The conservative/republican machine has done an exceptional job over the last few news cycles of completely dominating the debate on immigration. How? By proposing a Constitutional amendment that we all know won't pass.
And this isn't the first time those self-professed lovers of the Constitution have used the phony Constitutional amendment to control the debate in the mainstream media, in Congress and even on main street. There's marriage, immigration, flag burning, prayer, balanced budget, etc. etc. And every time, those amendments are taken seriously, dominate news cycles and help frame the debate about potential compromises, but the authors generally seem to have little concern for putting in the years of hard work it would take to actually pass the amendments.
But they get us to freak out, respond with outrage and get lots of free media coverage, all while raking in fundraising dollars and helping frame the debate on their terms.
Hopefully we all know how high of a burden there is to pass a Constitutional amendment, and many have failed to meet it. Depending on how it is crafted, you might even get some serious consideration for it. If and when such debate is entertained, Senators will be much more inclined to defuse the debate by changing their antiquated and abused Senate rules around cloture.
If you can accept that crazy premise... Constitutional amendments, whether they have a chance of passing or not, can help push the debate to more workable solutions by showing backbone & resolve on an issue... then why not consider a few ideas that might get those Senators to act?
See the poll and vote for your favourite!
UPDATE1 - Just to be clear (again), we don't need to pass a constitutional amendment to change the debate over Senate rules. You need look no further than the current 14th amendment changes Sen. Kyl is touting to know that you don't have to have a serious chance of passing such an amendment to dominate the media and the debate. The Equal Rights and Balanced Budget Amendments never passed. It could take generations before they do, if ever. But they have forever changed the debate. My premise is if you craft something that is somewhat bipartisan and gets activists fired up, voters voting and citizens calling their elected officials, you are providing cover fire for Senators to voluntarily accept small changes to the cloture/filibuster rules.