ILNews

Court sponsors Northwest Ordinance lecture

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court is sponsoring a lecture celebrating the 221st anniversary of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the legal issues related to Indiana's southern borders established by the ordinance. The lecture will begin at 3 p.m. on July 14.

Seating in the Supreme Court's courtroom for "221 Years of Unsettled Borders: Indiana and the Northwest Ordinance" is no longer available for the free lecture, but a monitor and overflow seating will be available in the atrium area, as well as a live webcast.

The program, a part of the Indiana Supreme Court's Legal History Lecture Series, will begin with a brief discussion about the difficulty of documenting Indiana's southern border, the Ohio River, and then focus on a 1978 case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985 that questioned the location of the boundary. The high court issued a decree in Kentucky v. Indiana, 474 U.S. 1 (1985), deciding both Indiana and Kentucky have concurrent jurisdiction over the Ohio River.

Donald Bogard, one of the lead attorneys on the case, who was chief counsel for then-Indiana Attorney General Ted Sendak, will be the primary speaker at the lecture.

The next lecture in the Legal History series will be Oct. 3, featuring Anderson University history professor Brian Dirck, author of the book, "Lincoln the Lawyer." Reservations for this event are now being accepted and can be made by e-mail at shachey@courts.state.in.us or (317) 232-2550.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT