Network Indiana via WBAA has a story entitled “Indiana Senate President Pushes for a Constitutional Convention.”
Delegates gather in Indianapolis next month to lay the groundwork for a constitutional convention. Indiana is one of more than 20 states to call for a convention to consider amending the Constitution.
Senate President Pro Tem David Long (R-Fort Wayne) has backed the effort, in hopes of drafting an amendment to realign the balance between state and federal power, and, in his words, bring the national debt under control.
Those sound like good things, obviously. But the devil is in the details and, really, there is no need to call a Constitutional convention to enact the desired policies. There is just a lack of political will.
For his part, Long envisions a convention which is narrow in scope. But revolutions often get away from their bourgeois instigators. Once a Constitutional Convention was opened up, I would anticipate radical factions taking over.
For reference, here is the Constitutional Amendment process:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
A real can of worms; but if we really think back on this for several years, it’s clear the Conservatives, no matter their nomenclature, have wanted to undo the Constitutional traditions that have been in effect for a couple of centuries.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of
I thought the Onion made this up until I read Freedom’s comments
I would like to see a convention on the Indiana Constitution. I am familiar with the Illinois and Ohio Constitutions. Both require a referendum for a state constitutional convention every 20 years.
Senator Long is hardly one to throw stones. In a recent Howey interview, he made it clear that he did not believe in home rule for local governments.
Doug,
Having an Amendment on balanced budgets and national debt is a nightmare. These are political questions and Senator Long’s party cannot win, so he wishes to change the rules.
This entire Articles of Confederation (a “realignment between State and Federal powers”?) redux happens any time a Democratic President is in a second term. The Federal govt is supreme and it was designed to be that way (see Federalist 44 and 45). Moreover, the country has enjoyed 150 years of prosperity since we were able to put these fantasies to bed.
Long worships the Constitution, but not the one as written and practiced. No, he worships the one in his head that contains odious ideas and failed practices. How gross that my tax money will fund this idiocy
“I do believe the fiscal issues can unite 34 states to petition for this and 38 states to approve an amendment that comes out of the convention, whether that’s a balanced budget amendment or limits on federal spending or federal debt,” Long says. “Those are all realistic, I don’t think partisan, issues.”
Long talks as if he has never heard of economics or monetary policy. Heck, Davey, just get us back on the gold standard.
How do idiots like David Long keep getting elected?
The foolish position prefers fiat money.
Keep calling people names. It really demonstrates the depth of your position.
Yeah, you would never call anyone names…I mean, while arguing ideas demonstrated incorrect 80 years ago. (oh, hold it, you called the proposition “foolish”)
Is it too much to ask you to be consistent within a single comment?
Gerrymandering.
I long ago gave up the idea that Hoosiers would be as progressive as I am, given the cultural and political of the State, but I never went the full Vonnegut (leave the state and have nothing but contempt for it). I trust Indiana voters slightly.
What I’m trying to say is that even without gerrymandering, I have a feeling a tool like Long and his hatred for the Constitution would still be elected.
I really enjoyed 2008
“I long ago gave up the idea that Hoosiers would be as progressive as I am”
In no way are any of your tyrannical ideas “progress.” All you spew are the same tired, failed, liberal mistakes that must be undone.
Says the guy who such a Reactionary he believes he’s a Revolutionary.
Let’s see:
You advocate the monetary policy of the 1920’s, the marriage policy of the 1990’s (if not earlier, given your disdain for the gays), the “Federalism” policies of the 1850’s Southern gentleman, the welfare policies of pre-Colonial times, the Corporate domination of labor from the 1890’s, etc
About the only thing you like that is modern and found no where in the Founding documents or practices is your gun fetishism, based on a legal doctrine so ridiculous Warren Burger called it a fraud 30 years ago.
It’s cute when a Calhounist accuses others of being in favor of mistakes.
Liberalism brought you the middle class, Social Security, the USDA, an interstate system…hell, modern America and, while we’re used to reactionaries bemoaning the state of grace that apparently existed in the Jim Crow teens of the 20th century, we would appreciate a thank you for the free education and liberal interpretation of free speech which enables you to cling to silliness.
Barring that, stop bothering your betters
“Warren Burger called it a fraud 30 years ago.”
Nixon’s biggest mistake, even worse than dumping Bretton Woods. A politician given a Chief Justiceship in a campaign payback.
And we wonder why nobody respects the Supreme Court as a font of legal philosophy.
Only lesser lights would be foolish enough to blunder into making appeals to the propoundments of that body.
Well, first, of course, is that he was retired when he said it. Second, although I pretty much have no faith in the current Court to do what is right, the idea that the Supreme Court (especially to a group of attorneys) is not respected or should not be listened to is pretty hysterical. It’s what we do.
Lastly, before writing things as unintentionally funny as a ‘libertarian” claiming Nixon’s biggest mistake was a) appointing a conservative to roll back the Warren Court or b) not Watergate could you please warn me. I almost fell off the chair laughing at you.
To be fair, that’s usually the case, but I wasn’t prepared for you to open with it
Another vapid response from you.
“the idea that the Supreme Court (especially to a group of attorneys) is not respected or should not be listened to is pretty hysterical. It’s what we do.”
Your court has been caught engaging in endless secret revisions to its “opinions.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/us/final-word-on-us-law-isnt-supreme-court-keeps-editing.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
I was waiting for you to open your yap to slap you with this. You walked right into it.
Oh, yeah, that editing which hasn’t changed a holding is really troubling. Additionally, it’s completely changed how law works now in America. Before Liptak’s interesting article, the Supreme Court’s reasoning was the final word on what the law meant. Now, the Supreme Court’s reasoning is the final word on what the law meant.
Yeah, you really got me on that one. You know how some people miss the forest for the tress? You miss the trees with your fascination for the bark
Oh, and “freedom for corporations to buy and sell us,” are the goalposts you move in every discussion heavy? Or, do you get to used to them if you move them often enough.
“freedom for corporations to buy and sell us,”
Where did I write that quoted passage?
When you read my comments and hear the swoosh sound? Yeah, that was the point you missed flying by your ear.
I see. You like to communicate in your “private prayer language,” intelligible only to you.
“Let’s see:”
I doubt the scales will ever lift for you, but we’ll try.
“You advocate the monetary policy of the 1920?s,”
No, goofball. I advocate sound money. You advocate inflation and the destruction of savings.
“the marriage policy of the 1990?s (if not earlier, given your disdain for the gays),”
No, goofball. I don’t advocate for any marriage “policy.” “Marriage” means precisely one thing. Always has, always will. You agitate for special rights and forced legal recognition for exotic living arrangements.
“the “Federalism” policies of the 1850?s Southern gentleman,”
No, goofball. I advocate for a federal government subordinate to state governments in all matters in which the states have not expressly granted the federal government authority. You advocate for a vicious totalitarian state in which all power is centralized and in which the individual is utterly suppressed. You’d merrily load the boxcars, given the chance.
“the welfare policies of pre-Colonial times,”
Algonquin welfare policies? Viking welfare policies? What are you babbling about? What welfare policies does the Constitution require?
“the Corporate domination of labor from the 1890?s, etc”
Now your screed has come completely unhinged, and your straw man is rampant. Did you cut and paste this illogical rant from Salon or HuffPo, and you didn’t know what this bleat meant, so you left it in?
Your post is why the unintelligent and novice should not air their untutored imaginations until they’ve had the opportunity to receive instruction and correction of their errors, in your case, you fill the bushel basket, and you do try the Master’s patience. To your quarters, and spend the weekend in silent reflection.