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

[Gniks18]

"Provides that any federal act, order, law, rule, regulation, or statute found by the general assembly to be inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is void in Indiana. Provides that a resident of Indiana has a cause of action to enjoin the enforcement or implementation or the attempted enforcement or implementation of a federal act, order, law, rule, regulation, or statute declared void by the general assembly. Provides that a plaintiff who prevails in such an action is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally implements or enforces, or attempts to implement or enforce, a federal law that is declared void by the general assembly commits a Class D felony. Finds that the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 are inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States."

IN SB0230 | 2013 | Regular Session | LegiScan

Am I missing something here? It seems like this isn't actually a bad law at all. Providing protection for states and their residents seems like a great idea if you ask me.

 

[ATM]

...
Am I missing something here? It seems like this isn't actually a bad law at all. Providing protection for states and their residents seems like a great idea if you ask me.

It is a great idea. Senator Long doesn't want to allow it to even come to a vote.

 

[Gniks18]

It is a great idea. Senator Long doesn't want to allow it to even come to a vote.

Yep... I did miss something lol.

Well... screw that guy.

 

[level.eleven]

It is a great idea. Senator Long doesn't want to allow it to even come to a vote.

Did you read that paragraph? It is state legislation to jail those that execute a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

It didn't go to a vote for the same reason the annual creationist bill and the annual start every school day with a specific prayer bill always get dumped to committee.

It is legislation that purposely violates a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Heck, it even cites the specific case.

 

[Gniks18]

Did you read that paragraph? It is state legislation to jail those that execute a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

It didn't go to a vote for the same reason the annual creationist bill and the annual start every school day with a specific prayer bill always get dumped to committee.

It is legislation that purposely violates a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Heck, it even cites the specific case.

I would rather have people punished for knowingly enforcing a law that should not be a law, rather than have people punished for not following a law that is unconstitutional.

Can someone be punished for not enforcing said laws of questionable legitimacy?

 

[TravisJ]

Seems to me a good idea, who knows what nonsense the supreme court will rule if Obama gets to appoint a couple more.

 

[Ted]

Did you read that paragraph? It is state legislation to jail those that execute a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

It didn't go to a vote for the same reason the annual creationist bill and the annual start every school day with a specific prayer bill always get dumped to committee.

It is legislation that purposely violates a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Heck, it even cites the specific case.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". -President Andrew Jackson.

This is a popular type of notion upon many a politician, such as Obama's lack of enforcement upon the BATFE to not violate the law by photocopying Form 4473 from LGSs, or sandbagging NCIC checks to take longer than needed, or etc.

 

[ATM]

Did you read that paragraph?

Of course not, we just need to pass it, then find out what's inside.

...It is state legislation to jail those that execute a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

It didn't go to a vote for the same reason the annual creationist bill and the annual start every school day with a specific prayer bill always get dumped to committee.

It is legislation that purposely violates a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Heck, it even cites the specific case.

I'm fine with Indiana enacting all of those. The SCOTUS overstepped their bounds on those two issues via blatant misconstruction of the application of the 1st Amendment long ago. Nullify that crap.

 

[Sainte]

I would say getting kicked to the curb in the next election should be a sufficient reminder.

Only problem with that is the guy still gets his lifetime retirement and laughs all the way to the bank!

There should be greater consequences than this....reward for trampling the Constitution.

 

[kimberfan]

1. State legislators do not receive lifetime pensions.

2. Just because Long disagrees with your solution, doesn't mean he disagrees with the motivation.

Senate leader calls for federal constitutional convention over commerce clause
February 14, 2013 | Filed under: Nation | Posted by: Lesley Weidenbener
By Jessica Wray
TheStatehouseFile.com


(Copyrighted text removed)

 

[csnoski]

I am delighted to see Long's views above on a CC. I wrote him several wks ago in regards to sb 230 and growing federal overreach, in general. I would suggest others write to commend him for his actions on reasserting the 10th ammendment.

 

[zippy23]

he is not republican, these people put the R after their name to get elected, they are bought and paid for. The fact that anyone thinks otherwise is stupid. And writing letters to people like this is pointless, they need to be arrested and taken out of their position. Voting them out would work, but how do we even know our vote counts when voter fraud is proven? This is the frustrating part.

 

[mwagner]

He's gotta go that's the only answer.

 

[NomadS]

so how do they get a similar bill to start in another committee?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sen. Long has been the Senate Majority Leader and President Pro Tempore at least since 2008, when I really started watching stuff going on. In that position, he controls which committee is assigned any given bill, much as the Speaker of the House does in his own chamber. Further, as chairman of the Senate Rules committee, he also decides when or if that committee meets and which bills are heard if they do.

I am told that most of the time, in the Republican caucus, he listens to the will of the assembled senators. When he does not, they follow his lead, but it would be a mistake to think that the majority of our Senate Republicans are RINOs or liberals.

The primary concern I've been told this year, at least in re: our gun bills, is that public opinion/the press are of a greater concern. I would interpret that to mean that no one wants his name on the bill that the press will demonize when Something Bad(tm) happens.

I dropped a message to one of our State Representatives yesterday, in which I included this thought:
"I have to say it saddens me that in a pro-gun state like Indiana, with a pro-gun rights governor and walkout-proof supermajorities in both houses of the legislature, we cannot get good bills through for fear of what the #$%^%$^ neighbors might think."

If any of you are in Sen. Long's district and wish to express your displeasure with him, sooner is probably better than later, and finding a good candidate to replace him might wake him up a little.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JimmyR]

I never knew how many constitutional lawyers and experts we had on INGO!

[/sarcasm]

Anyways, I was no fan of the ACA, and still think it's gonna end up being a bigger mess that the problem it is trying to fix. That said, The proposed law states that the ACA goes beyond the powers of the Federal Government, which the Supreme Court has affimed as Constitutional. WE LOST the Constitutional battle, and until such time as it is reviewed and overturned or repealed, the ACA is the law of the land. Any state law suggesting that enforcing a law that has already passed Constitutional muster is an exercise in futility.

Internet assassins, commence!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

1) So apparently lots of folks here are in favor of passing a law that's unenforceable. A state law that makes it illegal to enforce a federal law. Arrest someone, they appeal to a federal court...then what? Then we can all sit around and complain about the waste of tax dollars, right?

2) I wonder how ardent the support would be for a state law that required citizens to do something against federal law? Essentially create an untenable situation where you are in violation of the law, and subject to arrest, regardless of what action you took.

We lost. This isn't how we fix it. Using our time and resources into getting it legally repealed at the federal level is how we fix it.

 

[CTS]

He's from Ft. Wayne. He doesn't count as a Republican.

So is Marlin Stutzman. Generalizing does no one any good, we only have a democrat mayor right now because our republican candidate managed to commit a felony during the election.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I never knew how many constitutional lawyers and experts we had on INGO!

[/sarcasm]

Anyways, I was no fan of the ACA, and still think it's gonna end up being a bigger mess that the problem it is trying to fix. That said, The proposed law states that the ACA goes beyond the powers of the Federal Government, which the Supreme Court has affimed as Constitutional. WE LOST the Constitutional battle, and until such time as it is reviewed and overturned or repealed, the ACA is the law of the land. Any state law suggesting that enforcing a law that has already passed Constitutional muster is an exercise in futility.

Internet assassins, commence!

Actually, it wasn't a blanket loss. The court ruled on the narrowly defined issue of the penalty being a tax and not a penalty. It was the most insane ruling I can recall hearing, but the court did not rule on the general constitutionality of the law or the Tenth Amendment implications. It is entirely possible that such a state law would create standing to challenge ACA on grounds other than the financial incentive/disincentive, and that it wold fare worse under such a challenge.

 

[Bill of Rights]

1) So apparently lots of folks here are in favor of passing a law that's unenforceable. A state law that makes it illegal to enforce a federal law. Arrest someone, they appeal to a federal court...then what? Then we can all sit around and complain about the waste of tax dollars, right?

2) I wonder how ardent the support would be for a state law that required citizens to do something against federal law? Essentially create an untenable situation where you are in violation of the law, and subject to arrest, regardless of what action you took.

We lost. This isn't how we fix it. Using our time and resources into getting it legally repealed at the federal level is how we fix it.

It is against Indiana state law to possess a "Chinese throwing star". It is not against federal law to do so. If a LEO were to possess a knife with blades set at different angles (legal definition of that item) he or she would be held accountable in state court, irrespective of federal law. Conversely, if someone has a foreign-import rifle with the wrong number of imported parts, that person has violated no Indiana law, but has violated federal law. He could seek no relief from state courts for his federal crime. The two are separate and one can violate law on one level without doing so on both. The 10A makes that point quite clear, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill