A new movement calling for a Constitutional Convention
In the state of South Carolina S. 856, calling for a Constitutional Convention, was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 15, 2008. South Carolina rescinded a previous call for a Constitutional Convention for very good reasons. This time we are told that the alleged purpose of this Constitutional Convention is to empower the states to deal with illegal immigration. Of course, this MUST be a national movement, as any call for a Constitutional Convention must be made by two thirds of the states. There have been other calls for a Constitutional Convention that nearly garnered the needed two thirds of the states, and many of these states have not rescinded these calls.
A Constitutional Convention is a legislative body; which operates ABOVE the limitations of the Constitution, for the single purpose of changing the Constitution.
This makes a Constitutional Convention more powerful, and MORE DANGEROUS, than any other legislative body.
This is not an opinion, but it is a fact of law.
A Constitutional Convention is a means of DESTROYING the American Republic. A Constitutional Convention is opening a "Pandora's box" for RADICAL change. Once the "genie is out of the bottle" no one can control it.
The last time that we had a Constitutional Convention was in 1789,
when we got the Constitution that we now have.
That Constitutional Convention, which was convened in 1789, was to make some small changes in the Articles of Confederation. Instead we got a new Constitution.
We were LUCKY that time. Those who were at that Constitutional Convention were the leaders of a freedom movement; which had just defeated a tyranny.
Our problem has NOTHING to do with the constitution.
Our problem has to do with the IGNORING OF the constitution.
Those who ignore the constitution would like nothing better than to make their usurpation legal, by destroying the constitution, at a Constitutional Convention.
The constitution is the best document for the protection of freedom,
that has ever been written. We only need to adhere to it.
YES, The Founding Fathers saw a possibility of a situation,
where a need might arise for COMPLETELY SCRAPING THE CONSTITUTION.
That is not what has happened TODAY.
The only thing that has happened is that there is now a cabal of would be tyrants;
who are getting tired of OCCASIONALLY having to adhere to the constitution.
These would be tyrants would like to con enough people into letting them DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION, so that they can usher in totalitarianism.
Having a Constitutional Convention would be like letting your worst enemy
give you a heart and lung transplant, and a castration,
as a cure for hiccups.
Having a Constitutional Convention would be like burning the house down
as a means of accomplishing pest control.
There already exists the ability to pass many of state laws to protect the people from illegal immigration. Most of these laws do not require any assault on the constitution. Laws of this sort have already been passed in Georgia and Oklahoma. Illegal aliens are fleeing from those states in droves. Laws that are similar to those in Georgia and Oklahoma are being considered in many other states.
If a small change in the constitution were truly needed, then the appropriate way to make that change would be by an AMENDMENT to the constitution. An AMENDMENT to the constitution (even as dramatic as that is) does not put the entire constitution on the chopping block.
Not withstanding the fact that no constitutional change is needed to enforce existing laws, or to pass many new laws, the fact remains that it would be very easy to convert S. 856 (calling for a Constitutional Convention) into a call for a amendment to the constitution.
All that is needed is a Motion to Strike a few words.
The first sentence is S. 856 reads:
"A Concurrent resolution requesting the Congress of The United States to call a convention for the sole and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment on to the Constitution of The United States to provide that..."
This could be changed to:
"A Concurrent resolution requesting the Congress of The United States to call for an amendment to the Constitution of The United States to provide that..."
The power that the states ALREADY HAVE to control Illegal Aliens is
"No Gravy Train for Illegal Aliens" law.
Watch "No Gravy Train for Illegal Aliens" law Video:
Effect of Georgia passing JUST a SMALL PART of "No Gravy Train for Illegal Aliens" law
THIS LAWS WORKS! Illegal aliens are self-deporting from Georgia
Visit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxe1WO27B_I
Oklahoma has passed it now, too. Look what is happening!
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0807/449699.html
Follow up:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57313
If South Carolina does not pass a similar law, illegal aliens will flood across your border.
The suggested full version of "No Gravy Train for Illegal Aliens" Law :
THE STATES, towns or counties can make it a crime to provide illegal aliens with anything whatsoever. The state legislators can stop illegal immigration
The federal government has failed, and refused, to secure our borders. What part of the word "illegal" do they not understand?
For every law, that the federal government is failing to enforce, THE STATES, the counties, and the municipalities, pass a similar law. Then THE STATES, counties, AND local police can enforce those laws.
Yet we should all know that pests will not infest a house where they cannot obtain what they need to live.
Here is the plan:
EACH STATE, EACH COUNTY, OR EACH MUNICIPALITY SIMPLY PASSES A LAW THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO PROVIDE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. Tell the illegal aliens of the world that there is no longer a reason for coming here. Pass the "NO GRAVY TRAIN" LAW.
From the government sector:
It shall be illegal, by STATE LAW, to provide anything at all to illegal aliens including, but not limited to:
Welfare, food stamps, medicaid, driver's license, business license, government housing, tax supported education, or any OTHER ASSISTANCE.
There will be no state tax deductions for payments to illegal aliens.
From the private sector:
It shall be illegal, by STATE LAW, to do anything at all for an illegal alien including, but not limited to:
Rent housing, sell real estate, sell vehicles or mobile homes, make loans, sell insurance, provide employment, provide indigent care, cash checks, enroll students, or provide transportation other than BACK to their country of origin.
Prosecuting EITHER the American citizen OR the illegal alien would deter the transaction, but prosecuting BOTH the American citizen AND the illegal alien would be best. Illegal aliens would find that they have nothing that they could do here; except to go home.
We ask STATE, county, and municipal legislators to pass the "No Gravy Train for Illegal Aliens" Law!
Federal Laws already exist, but are not being enforced
8 USC Sec 1325 - Illegal Entry
Any alien who enters U.S. other than at A port of entry by false or misleading representation shall be subject to civil and criminal penalties can be fined and imprisoned
Section 1324a Hiring - Harboring - Transporting any illegal alien
Any person who knowingly hires/harbors/ transports any illegal alien is guilty of a felony punishable by 10 years jail + $2,000 fine per illegal alien + forfeiture of vehicle or property used to commit the crime.
Section 1324c Law officers have authority to make arrests...
All officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws shall have authority to make arrests for violation of any provision of this section (affirmed US vs. Perez-Gonzalez 2002 Fed App 0360, 6th Circ.) Section 1324a Hiring - Harboring - Transporting any illegal alien.
Section 1644
No local ordinance, rule, or measure shall stop law enforcement officers from enforcement of this section� (affirmed Southern District Court of NY, US vs. Rudy Giuliani, 1996.
NOTE: all immigration violations are criminal - not civil offenses.
http://www.local2544.org/
Here's what the Border Patrol says about deporting Illegals:
President Bush, read our lips, NO AMNESTY! Your continuous defeatist rhetoric about "we just can't deport 12 million people" got old a long time ago. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it any more truthful. Secure the border, cut off the jobs and free government handouts, start hammering greedy employers who hire illegal aliens, and watch them make a run for the border.....heading south by the millions. Many of them will "self-deport". If you had this same defeatist attitude about Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. We're not buying your amnesty sales pitch down here in the real world. Maybe you can explain to us why we're risking our lives to stop the same people you keep encouraging to come in by the millions with your incessant pro-amnesty speeches ("guest-worker", "earned legalization", etc.)
In 1954 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower the United States Border Patrol, with just over 1,000 agents, was able to remove over 1,000,000 (one million) illegal aliens from the United States. This took approximately one (1) year. It is a documented fact that the vast majority (over 75%) of the illegal aliens who left this country "self deported" when they saw that the American government was serious about enforcing the law. We now have over 10,000 Border Patrol agents in this country. We also have improved communications, and we are able to transport people more efficiently. It should be no problem to send 10,000,000 illegal aliens back home in a year with an aggressive enforcement effort. Those are the plain facts. People can make excuses all day long. However, history proves that this defeatist attitude is dead wrong. Mr. Bush should provide evidence that the task is too large, but he can't. The bottom line is that the people of this country (who are supposed to be
running things) want our immigration laws enforced, but many politicians simply lack the will to let us do our jobs properly. What Mr. Bush really means is that he and others lack the intestinal fortitude to see our laws enforced. You might even say it's "hard work" to enforce the laws. As the radical pro-illegal immigration activists like to say, "Si, se puede".
A Simple Analogy:
I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed.
Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.
But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere.
Then some of the birds turned mean:
They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.
And others birds were boisterous and loud:
They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore.
I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone.
I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...... quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now lets see....... our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.
Then the illegal's came by the hundreds of thousands.
Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families: you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor: your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English: Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
Follow up:
Oklahoma passes the "No Gravy Train for Illegal Aliens" Law
http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=126684
http://www.blogdigger.com/search.jsp?q=oklahoma+house+bill+1804
http://thevoice.name/?p=5564
States tackle immigration as national moves fail
original url now expired:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070806/pl_nm/usa_immigration_states_dc_2;_ylt=AszAlJZ6ya3shZDrXkAmShkE1vAI
By Claudia Parsons Mon Aug 6, 6:30 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Frustrated at Washington's failure to tackle immigration reform at a national level, state legislatures are passing a growing number of local laws on immigration, according to a report released on Monday.
The National Conference of State Legislatures said state lawmakers had introduced roughly 2-1/2 times more bills related to immigration in 2007 than in 2006. So far this year, 170 bills have been enacted in 41 states, up from 84 in 2006.
"Congress' failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform has really forced the states' hands," Texas Senator and NCSL President Leticia Van de Putte said in a statement.
Last month the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to provide an additional $3 billion in emergency spending to beef up border security after lawmakers failed to enact broader immigration reforms championed by President George W. Bush.
Bush had proposed a broad overhaul to address the status of an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. The bill, which would have legalized millions of unlawful immigrants, faltered in the Senate because some Republicans considered it amnesty for those who broke U.S. laws and who said it would encourage more illegal immigration.
The report by the NCSL said that by July 2, 1,404 pieces of legislation related to immigration had been introduced among the 50 state legislatures. The 170 that were enacted covered a range of areas from access to healthcare and education to eligibility for public benefits and voting rights.
FROM LANGUAGE TO BENEFITS
The range of bills reflected the divisions on an emotional issue championed by talk radio and bloggers across the political spectrum. Kansas, for instance, passed an act declaring English the official language of the state, while California passed a bill extending all public benefits to migrant workers.
Bush's proposed reform of the immigration system was a key domestic priority, but it met stiff resistance from his own Republicans before next year's presidential elections.
Many opponents said illegal immigrants took jobs from U.S. workers. But employers from Arizona to Texas argued that thousands jobs were going begging through a lack of takers.
In a test case last month, a U.S. federal judge struck down as unconstitutional a local city law on immigration.
The judge said the city of Hazleton, 100 miles north of Philadelphia, was barred from implementing a law that would have penalized businesses that hire illegal immigrants and fined landlords who rent rooms to them.
The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law as unconstitutional because only the federal government has the right to make immigration law.
Vic Walczak, ACLU's lead counsel in the Hazleton case, said the judge's analysis on federal law trumping local law would be "equally applicable to state laws as it is to municipal laws."
Sheri Steisel, who directs immigration policy for the NCSL, said some of the state laws could potentially end up in court, such as an Arizona measure on employment that she said employers were considering challenging.
But she said state lawmakers were so frustrated at struggling with the problems that they were pushing through bills to fill the federal vacuum.
"Immigration is now a 50-state issue," Steisel said. "This used to be a concern only of the border states."
Of the laws enacted, 26 dealt with employment, for example requiring employers to verify workers' status. Eleven states, including Texas and Montana, passed legislation cracking down on human trafficking, including by imposing stiffer sentences.