We the People seeks support

March 14, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This post is by reporter Rebecca Berfanger.

Upon hearing news that funding for the We the People program may be slashed as of September due to looming budget cuts in Congress, a group of the program’s alumni in Indiana has started a Facebook page to gather signatures to encourage legislators to continue the program.

The page, which the Indiana We the People Alumni Facebook group posted as a Facebook event simply called, “Save We the People,” is open to all. By selecting “attending,” supporters can add their names to the petition.

As of this morning, nearly 3,600 people are “attending” the event. Organizers of the “event” have posted that they plan to send the letter to Congress as early as March 17.

“The WTP program has meant so much to Indiana, and changed my life forever,” wrote Erin Braun, a former director of civic education programs for the Indiana Bar Foundation and an alumna of the program. “The fact that future generations might never know WTP is simply unthinkable.”

Since the program moved to the Indiana State Bar Association and IBF, teams representing Indiana at mock congressional hearings in Washington, D.C., have placed in the top 10 at the national level five out of six times.

Team Indiana’s 28 seniors from Munster High School were among more than 1,100 high school students from 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, who participated in last year’s finals in April 2010. Another team from Munster High School is slated to represent Indiana again this spring after winning the state-level competition in December.

A similar program to We the People called Frontiers has already had its conference canceled due to budget cuts. That program offers a way for students to participate in civics education during evening and weekend programs because their schools do not participate in We the People through their school curriculums.

More information about the IBF’s civic education programs is available on its website.
 

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
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT