ILNews

Indiana Senate president pro tem pushes for Constitutional Convention

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long admits his effort to convene a state-driven Constitutional Convention will be a struggle.

Other states could agree to participate then later decide to drop out. They could dismiss his proposal for a single-issue convention in favor of tackling a host of grievances. And they could snub his model legislation that would place restrictions on the behavior of the convention delegates.

However, the Fort Wayne Republican believes something has to be done to stop what he characterized as the federal government’s meddling and trampling of states’ rights.
 

Long_David-15col.jpg Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, talks to reporters about his push for a Constitutional Convention. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“The founders gave us that ability,” Long said, in reference to Article V of the U.S. Constitution which gives states the power to hold a convention without congressional interference. “It’s tougher now than when there were only 13 states, yes I understand that, but they gave us that ability expecting us to utilize it as a key tool to limit federal overreach … .”

This session, Long has authored Senate Joint Resolution 18 which makes an application to Congress to call a Constitutional Convention. He has also introduced two companion measures, Senate bills 224 and 225, which outline how to appoint delegates and their duties.

The resolution and accompanying bills overwhelmingly gained approval in the Senate and have moved to the House of Representatives where all three pieces of legislation are sponsored by Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis.

Indianapolis attorney Scott Chinn, partner at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, also acknowledged the difficulty in getting 34 states to agree to a single-issue convention, but he did not dismiss the notion of making the effort.

“My opinion is this ought to be taken very seriously,” he said.

Controlling the convention

Under the provisions in Long’s resolution, the states would call upon Congress to establish a Constitutional Convention as directed by Article V of the Constitution. Most important, the gathering would draft an amendment that would only address putting limits on the commerce clause and federal taxing powers.

Long sees an amendment as the only way to restrain what he calls Washington’s inability to control spending.

“(The states) certainly have the right to defend themselves against the constant unfunded mandates that come down the line from the federal government in areas really where they have absolutely no business or rights but, again, because they have the purse strings, they’re able to literally get the states to do what they want,” Long said.

Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, was among a small coalition of mostly Democrats voting against Long’s convention resolution and bills.

He cannot envision states signing on to convene a convention under such narrow terms and, therefore, getting the necessary two-thirds will be difficult. Moreover, he believes the one-and-a-half hours devoted to debating Long’s proposals would have been better spent addressing other matters.

“I have faith in our Supreme Court in delineating these matters,” Broden said. “I don’t always agree with every Supreme Court ruling but I prefer the way things are being adjudicated through the courts.”

Still, Long is adamant about making the attempt. He crafted the two companion bills as a model for other states to follow to ensure the convention delegates stick to their appointed duties and to prevent the gathering from becoming a runaway convention.

SB 225 details who is eligible to be an Indiana delegate and alternate to the Constitutional Convention and how the General Assembly would make the appointments.

The duties of the delegates and alternates are spelled out in SB 224. Provisions include voiding votes cast outside the scope of instructions given by the Indiana Legislature and recalling delegates who do vote or even attempt to vote outside the instructions. In addition, delegates knowingly or intentionally casting such a vote could be charged with a Class D felony.

The bill establishes an advisory group comprised of the chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, the chief judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals and the judge of the Indiana Tax Court. Delegates can seek the guidance of this group in determining if a vote would violate the instructions.

Left to the delegates and alternates at the convention would be the specific language in any amendment. While his resolution states any proposed constitutional amendment could only deal with limiting commerce and taxing power, Long has not offered any model or advisories on how it should read.

In response to those who say the convention could not be controlled, Long asserted they have not read the bills and are not paying attention to the language.

“That’s the problem. The critics are there without an alternative, and I say under these circumstances what are we afraid of?” Long said. “I mean the path that we are going down today is one of uncontrolled spending by the federal government that isn’t doing anything to contain itself. It’s threatening, I think, the future of this nation and for our kids, I think, the debt that they’re being forced to absorb is crushing.”

As an example of the overreach, Long pointed to the federal government withholding highway transportation dollars because Indiana had not made “some small move” on its drunken driving laws. States should be able to decide how they want to write, for instance, drunken driving and seatbelt laws, he said, but the federal government cuts payments if the laws do not meet its standards.

“It’s getting to the point where it’s just one government – the federal government – and we’re just acting at their will,” Long said.

To Geoffrey Slaughter, partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, the Senate president’s example of how transportation money is used is not governed by the taxing power or commerce clause, but rather by Congress’s spending power.

In 1987, the Supreme Court addressed this very issue in South Dakota v. Dole, Secretary of Transportation, 86-260. The federal government was holding back funds because South Dakota would not increase its drinking age from 19 to 21.

The majority of the court characterized the withholding of funds as a “relatively mild encouragement” and concluded that is a “valid use of the spending power.”

Slaughter noted spending power could be addressed in the amendment through limiting the taxing powers.

Although the consensus of Long’s attorneys is that the spending aspect is included in the taxing authority, Long said the verbiage in the bills could be amended to specifically cover spending.

Constructive conversation

Long’s argument for states’ rights centers around what Chinn called the “great question” of every century of how much deference the federal government should give to the states. Pushing a resolution for establishing a convention provides a framework for a constructive conversation about the role of the federal government in state affairs.

“I think Indiana has often been a state concerned with asserting its own sovereignty status and not just yielding to the federal government and federal legislation,” Chinn said.

Broden sees the resolution and Senate bills as evidence of a heightened frustration fueled by the re-election of President Barack Obama. This is also the first legislative session since the Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These events seemed to have increased the tension about the perceived overreach of the federal government.

During Obama’s first term, Broden said, concerns about spending were typically just complaining. Now, the anger has risen to the level of legislation being introduced and passed.

“My sense is,” he added, “this is a different level of intensity.”•

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 have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT