Bob Bird: Is it time for a constitutional convention?



Recently the mainstream media has become interested in the 2022 decennial vote, “Shall there be a constitutional convention?” Lately, the Radical Left (which always presents itself as “mainstream”), has become quite worried about the so-called “con-con.”

They have admitted as such with a loud and firm opposition to a “Yes” vote, as seen by a resolution within the state’s Democratic Party.

Personally, I hope their worries are well-founded. A constitutional convention, if it was controlled by an authentic representation of the people, would likely modify the current over-praised “model constitution” of the state’s 1955 convention towards a more conservative direction.

If the PFD is “constitutionalized”, as many think is the top priority for a constitutional convention call, it would certainly be welcome. But overlooked is the far more troubling aspect of the Judicial Council, for without it, we would continue with the false paradigm, currently believed because of constitutional ignorance, that “the constitution means whatever the supreme courts says.”

Had we ever been granted a true conservative governor who understood that the judiciary is intentionally designed to be the weakest of the so-called “three co-equal branches of government”, we never would have had half of the crises the courts have created.

This is because, even foregoing anything said about limited judicial powers in The Federalist Papers, our own state constitution says, “The jurisdiction of the courts shall be prescribed by law.” But it now practically means, “The jurisdiction of the legislature shall only be permitted when approved by the judiciary.”

We really shouldn’t need to write it into the constitution, but it wouldn’t hurt to have it proclaim what now appears on the Alaskan Independent Party’s website. Its own “model constitution” was written over a decade ago by conservative Republicans, AIP members, and non-affiliated sympathizers. Any Alaskan can find it at Not meant to be anything but a template to stimulate discussion, one section regarding the Judicial Branch reads thus: 

“[The judiciary] is to be the least influential of all branches of government … and is to adjudicate only between contending parties … Its decisions will be only as effective as the willingness of the Governor … to enforce any decision … The executive will reserve the right to review any and all decisions in regards to conformity to natural, constitutional, statutory and common law.

Any interpretation of this constitution, or the statutes written by the legislature, shall be merely their own, and applicatory only to the contending parties upon executive concurrence, and not to the legislature, executive or the people.

The executive shall also have the power of interpretation by refusal to enforce a law or judicial decision …”

There would also always be the ability by the legislature to curtail an unreasonable or tyrannical executive. The scenarios are endless and subject only to personal imagination in this regard. But the use of impeachment has for too long been a reluctant tool, reserved in Alaska for merely old-fashioned corruption, rather than constitution overreach. And while the Congress has been shown to use impeachment as a political weapon, in 1868, 2020, and 2021, we must accept that neither governments nor constitutions can possibly be perfect.

I omit 1998, for Clinton’s impeachment involved perjury, not politics.

The Legislature needs to work out beforehand an agreeable statute for the selection of con-con delegates. If they are to be chosen through the normal method of campaigning, the majority will be representative of liberal, corporate, and leftist interests. If chosen by the precinct method, whereby something akin to a “town hall meeting” takes place, a more authentic voice of the people would be possible.

As things stand right now, if we actually had an executive and legislature with correct constitutional awareness, and a spine to go with it, the only remedial work that would need to be done, would be to address federal overreach into our de-facto “rump” statehood.

To put it briefly, most federal properties are arguably unconstitutional. Released from the Lower 48 Green Lobby control over our resources, Alaska might begin to stabilize its economy from the “boom-and-bust” syndrome — and develop its own food security.

But the federal government has always done its best to avoid that. One need only look at our history to prove it.

Bob Bird is chair of the Alaskan Independence Party and the host of a talk show, the Bird’s Eye View on KSRM radio, Kenai.


  1. Be careful what you wish for. There is no guarantee that it would turn out the way you hope.
    I personally don’t agree with much of what you wrote. I think I am much more real “libertarian” than you. Nonetheless, I do appreciate anyone that fights for what they believe in.
    Question? As I understand we would need to have an election for delegates to the Convention. So whatever they come up with would need ratification from the voters in a simple majority vote(same as adopting our original constitution)? Or would the delegates need a 2/3 majority? I read somewhere that the rules of a convention have never been made. And another thought: Did we adopt our State constitution as a State or a Territory? Have we been doing it wrong all this time?

    • To answer your thoughtful questions: 1. No, the legislature might — MIGHT — prepare a method using the “precinct method”, a townhall-style meeting. Organize, organize, organize on the local level. The precincts would choose the delegates for the district convention, then the Districts to the State convention from there. All this was covered recently in Part 3 of another well-known news blog. 2. A simple majority of the convention would send it to 3. a Vote of the people. 4. Rules to a convention are the first order of business, likely with a Temporary Chair. 5. We adopted our state constitution using the “Tennessee method”, having it written before statehood to impress Congress we were ready for self-government … something we might still work for, which we have not truly been granted at all. Different topic.

  2. So, if I understand you correctly, the Judiciary should only give its opinions, and then it should be up to the popularly elected branches to decide if those opinions should be followed?
    As we can’t look to the future, only the past, I would be interested, then, in your interpretation of Worcester v. Georgia, and the ensuing removal of Cherokees from their lands in Georgia. As that played out with more or less the same rules as you would like to see in Alaska, are you OK with the results?

    • Kudos for knowing your history — at least some of it. Re-read the essay. What did I say about a tyrant executive? If the will of the people decides, through their legislature, that an executive acted unjustly, IMPEACH him. Jackson’s decision was morally wrong, but constitutionally correct. Are you in favor of — 65 million dead babies? Because that is what we got with Roe v. Wade and an unchecked, unelected judiciary. No constitution is perfect.

      • Ok, so you state that the legislature is supposed to be the ultimate check, and then the voters themselves, by extension. This, however, leaves no branch to defend the rights of the minority. The courts have often been the only branch to stand for minority rights. In your system, I see no mechanism for that. Worcester v. Georgia is an example of what will happen when you have a guard dog with no teeth.

  3. The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska is meant to be one of the co-equal branches of the state government. To delegate it to being, in effect, a civil court arbiter denies its equality. Bird apparently wants to relegate it to impotence, when its duty is to be the final interpreter of what the legislative and executive bodies have deemed proper legislation. It is the last bastion in the defence of freedom and the rule of law. To state otherwise is to advocate for the tyranny of the masses and their oligarch.

    • Should be, but it’s not. It’s an adjunct of the trial lawyers union. The bar picks the people who get to be on the court. There’s nothing about that process that is in any way democratic. It’s pay to play partisan and special interest corruption at its absolute worst and it really only ever tilts one way so it’s not surprising those who belong to the cult
      Of leftism want the rigged system

    • The problem with the state and federal Supreme Courts is that they’ve overstepped their constitutional authority by imposing their own interpretations onto the state and federal constitutions.
      When a judge or panel of judges is allowed to tell us what they think the constitution actually says or what the actual intent of those who wrote it was and then to force those opinions onto the rest of us they’ve gone far beyond their legitimate authority.
      Judges like to go back into the writings of the Founding Fathers to cherry-pick from those who reflect what they want. Then they pull out quotes from 200+ years ago, often out of context, to include in their written decisions but that’s the same as someone going back to, for example, contract negotiation notes to find discussions that might support their position but that did not get included in the final contract.
      And that’s what a constitution is…a social contract that got negotiated by a small group and then ratified by a much larger group.
      The ratifying group agreed with what was actually written, not with what was discussed during negotiations between the competing parties.
      We need to have a court system that enforces the plain English written words in our state and federal constitutions…we don’t need judges telling us what they think the authors of these documents ACTUALLY meant.
      We, as a people, agreed to what was written and that’s all any judge can legitimately enforce.
      Unfortunately most judges don’t accept that limitation and that’s the real problem.

    • The US Constitution as it is written in clear language is what we have as the final arbiter of government limits. Bouviers Dictionary was used by the founders. Interpretation is not needed. The US Constitution in its clear language is all we need. The Judiciary need only ensure court rules and motions practice are followed. Is that what is done in Alaska today? To the extent Alaska has wandered away from that is the extent exactly Alaska needs to realign with the guaranteed form of the friendly league republic form of government Alaska promised equal footing to the inhabitants across this continent and nation of fifty states.

    • Spoken like a true liberal. The current constitution ALREADY has the control of the legislature over the judiciary, and the executive, too. You might try reading Art. 4, Sec. 1 of the state constitution. The “co-equal” branches of gov’t is a liberal myth, concocted by collegiate profs writing civics textbooks. The weakness of the Judiciary was supposedly GUARANTEED in the Federalist papers — something I am sure you have never read. Yes, for the federal constitution, but cloned within our own.

    • The objections raised in this “Combox” are thoughtful and necessary. Even if they are wrong, they demonstrate the need to expose the fallacies of generations, accepted as Gospel. It proves the desperate constitutional ignorance that most people live under.

      You can look until you go blind to find what you stated: “[The judiciary’s] duty is to be the final interpreter of what the legislative and executive bodies have deemed proper legislation.” However, you CAN read in Art. 4, Sec. 1 where it says, “The jurisdiction of the courts shall be prescribed by law.”

      A law means — the legislature with a Governor’s signature.

      Reading words contrary to the actual meaning of them is a liberal art form. Every conservative in all 50 states knows this.

      Then, there’s the Federalist Papers: see #78. Liberals HATE it. It guarantees that the judiciary will be exactly as how I have described it, not “Homo Erectus”: Weak and inconsequential.

      But then again, our generation is so, so much more enlightened now, right? Oh, and the Constitution is a “living document”. Which means it means anything what the courts say it means. Which means it really is – DEAD.

      • The US Constitution is the laid down foundational law. Our rights are the law. Any stuff made up in conflict with the Constitution is void. The Constitution is the creation document – when a nation is “made”. We aren’t making a new nation. This republic has been declared and laid down for times of tyrants just like these.

  4. Sorry, Bob, even though I agree with much of what you say about the current state of our government, I am simply unwilling to let the current electorate of Alaska anywhere near the Alaska Constitution.

    • I have to agree with Art. Until one has to take a civics class before they are allowed to vote it would be too scary. And maybe pass some basic math classes :- )

      • It took about 200 years to hone “this Constitution of 1776. Those involved in writing it were international globalist lawyers who retained all their rights from the Asiz of Clarendon, the Magna Carta and Lee’s Declaration of Independence. The men were highly educated. They had about twenty years of study. They were beleaguered by the exact same players then as we deal with now. I doubt seriously the work product in Alaska of one sincere seminar is going to give Alaskans the joy and satisfaction of improvements spelled out for us in clear English language. We need a convention to add sheriff duty in Alaska to Constitutionally review the stuff made up in Juneau not the Judiciary. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING OUR RIGHTS. NEITHER CAN ANYONE ELSE ON THIS CONTINENT.

    • If you’re unwilling to let the people of the state have a direct say in how they are governed, what do you propose?

      Rule by fiat? We have that now. A corrupt few with no regard for the rest of us making successively bad decisions on how we ruled. It’s not working and gets worse every day.

      Yes, it’s a risk. Potentially a big one. But the state is committing social and economic suicide as we are now. If we don’t do something, quickly, Alaska is sunk.

      There is a reasonable possibility of good coming out of it. Force the capital to move. Settle the PFD once and for all. Put a hard cap on how long the legislature can meet and be paid. Term limits on legislators. Ban things like CRT (and Bill Walker😇).

      I agree the population has drifted left. But even left of center people see the disaster the current system is doing. Alaska is dying. Something drastic must be done.

      If the alleged conservatives, libertarians, and fellow travelers can’t get off their butts to steer this thing, then it doesn’t matter if it’s a failure. We already are. And they deserve what they get.

      By taking the position you seem to have staked out, what is the difference between you and Mayor Ethan? He was determined to keep people from having a voice in their futures, too. Ask Andy Kriner how that worked out.

      Status Quo is literally strangling this state. Inaction isn’t a choice anymore.

    • I agree 100%.
      If Alaskans got the chance to modify our state constitution we’d certainly take a huge step toward “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
      Each individual Alaskan can be counted on to act in his or her perceived best interests and when the majority of the population thinks that they’re owed a higher standard of living than they’ve earned, owed to them by the government (aka the rest of us), we can only expect that they’d formalize that in our constitution given the opportunity.

  5. Past. We are so broken it’s hard to imagine it gets worse.

    If it does, at least we did it to ourselves

    • Imagine Afghanistan, Somalia, Venezuela, Brazil, Iraq, Iran, Russia, China…yeah, it’s not so hard to imagine how it could get worse.

  6. Yeah right. A constitutional convention would be the absolute worst thing to happen to this state. We have a left wing populace which would put mask mandates, critical race theory, property confiscation, and who knows what else. HANDS OFF THE CONSTITUTION!

  7. Wow, I’m finding myself in mostly agreement with Chris Nyman and H Erectus?!! Art, I usually agree with you, and thank you for your contributions. Bob Bird, you can’t establish an imperial executive and imperial legislative and have “co-equal” – you MUST have checks and balances between the three – this was the genius of the founders. To have a “weakest” branch with the governor having the power to ignore the court does away with the idea of stare decisis – you would VERY quickly lose the rule of law for a substitute imperial governor and partisan tyranny would result. We do need to find a way to change the judicial selection process and an easier way to remove judges – the judicial council has too much power. We enjoy and are blessed by the rule of law, not rule by unaccountable lawyers. I fear any tampering to the Constitution, because it will result in partisan tyranny – though the PFD needs to be set in an Amendment. Con-con delegate selection: Bob, you’ve set up a false dichotomy – what is “normal”? Your straw-man. “Normal” v precinct selection? Isn’t precinct selection (voting) what we already have? Or do you just mean that the con-con has to be the largest committee ever assembled? I believe what you mean by “normal” means the AIP doesn’t win because you have so little following. Be aware that the larger the committee, the more inefficient the process and likely the worse the result. Your concept that you label “correct constitutional awareness” and politicians that have “no spine” simply reads that you disagree with them and they aren’t doing what you want – there is a far larger range of opinion among conservatives Bob – than that which you disagree with. You sir, are a frustrated tyrant. Joe Vogler you are not. Your failure to understand that a good conservative like Governor Mike is limited by political and Constitutional reality in what he can do – that he is not a tyrant – and that he does understand the Constitution and it does not give him dictatorial power is a big turn-off. Your labeling him “spineless”, because anything you disagree with gets labeled “spineless” or “woke” or worse, is exactly why I’m NOT AIP. “My way or the highway” doesn’t work in government – that is just tyranny. I’m Right, not fascist. Thanks for letting Bob make an idiot of himself in print Suzanne.

    • Mr. Thorne:

      I am sorry that you need to re-read your history. Here’s your quote: “You MUST have checks and balances between the three – this was the genius of the founders.” But, IF you read the Federalist Papers (#78), the so-called “genius of the Founders” would do exactly as I have laid it out – the judiciary is meant to be the weakest. They are not “co-equal” and they do not “check” each other. They are part of the SAME TEAM, i.e. the federal gov’t. The TRUE check was supposed to be the states v. feds. The tyrant Abe Lincoln destroyed that. But there was also a “good” Abe Lincoln before he became president, who opposed the tyranny of the supreme court in the 1857 Dred Scott case. Even in his 1st Inaugural, when he had yet to make war on the seceded states, he declared, in reference to Dred Scott, that the judiciary does not have the power to dictate limitations to the Congress. My, my. So! The executive did not need to enforce Dred Scott, but Buchanan was pro-slavery and he did. And a prolife executive would not have allowed Roe v. Wade to be enforced. If you want to see tyranny, visit a Planned Parenthood clinic dumpster. A “tyrant” has power, but I certainly don’t, so you even need to re-read the definition of that one. I also thank Suzanne because these exchanges need to douse cold water on the brains of good people who have been taught wrongly.

      • I don’t currently have time to track down Federalist 78 Bob – and while the Federalist papers are useful for understanding the minds of those writers and the thought processes behind the U.S. Constitution, they are not the document themselves, as SCOTUS has clearly and erroneously shown us through the “living document” idiocy. Wanna-have-power types like you are tyrants – that we must keep in check. I agree the States should be a check against federal power – but try succession and see if we’re allowed to get away with it! I would not call the judiciary “the weakest branch of government” – it has a different role as a check against the other two branches in that the judiciary is not supposed to write laws (Dred Scott and Roe being the most egregious violating examples, closely followed by the AKSC claiming the PFD is a State expenditure subject to appropriation by the legislature outside of the statutory formula). Unfortunately, the power of the people to impeach is extremely difficult to achieve, thus the imperial judiciary. We can do better, and must, but creating imperial executive and legislative branches at the expense of our current judiciary is not the answer.

        • Rick: You want to tell us what the Founders said, but don’t have time to read the proof that demonstrates that you don’t really know what they said?! So, you make up your own “history”. You said, “I would not call the judiciary the weakest branch of gov’t”. BUT OUR FOUNDERS DID. The ones you are too busy to read. Clearly, to debate further will require you to do your homework. Call the radio show if you like, 3-5 pm. Once you begin to make self-correction, you will prove a good ally. Also, please note that “succession” and “secession” are two different terms.

      • The pro-slavery activity in America at slavery’s peak comprised less than two percent of the slavery activities on earth the time. The British were the first to proscribe slavery in England. Today in Africa one black person sells another into domestic slavery for $200 I’ve heard. They may receive weeks of paid holiday, a high standard of living, a living wage, a pension and being declared a free person. The problem is lack of loyalty to each other’s rights in their country of origin. The elected servants here in the US actually laugh at us, we the people, as we demand and request our rights to private medical care and a republic that is reduced to expressed emoluments in the US Constitution. If it’s not written expressly in the US Constitution you were NOT granted the authority to act as a medical dictator. Since most doctors don’t study the Constitution it doesn’t cross their mind that health departments aren’t and can never be lawful government dictators.

  8. It’s sad and unfortunate that so many have never read our constitutions, it’s even worse when those who read them fail to understand them.

  9. I’m curious: the OP has been called everything but a child of God for offering up an alternative to a broken system most posters allegedly despise.

    An odd coalition of trolls, anti PFD fanatics, Dunleavy sycophants, and usually well meaning conservatives have gotten together to basically yell “ get off my lawn”. They offer no alternatives to the failed -not failing- status quo.

    It’s put up or shut up time. You don’t like the OPs position? Stake one out yourself and defend it.

    Alaska is dying and you are bitching about how the Titanic arranged the deck chairs.

  10. I certainly agree that the courts, the Alaska Supreme Court in particular of course, invent their own law from thin air. It’s a problem. One facet of the problem is that we have three kinds of attorneys in Alaska; (1) those highly motivated to make lots of money, and that cohort encompasses all the attorneys who are Republican, (2) those highly motivated to continually bring more and more socialism to Alaska, and those tend to be government attorneys and legislators (I think that all the attorneys serving as legislators right now are Democrats, and that is typical,), (3) and the lazy ones, and those tend to work for government. So where do we find our candidates for the judicial branch? – from #2 and #3 of course. And unlike any other professions in Alaska attorneys, including judges, regulate themselves. Many ways to improve this come to mind, and if we have a constitutional convention we should adopt some of them.

  11. Question: Bob Bird: Is it time for a constitutional convention?

    Answer: Yes.

    Qualifier: Do we want to lose it all by drips and drabs like we have been or go for it? Cheers –

  12. A dividend enshrined in the Constitution or Universal Basic Income. They have different names for it, but at the extreme ends of their spectrums, the far-right AIP and far-left intersect Communists. That’s when you know it is the worst policy imaginable.

  13. When the product of such a convention would be subject to a vote using our current corrupt and thoroughly broken election system?! Yea, I’d rather the future of Alaska not be decided by an early morning dump of mail-in ballots.

  14. There is one fundamental problem with the separation of powers and we don’t need to take the risk of tearing the whole Constitution to shreds to solve it. In fifty years in Alaska, many of them in and around government, I’ve met a mere handful of conservative lawyers, and they’ve become less and less common and much older.

    To practice law in Alaska, you must graduate from law school and with few exceptions you come out at best a liberal and likely far to the left of liberal. You must pass an exam created by the Bar, and you must join and pay dues to the Bar Association, the only legal true closed union shop in Alaska or the Country generally.

    The Founders rejected elected or purely gubernatorially appointed judges and established the Judicial Council, half of which is public members and half of which is members of the Bar. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, him/herself a member of the Bar is the tie-breaking member. Consequently, the Bar will always dominate the selection of candidates for judgeships. No conservative/Republican Governor and Legislature will ever see a conservative/Republican nominee put forward by the Judicial Council for consideration for the Bench. The only thing the public members of the Council and conservative Governors and Legislators can do is rail impotently about having to choose the less bad candidate.

    For anyone flirting with electing judges, let me remind you how singularly unsuccessful the retention elections have been; once a judge is on the Bench, not even scandal is reliable for getting him/her removed. I can recall only a couple and one was for scandal and the other was something of a leftist lynching of a judge who had been an apostate.

    The composition and powers of the Judicial Council can be changed by Constitutional Amendment, no easy thing but less fraught with peril than a Constitutional Convention. The Bar should not have the sole right to determine what the law means, and giving it the power to determine who becomes a judge gives them just that. The amendment should remove one member of the Bar from the Council and add a public member giving the People a majority. The Council can then choose one of its members as the presiding officer. An alternative perhaps is to have the Attorney General be one of the Bar Association members of the Council, but in my experience few conservative/Republican Governors have been well-served by their Attorney General, so there’s that.

    In any event, with current political dynamics, putting forth an Amendment through the Legislature is likely impossible, but using the initiative process has at least as good a chance, and I think better, than setting a Constitutional Convention, and passing the Amendment would solve Alaska’s most pressing problem.

  15. When someone starts talking about the far right and the far left jointly converging on Communism, I wonder what the definition of Communism is. Art Chance should know, but often his comments relegate Communism to pejorative status, merely using it to call names rather than define an ideology. Basing the establishment of a new state constitution on poorly understood ideologies is not a good way to go, and to his credit, Art understands this even though he still uses the term Communism as an epithet.
    The problem with a constitutional convention is that everything is on the table. We could end up with a radically, and I do mean radically, different constitution from the current one, which is broadly based on the US Constitution. We would be wise to approach this Pandora’s box with a generous helping of skepticism.

    • Communism is widely understood to be a system of government derived from the teachings of Marx (The Communist Manifesto) and Lenin. It is far more than a simple pejorative. The term “socialism” is merely a word to make communism more palatable, but socialism always requires a strong-man leader to make it “work” which always results in economic disaster – socialism in whatever form is not capable of “working”, thus the use ofr either term as a pejorative.

        • Socialists (democrats) are slow learning communists who have not reached the point of lining up non-conformers and shooting them. But they’re working on it.

          • OK, all, simple definitions. A socialist society is one in which things are run by the government. A communist society is one in which things are run by “the people.” The US is neither. It is a capitalistic country which is run by the rich, basically for their own profit.
            We could change that.

  16. It is genuinely scary the amount of alleged conservatives who demand the government “by, of, and for” the people be kept from them.

    But it does illustrate why the Alaska GOP is useless. They want the same draconian controls the left does.

    When alleged conservatives demand power not be given to the people and kept in the hands of the elite few, Alaska and the Republic truly is getting the Oligarchy they deserve

    • This Republican strongly disagrees with your mischaracterization of Republicans – we want to minimize government controls over the people and maximize freedom. So why have any controls? Because people mess up. Don’t like rules? Don’t mess up, and persuade as many of your friends as possible not to mess up. If your comment is in respect to a Con-con, I maintain that a Con-con is a con – I agree with Art Chance that there is so little knowledge of our Constitution and constitutional government that a Con-con would result in loss of freedom, not gain. We do have some very real problems – that can all be solved with Amendments without having to rework the whole thing.

  17. Why fix and band-aid a foreign banker owned 1871 contracted corporation? This foreign corporation was hired to provide 19 essential governmental services to the people until the people return to self governing! Donald Trump told the American people we will have a new government controlled by the people. We THE People settled Alaska on November 5th 2020 and remain unrebutted! We have elected our officers and representatives. Alaska a Free and Independent Nation=State and Michigan a Free and Independent Nation=State have come together to form the de jure union of States and have held elections together for certain national level interim de jure seats.

  18. We need a Convention of States! Not a Constitutional Convention! The U.S. Corporation has had 42 Constitutional Conventions. The organic States have yet to hold a Convention of States.

  19. An Art. V convention would be like inviting Stalin for tea to discuss what will happen to capitalists (you’re a capitalist) and agreeing to his terms.

    A convention scares the day lights out of me.

  20. Do you mean “Alaska, a free and independent country”? The nation is the permanent league of friendly countries/states (which was offered to Canada as well) having adopted the nation’s US Constitution guaranteeing a republic representative form of government with complete fidelity to all the rights expressed as clearly expressed in English to the free men of the nation with equal footing no matter where we travel in sickness and health all the days of our lives for all our natural life? Yeah, that’s what I mean too. WE THE PEOPLE Need new representatives who will do as WE instruct.

Comments are closed.