ILNews

Constitutional convention proponents to meet in Indiana Statehouse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The movement to convene a constitutional convention aimed at reining in the power of the federal government is coming to Indianapolis June 12 and 13.

The Mount Vernon Assembly, an organization actively pushing states to hold a convention as allowed under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, will be meeting at the Statehouse. More than 100 state legislators from 33 states are expected to attend the two-day event.

Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore David Long will open the meeting Thursday by welcoming the visitors and offering brief remarks in the House of Representatives chamber.

The Fort Wayne Republican launched his own effort during the 2013 legislative session for an Article V constitutional convention. He proposed that the convention would offer amendments to limit both the commerce clause and the federal taxing authority.

At the time, Long framed his effort as a “thoughtful and constitutionally based approach to how we can protect states’ rights.”

Long’s twin bills pertaining to a constitutional convention sailed through both chambers and were signed by Gov. Mike Pence in May 2013. Senate Enrolled Act 224 described the duties of the delegates who attend the convention while Senate Enrolled Act 225 outlined the method for appointing delegates and alternative delegates.

The Senate president touted the bills as keeping a tight control on the delegates and preventing a runaway convention.

His resolution, that would have made an application to Congress to call for a Constitutional convention, stalled in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

During the Indianapolis meeting, the Mount Vernon Assembly will be continuing to establish the rules and procedures needed to hold a state-led constitutional convention. The attendees will not be considering any proposed amendments.

The Mount Vernon Assembly, which describes itself as a bipartisan group of state legislators from across the country, was founded in December 2013 at George Washington’s Mount Vernon home in Virginia.

A resolution that established the organization asserted states have “slowly relinquished power to the national government” which has led to the federal government being unresponsive and unaccountable. The group sees an Article V constitutional convention as a way for states to regain the power to resolve national issues.

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT