How to Intrepret Indiana' s Constitution, 6-18-2010

 [I have skipped over an entry I titled "Indiana Democrats, Gay Marriage, Repealing the Declaration of Independence." The United States Supreme Court has put paid to that one. The argument was that Section One of Indiana's Bill of Rights statement that we were created with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness created an enforceable right against the state government; that marriage was open to all Indiana citizens as a liberty and for their pursuit of happiness. That marriage might be the opposite of liberty and might not be happy were irrelevant. I think Article I, Section One does create a possible action against Indiana's government. I, also, think it may be applicable in the attack on Indiana's abortion law. That you need be subjected to this note of mine feels unnecessary. sch 11/13/22.]

This should end my run on state constitutional law. Maybe these will justify my still being alive. I have written all these pieces on state constitutional law without the benefit of notes or other documents. BOP regulations deny me access to my research, and 12 years is too long for silence. Take my ideas and do what you will with them.

[Still turned out to be 12 years, and the State of Indiana has - mostly - done well without me shooting off my mouth! sch 11/13/22.]

 Simply put, each state constitution should be interpreted as a whole. They must be viewed as contracts. Interpretation must promote the goals of the constitution.

I propose Article I, Section 1 of Indiana's Constitution as setting forth both substantive law and the stated goals for the constitution. Give State v. Beebe from the Indiana Supreme Court a read (especially, if memory serves, Justice Stuart's opinion). When confronted with a constitutional challenge to a state law, the law affects the citizen's equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Looking up case law today, I found Beebe cited in Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 (2005) (Indiana Supreme does not find abortion protection in Section 1, but read the dissent at page 998.) and Solomon v. State, 119 N.E.3d 173 (2019) (Indiana Court of Appeals strikes down argument for marijuana possession.) sch 11/13//.]

I also propose viewing Indiana's Bill of Rights as a whole, and not as mere collection of aggregate rights. Viewing this section as establishing the area into which government cannot intrude, as well as specific protections, gives a different perspective on how this Bill of Rights is to operate. By placing the rights retained by the people in the constitution's first article, the Article I establishes the people's relationship of government to people.

Regarding this different perspective, take the provision requiring the penal law to be reformative rather than punitive. This creates a positive duty on the part of the legislature. [This also helps effect the obligation for the legislation to act in a way that protects a citizen's liberty and pursuit of happiness.sch 11/813/22.] (I also think this provision provides a legal as well as a political remedy.)

If I had more time, I wanted to take the provisions of Article I, and make a coherent sketch of the society created by Indiana's Bill of Rights. I think of constitutions as blueprints, and what I thought of doing was crating a mock-up out of the blueprint design.

Another thought of mine: being educated in the federal constitution blinds us to how different are the purposes of state constitutions.

Finally, Indiana's Supreme Court needs to change how it deals with constitutional challenges to Indiana law. Change from placing the whole burden on the citizen to having the citizen present a prima facie case and then place on the government the burden of justifying the law. Yes, this is a borrowing from federal law, the McDonnell-Douglas test.

sch