bought off by the Chamber of Commerce and others.

Joel, all of my comments above are based on the historical record and are verifiable facts. Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence that they are wrong, because your unsubstantiated assertions carry very little weight given your previously demonstrated belief in the 9/11 conspiracy.

Dave

But REMF, you specialize in berating people until they give up. I'd think you'd like the tactic.

I laughed out loud at Clavos's comment. It looked like it was going to criticize Joel's temper tantrum, but he zagged instead.

Is there a need to amend anything. I believe the word ILLEGAL says it all.... Is it me?

yes, there is a definite need to change the Constitution...!!!

First)...We need a written Law that makes it a Federal 'Felony' to "ENTER''( jump over the fence,)
or illegally enter the United States in any fashion)
As it is now to "jump the Fence" is only a misdeamnor, but to "REMAIN" in the country
'after'jumping the wall, is a felony.
WE need to place the word (Enter), along with (REMAIN).....for the crime of "Felony".

Secondly) We need a re-writen 14th Amend. Sect. 1. to be amended away from 'jus soli' ( born on the soil) to the up-dated version as used by all of Europe, and that is "jus sanguinis", which states:
" All babies born in the (USA) of NON AMERICAN CITIZENS, shall then be deemed to be the same Nationality as their birth fathers first,(if known,) then that of their birth mother."

This does away with ''ANCHOR BABIES', which 'gives' citizenship to them.
"NO one" should be an automatic citizen since the slave problen was settled over 139 years ago, as this was the only intent of 'jus soli'....
This needs to be "GRAND-FATHERED" back to the year Jan. 1, 1990."

3) We need type # 6 Fence to be installed for the "ENTIRE" length of the Border....

#4) We need more Border Patrol agents with the "added" job description of, "containing" caught 'illegal' aliens" until ICE can pick them up.

5) We need to allow "all" enforcement officers in the Country, to hold 'illegals' until ICE can pick them up....

6) We need an fully updated system to determine when Visas are "EXPIRED", and NOT re-newed.

7) We need to cease all "FREE" benefits to
"Illegals" as now issued...!!!

8) We need a new system that allows 'illegals' to HARVEST CROPS,during this season only, and retain 1/2 of their monies until they have left the country....

9) We need employers to "STOP" hiring anyone who is an Illegal and works for lesser pay.There will be mandatory fines of $ 10,000 per Illegal working on the premise.

10)We need "TERM-LIMITS" for all members of Congress. Since they are ignoring us, ( their employers),There shall be a top end of service at 20 years. 5-(4-year terms) if re-elected,
then shall be 'mandatory' retirement. All of those over 20 years shall NOT be eligible for re-election. We need new ideas, new faces, to get away from Congressional "POWER-BROKERS".

This will be a great start to return this country to its people.....

jer999:

Why, apart from your point 2 and perhaps 10, does any of this necessitate a constitutional amendment? Surely appropriate legislation would do the trick.

Except that the reason all of this nonsense hasn't been and won't be legislated is that it would cost more to implement and enforce than illegal immigration is costing the US.

I've observed that people can be pretty cavalier about the Constitution when bits of it protect things they're opposed to. Another case in point would be the Second.

I maintain what I've always said here.

In large part, this is a race issue.

If the population of English-speaking, anglo-celtic Australia were crossing the border en masse into Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California, the locals would be throwing a giant BBQ and putting us up in their houses.

It's about race, not numbers.

Well, Stan. Since the position of the nativists makes no sense on a rational basis, then we have to look fro irrational explanations, and race seems like it would be high on the list.

dave

All of you on this blog do nothing but babble, call each other names, if their opinions do not agree with yours, sounds like a bunch of young Brats....
If you are for defeating this Illegals problem, then come up with a solid plan and lets discuss it in a gentlemanly way.

I suggest to you that I am not sharp enough to know what is the best way, nor the most effective for quick results, but... at this point in time, the only thing that I am aware of for a start is our power of the 'VOTE'.
This starts with Voting out of the Congress all
of the 'DEMOCRATS', repeat , 'DEMOCRATS'.
They were in control for the last Congress that hasnt done a damn thing , except bitch about the troops, they have no plan, Pelosi says this, promises that, and the entire Congress has done
nothing, and especially about the "Illegals'.

There is a Bill in the House, brought up by a REP. that wants to eliminate all ANCHOR BABIES, which is such a terrific plan, that the damn DEM./s wont let it come to the floor.
Repubs have learned that they dont want to tick off the public anymore, but the DEM congress is the one thats paid off...so, back to our plan . Notice when your Senators and House REp's come up for re-election, and very simply 'Vote' for the other candidate....!!! When the DEM's learn tht they do not control us , then we have control again....
The DEMO congress is a "BOUGHT" Congress. Their VOTES are for the 'desires' of BIG BUSINESS, who have made a net profit of $2.3 TRILLION Dollars from 2000-2006 off of illegals who will do any jobs but for less money per hour, screwing the American worker. That is some serious bucks...!!!

Congress is getting their big share NOT to listen to us, but stay with the Big Boys.
The Biggies dont want to lose it, and the paid off Congress will 'not' legislate against them, so we are left with nothing but the 'Vote' at this time. , and see that we mean business...also..!!!

This is NOT a DEM vs Rep situation, but an "American" group that wants back our right to be heard...!!!

These clowns were hired ( ELECTED) by us, we pay their wages from our taxes, so therefore ,they work for us, whom they should have listened to, and they did not...!!!

So, its time to "fire' some of these DEMO employees, give enough back to the REPUB's, and then both sides will have found out that we do not bullshit, and they had best heed their constituency......!!!

DR D: As observed, you seem to quite sharp, but my reasons for printing my own ideas on the ConstitutionAL changes are that if they are in black and white, as they say, it is much harder to mis-interpret INTENDED IDEAS, especially when written in the most simple wording, to clearly be understood,and also when judging cases that should be ruled as the Constituion reads.

To damn many attorneys look for the "hair-splitting" ways to get their desired ruling....

FAR to many judges interpret the constitution their own way, without any respect to the real Constitution sayings or meanings....not good.

I am a Sheriff in Wash. State and have seen months of our work go down the tube in favor of a perp, and with a ruling giving the bad guy the biggest of breaks...it sucks. Some are mandatory,
but not followed.

In short,if we ever got to an ART. 5, these are some changes I personally would like to see put in, and then its done....!!!

Larry Sabato's book on the 23 new additions to the Constitution is good ,I think.