Yesterday I took issue with something in an item by Thomas Nolan, a Purdue student writing in the Purdue Exponent, appeared to imply about SJR-7 being unconstitutional. Fellow contributor Alex Blaze posted a comment saying he didn't think that was what Nolan was saying. Upon re-reading the article, I now think I jumped the gun a bit. Nolan did make a distinction between laws and constitutional amendments. As I said in my post, I agree wholeheartedly with him that SJR-7 ought not to be in the Indiana Constitution because it is repugnant to its basic principles. I certainly don't want to be throwing cold water on anyone, especially an enthusiastic member of our college generation, for expressing his worthwile opinion. Go get 'em, Thomas!
Alex commented that he didn't know of anyone who thought SJR-7 would be unconstitutional; my experience has been different. But the point we both agree on is that the more people read and understand the issues surrounding SJR-7, the greater the chances that it will be thrown into the trash heap of Indiana history where it rightfully belongs.
Now where did I put my Lenscrafters' coupon?