« Ind. Law - Editorials today on SB 590 and HB 1255 | Main | Ind. Courts - Wrap-up of: Another "traffic court judges behaving badly" story »

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Ind. Law - Proposed constitutional amendment may be no laughing matter

Updating this ILB entry from Feb. 7th re Sen. Steele's SJR 9 which would add chickens to our Indiana bill of rights, Eric Bradner of the Evansville Courier & Press writes today in a column headed "Indiana Senate cries fowl, passes obscure legislation:"

The Senate was in the middle of deliberating a constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford.

Apparently, Steele's heart was set on adding to Indiana's constitution specific protections of Hoosiers' rights to hunt, fish and farm.

Literally, all the amendment says is that "the people have a right to hunt, fish, harvest game or raise farm animals to be used for food, which is a valued part of our heritage and shall forever be preserved for the public good." * * *

Steele's constitutional amendment passed, 44-5. Seriously.

First, though, Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, appropriately poked fun at it by trying to amend it to include gardening.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, invited media into his office Friday to discuss the Legislature's progress so far. He was diplomatic when asked if the hunting-and-fishing amendment would get a hearing now that it has crossed the hall.

"Well, I hunt and fish, and I don't know that anyone has ever questioned my constitutional right to do so. I have to say it's not our highest priority at the moment," he said.

But when another reporter said the amendment would also protect Hoosiers' rights to raise poultry, Bosma took the bait.

"Does it really say that? Oh, come on. Oh, come on. Really?" he said with a laugh. "There's only so much time. My family wants to make sure our constitutional right to milk cows continues."

ILB opinion: As currently worded, the amendment would add a new section to the Bill of Rights stating:
The people have a right to hunt, fish, harvest game, or engage in the agricultural or commercial production of meat, fish, or poultry, which is a valued part of our heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good, subject to laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly.
First, look at the "subject to" clause, which may or may not be part of the amendment as finally adopted, if it gets that far. Surely it is not intended to render meaningless the language it follows, so what does it mean?

Second, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Indiana's Right to Farm Act in the Jan. 12, 2009 decision of Donald J. Lindsey and Jacquelyn Lindsey v. Johannes DeGroot, et al. Our Supreme Court has not addressed the question ... See this ILB entry from June 6, 2009.

The constitutional amendment, if effected, would also raise numerous other questions concerning, for example, zoning, as well as issues concerning confined feeding and confined hunting.

This proposal has already passed one house.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 13, 2011 03:10 PM
Posted to Indiana Law