Indiana State Senator: “I Will Decide What’s Constitutional, Not You”

[ArmedProgrammer]

Who put this guy in charge of a committee? Last I saw weren't there several other members of this committee, what say do they have in what Bills get out of committee?

^^^^ this ^^^^^

Were I in charge of the Indiana Repubs, this dork would be the head of the dog-catching committee. Seniority be hanged - use your power to front for Obama? Welcome to the bench.... there's others that can do the job better.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Easy solution, involving ....

... postage-stamps, and ballot-box. Is he a Helmke wanna-be ??

 

[Hotdoger]

Who put this guy in charge of a committee? Last I saw weren't there several other members of this committee, what say do they have in what Bills get out of committee?

Long controls what bills get a hearing in his commitee.



Long is jerk and we will not get anywhere with him.

 

[Ted]

Call them Republicans, RINOs or @$$holes. Regardless of title they are dangerous to a Constitutional Republic. He took the oath and needs to be reminded.

American In Name Only: AINO

 

[level.eleven]

A bill that basically says that the United States Supreme Court does not get to decide what is constitutional? Sounds like more radicalism from the right. I suppose with the Heller decision, the conservatives on this board would also be okay if states started passing gun control bills under the guise that the Supreme Court got it wrong?

I'm not sure if it is extremists as it is as much simply being ignorant of how the law works.

...a constitutional law professor at the Robert H. McKinney School of Law at Indiana University in Indianapolis backs Long up, calling the idea that the Supreme Court isn’t the final arbiter “bizarre.”

But I would bet you are right as well. Right wing extremists. Long is just saving people's time and money. Good for him.

 

[Clay]

isn't this the same douche who basically killed the 'hunt with suppressor' bill?

 

[rambone]

Long is just saving people's time and money. Good for him.

Do you support the Affordable Care Act?

 

[Ted]

.......Long is just saving people's time and money. Good for him.

Really? Please quantify your rationale.

 

[moltke]

Hmmmm, correct me if I've read something wrong. I've always been against a judge or court ruling from the bench, although I of course see the need for the courts reserving the exclusive right to slap down a law that is unconstitutional. The problem I have always had with the courts has stemmed from their recent ability to slap down amendments to the state constitution as unconstitutional. If a state wants to alter its constitution, then once done, the judges (and elected officials) are bound to uphold that new amended document correct?

The issue in the article isn't even a change or challenge to those processes right? This guy is just holding it up based on his own opinion? Why doesn't he just vote no, and let the courts actually do their job ... again not even getting back into the rights and duties of the courts at that point. Did I miss why he's simply not voting yay or nay and shutting up?

 

[CarmelHP]

isn't this the same douche who basically killed the 'hunt with suppressor' bill?

And the campus carry bill a few sessions back, he very much deserves to be gone.

 

[indykid]

He would make a good poster child for tar and feathers.

 

[Ted]

He would make a good poster child for tar and feathers.

Agreed. He's already a child.

 

[Tsigos]

Do you support the Affordable Care Act?

The point is that the constitutionality issue has been asked and answered. It is idiotic to incite a civil war because you don't like a piece of legislation.

Should Alabama be allowed to reinstate segregation because they believe Brown v. Board of Education was wrong?

 

[rambone]

The point is that the constitutionality issue has been asked and answered. It is idiotic to incite a civil war because you don't like a piece of legislation.

Should Alabama be allowed to reinstate segregation because they believe Brown v. Board of Education was wrong?

This 'idiotic' idea is an integral check and balance in the system.

Even if the Feds have gone off the deep end across the board, and all 3 branches support oppression, then it is a state responsibility to protect citizens from the national government. Constitutionality notwithstanding, the states may pass legislation like this to prevent it from being imposed on citizens.

 

[Tsigos]

This 'idiotic' idea is an integral check and balance in the system.

Even if the Feds have gone off the deep end across the board, and all 3 branches support oppression, then it is a state responsibility to protect citizens from the national government. Constitutionality notwithstanding, the states may pass legislation like this to prevent it from being imposed on citizens.

So state legislatures get to decide what is constitutional and what is not? Sounds like a total breakdown of society to me. Perhaps if the issue was not a piece of legislation that could be repealed through our representative government. This issue seems more like sour grapes then any real oppression.

 

[rambone]

So state legislatures get to decide what is constitutional and what is not? Sounds like a total breakdown of society to me. Perhaps if the issue was not a piece of legislation that could be repealed through our representative government. This issue seems more like sour grapes then any real oppression.

Its not a constitutional argument anymore. It is about what is best for Hoosiers.

 

[Ted]

The point is that the constitutionality issue has been asked and answered. It is idiotic to incite a civil war because you don't like a piece of legislation........

Peace at any cost? Really?

 

[Hotdoger]

The point is that the constitutionality issue has been asked and answered. It is idiotic to incite a civil war because you don't like a piece of legislation.

Should Alabama be allowed to reinstate segregation because they believe Brown v. Board of Education was wrong?

So all SCOTUS cases have been decided rightly?

Dred Scott much? LOL

 

[ATM]

So state legislatures get to decide what is constitutional and what is not? Sounds like a total breakdown of society to me. Perhaps if the issue was not a piece of legislation that could be repealed through our representative government. This issue seems more like sour grapes then any real oppression.

Hardly a breakdown of society. We created the federal government.
Who do you think should be the final arbiters of its powers and limitations, the creators or the creature?

Nullification (U.S. Constitution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RockofStrength]

So state legislatures get to decide what is constitutional and what is not? Sounds like a total breakdown of society to me. Perhaps if the issue was not a piece of legislation that could be repealed through our representative government. This issue seems more like sour grapes then any real oppression.

The Constitution rightly applies only to the Federal government. Each state has its own constitution, modeled after the Federal one generally, which is the supreme law of each state assuming it does not conflict with an openly given Federal power (like minting money).