Constitutional Convention

Update From Tea Party of Hancock County:

Senate Bills 224 and 225 have been scheduled for a hearing on Monday morning in the Indiana House of Representatives.  Calls and emails are need to members of the committee immediately.  Contact information at the bottom.

No matter how much some desire to control delegates and an Article V convention, experts say it cannot be done outside of the convention itself.  If these bills are not killed many will have a false sense of security regarding con-cons and likely steam roll ahead to gut the U.S. Constitution.

Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. Following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Constitutional Convention.  Legal “experts” have asserted that it would be highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn findings from several separate and concurring State Supreme Courts.  The foot-note numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made.

These citations, along with the letter from Chief Justice Warren Burger clearly and concisely tell us that if a Constitutional Convention were to be opened, for whatever “alleged” purpose, there would be no controlling the outcome - - even if Indiana’s SB 224 and  SB 225 are passed.


From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9

The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1)

and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2)

They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3)

and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4)

and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)


(1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472

(2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738

(3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v. Jackson; 6 W. Va. 613

(4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry; 91 p. 193

(5) Texas (1912) Cox v. Robison; 150 S.W. 1149


Folks, are you really ready to take this gamble?  Even if the convention is limited, why would the federal government start following new laws when they don’t follow the current law?  Why are some so determined to open up our U.S. Constitution for change?
Vote NO to SB 224 and SB 225.

Agenda for : Judiciary April 8, 10:30 AM, Room 156-D


Chairman : Steuerwald

Vice-Chair : Washburne

Members : Koch, Leonard, Mayfield, McMillin, McNamara, Pond, Torr.

Bauer R.M.M., DeLaney, Dvorak, V. Smith.


Email the Representatives from their government page from here:

Or directly from info below.

Judiciary Committee Members Contact information:


Bauer   D               (S) 317- 232-9991    (H)  574-234-4318


DeLaney D           (S) 317-232-9798


Dvorak  D            (S)  317-234-9218     (H)  574-271-8006


Koch     R             (S) 317-232-9603


Leonard  R          (S) 317-232-9793    (H)  260-356-5122



Mayfield  R         (S) 317-234-9499    (H)  765-342-3326


McMillin  R        (S) 317- 232-9769


McNamara  R   (S)  317-232-9671


Pond    R           (S)  317-232-9816    (H) 260-749-1444


Smith  D           (S)  317-232-9976    (H) 219-887-2046


Steuerwald  R Chairman  (S) 317-232-9674


Torr    R         (S)  317-232-9677     (H)  317-846-7099


Washburne   R  (S) 317-243-2993


<<Dec 2017>>
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31