ILNews

House committee approves Constitutional Convention bills

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With a vote along party lines, a pair of bills outlining the selection and duties of delegates to an Article V Constitutional Convention cleared their first hurdle in the Indiana House of Representatives.

Senate Bill 224 and Senate Bill 225, both authored by Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, were approved April 8 by the House Committee on the Judiciary in a 7 to 3 vote. The three Democratic representatives present at the hearing – Reps. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, and Vernon Smith, D-Gary – opposed the measures.

Long testified before the committee, reiterating his arguments for a state-driven convention to offer an amendment that would limit the federal government’s use of the commerce clause and taxing powers.

He told the committee members the legislation is meant address fears that any state-sponsored event to amend the Constitution could become a runaway convention. His bills include provisions that delegates cannot deviate from their duties at the convention or they will be charged with a felony.  

Long urged bipartisan support, noting Republicans and Democrats should agree on the issue of states’ protecting their rights.

After the hearing, the senator said he was not concerned the bills would be viewed as solely a Republican cause. He believes his proposals could garner support from conservative Democrats.

“This idea has been gaining momentum for years now. I think the recent actions in Washington, either the Affordable Care Act, No Child Left Behind, the inability to balance the budget and control its spending, all of that comes to the point where I think the timing of this is important,” Long said. “I think for some Democrats it appears it is just an attack on Obamacare, but it’s far more than that. And if you analyze it without that issue influencing those votes, I think we have more bipartisan votes.”


 

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