Since yesterday's post was pretty long, I offer the following summary of it:
I ascertained the identity of the city that the population range (which until recently appeared at IC 7.1-3-1-25(a)(7)) which I had discussed in an earlier post had been designed to identify (but to do so without identifying the city by name). The city that this population range of 4,950 to 5,000 people had been meant to identify is Whiting, Indiana.
However, this no longer really matters, because the current Indiana General Assembly (during its session earlier this year) enacted legislation (see pages 13 through 16) which has purged IC 7.1-3-1-25 of the absurdities and the unconstitutionality (as that code section had repeatedly defied the limits imposed by the Indiana Constitution's Article 4, Sections 22 and 23 on the General Assembly's power to pass special and local laws) that I had previously written about and criticized.
I do not know what prompted the General Assembly to do this; I am not aware that anyone had pressured it to do so, and I cannot imagine how cleaning up this Indiana Code section could have been expected to work to anyone's political advantage. Until I learn more about what led the legislature to make this revision, I am taking advantage of this opportunity to (tentatively, and while the opportunity lasts) believe that the legislator or legislators most responsible for it just wanted there to be a little less absurdity, impropriety, and clever* unconstitutionality in the Indiana Code.
* It was probably supposed to have been clever, but I am not impressed. If those who introduced the abuse of population ranges had been clever enough to conceal that it was just an attempt to get away with violating the Indiana Constitution, they would not have left it all so obvious.
I ascertained the identity of the city that the population range (which until recently appeared at IC 7.1-3-1-25(a)(7)) which I had discussed in an earlier post had been designed to identify (but to do so without identifying the city by name). The city that this population range of 4,950 to 5,000 people had been meant to identify is Whiting, Indiana.
However, this no longer really matters, because the current Indiana General Assembly (during its session earlier this year) enacted legislation (see pages 13 through 16) which has purged IC 7.1-3-1-25 of the absurdities and the unconstitutionality (as that code section had repeatedly defied the limits imposed by the Indiana Constitution's Article 4, Sections 22 and 23 on the General Assembly's power to pass special and local laws) that I had previously written about and criticized.
I do not know what prompted the General Assembly to do this; I am not aware that anyone had pressured it to do so, and I cannot imagine how cleaning up this Indiana Code section could have been expected to work to anyone's political advantage. Until I learn more about what led the legislature to make this revision, I am taking advantage of this opportunity to (tentatively, and while the opportunity lasts) believe that the legislator or legislators most responsible for it just wanted there to be a little less absurdity, impropriety, and clever* unconstitutionality in the Indiana Code.
* It was probably supposed to have been clever, but I am not impressed. If those who introduced the abuse of population ranges had been clever enough to conceal that it was just an attempt to get away with violating the Indiana Constitution, they would not have left it all so obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment