ILNews

Senate president calling for constitutional convention to protect states’ rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Declaring that states’ rights are being trampled and the 10th Amendment is in shambles, the leader of the Indiana Senate is calling for a “gathering of states” to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, announced his intention to push for states to hold a constitutional convention at a press conference Thursday morning. He wants the states to come together to address placing limits on the commerce clause and on the federal taxing authority.

Tuesday, Feb. 19, before adjournment, Long plans to present the Senate Rules Committee with a joint resolution calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention. He also plans to offer two companion bills. The first bill will clarify how delegates are to be selected for the convention, and the second will place tight controls on the delegates to prevent a runaway convention.

“I think it’s the only way states’ rights can be protected in his country,” Long said, adding this effort is not rooted in conspiracy theories about the federal government wielding too much power. “It is, I think, a thoughtful and constitutionally based approach to how we can protect states’ rights… .”

In explaining that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be offered either by the Congress or by the states, Long pointed to James Madison. The founding father, he said, advocated specifically for language to be included in the Constitution that gave states the ability to draft and put forth amendments on their own.

The Senate president said Madison “clearly believes” this was the “single most important tool” states have to control the federal government.

States need to take charge, Long asserted, because Congress is paralyzed and seemingly has no ability to address the debt crisis facing this country.
 
The Indiana legislator is confident his resolution and two bills will pass this session, noting colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about federal spending and states’ rights. Then, he said, he wants to spread the idea, like Johnny Appleseed, to other states.

Most recently Long said he has had conversations about this topic with leaders in Tennessee and Texas. Other states have been talking about this and wondering how to push back against Congress to get control particularly of spending.

“This is something that needs to start,” Long said. “We think the ball needs to get started rolling right here so we’ll do 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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT