ILNews

Long’s constitutional convention legislation before committee Tuesday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Senate President Pro Tempore David Long’s resolution and two companion bills calling for states to gather to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit the commerce clause and federal taxing authority will be heard before the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure Tuesday.

Senate Joint Resolution 18, and Senate Bills 224 and 225, call for an application to Congress for an Article V convention and outline the selection and duty of the delegates.

Long, R-Fort Wayne, announced his plan to seek a constitutional convention Feb. 14. He said he’s spoken with legislators from other states who support the idea. Long believes it’s the only way that states’ rights can be protected.

He said states need to take charge because Congress appears to have no ability to solve the debt crisis facing the country.

House Democratic Leader Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, didn’t outright dismiss the proposal but said talking about such a convention doesn’t address the state’s current needs.

Pelath said House Democrats have not given too much attention to the idea of a constitutional convention.

“We have not discussed that a great deal because that’s a very esoteric issue at the moment, talking about amending the Constitution,” Pelath said. “We’re trying to figure out how to govern Indiana in the here and now. That’s something down the road. I suppose we can have a reasonable discussion about it.”

 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT