By BOB BIRD
The Judiciary to the People: “Obey OUR Rules, Even Though We Don’t Obey Yours.”
This is the attitude of the Alaskan judiciary, and unfortunately they are unchecked in their power grabbing.
Just WHO is sovereign in this state? Judges? Elected officials? Governors? Well, let’s take a look at the state constitution, the one many of us personally think needs remedying and clarifying. Nevertheless, we can sign onto this one:
Article 1, Sec. 2 is pretty clear: “All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole.”
So, now that the repeal of ranked-choice voting has been rejected, by an infinitesimal margin, bought and paid for by professional liars in the Lower 48 and even outside of the U.S., through an interminably drawn-out and suspicious process, an outcome that was eroded in silent, non-transparent counting, we are to meekly accept it, shut up and live with it?
But we got ranked-choice voting in the first place, in 2020, by blatant, partisan cheating, abetted and concocted by the immensely corrupt judiciary. They want nothing to do with the state constitution. Too many times to count, it has been explained to readers the many nefarious ways the courts have overthrown the legislative and executive branches’ tools that were meant to check them.
The people’s elected representatives passed a law that reflected the same clear-cut mandate imposed upon the legislature in Article 2, Sec. 13, which states, “Every bill shall be confined to one subject unless it is an appropriation bill or one codifying, revising, or rearranging existing laws.”
So, how did ranked-choice voting pass muster in 2020, with its proposed three-subjects? It didn’t. The Attorney General Kevin Clarkson immediately rejected it on precisely these grounds. A law is a law is a law.
Ah, but the Alaska judiciary, that bastion of leftism personified, intervened. What else would you expect? Especially because the Republicans play the game, not found anywhere in either the state or federal constitution, that says, “The constitution means whatever the courts say it means.” This flies in the face of Article 4, Sec. 1, which says, “The jurisdiction of the courts shall be prescribed by law.”
There is a hierarchy of law, which everyone is aware of, and the lowest rung is meant to be judicial case law. However, law school classes that teach “constitutional law” are in fact merely explaining how case law opinion (5th on the rung) can trump common law (4th), statutory law (3rd), constitutional law (2nd) and natural law (1st).
Here’s why natural law is supreme: It is recognized as such in the first breath of the Declaration of Independence, under the phrase, “… the laws of Nature and Nature’s God…”
Thus, although there was no legal mechanism for colonies to unilaterally secede from the British Empire, the case, common and statutory laws of that empire were being violated, and the Patriots knew it, “… by a long train of abuses and usurpations [designed] to reduce them under absolute despotism.”
They had natural law behind them, and they directly invoked God to sustain them with the phrase, “ … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions …” and also the phrase “ … with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence …”
Natural Law is immutable, perfect and can never be violated, yet the same colonists violated it with the recognition of slavery. Thus, constitutional law (2nd on the rung of the Hierarchy of Law), being man-made and therefore subject to error, propped up the institution for several generations. It was a square peg in a round hole, and in the end, natural law won out.
Let’s see if RCV and the other two topics that ran with it violated natural law.
Deciding how people are to vote is legitimate, and also to mandate disclosure of where political money is coming from.
No, those provisions did not violate natural law.
Did they violate #2, constitutional law? Arguably, yes. The direct proviso limiting all legislative bills to a single topic would only naturally, and certainly with greater justification, be applied to citizen initiatives, which are too complex for an ordinary citizen to digest, even when a single topic. But three?
We know many people voted for it because they wanted to control the flow of “dark money” and overlooked the rest. And although the constitution is silent about multiple topics regarding initiatives, it is not an absurd stretch to maintain otherwise.
And it certainly does not prohibit the legislature from controlling the initiative process with the same restrictions full-time legislators are bound to obey.
Did they violate #3, statutory law? Obviously, yes, and the Attorney General, the first back-stop to this violation, rejected it immediately.
But the forces of evil (yes, that’s what they are), well-heeled with limitless money from the Lower 48 and beyond, knew that they could get the judiciary to rule that the statute, requiring a single topic, violated the constitution.
And, judging by the numerous ways the judiciary had already overthrown the constitution over the abortion issue, they knew that they could get away with it, due to constitutional ignorance or sheer timidity in the face of the Democrat-controlled mainstream media.
But, they also gambled that Republican governors would never dare to exercise their prerogative, found in Article 3, Sec. 16: “[The governor] may … by proceeding brought in the name of the State, … restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right by any officer, department, or agency of the State or any of its political subdivisions. This authority shall not be construed to authorize any action or proceeding against the legislature.”
The last sentence above clearly demonstrates that the executive is superior to the judiciary and the legislative is superior to the executive. It means that we do not have “three co-equal branches of government.” It is nonsense. If you have ever mouthed those words, spit them out and forever deny them.
This power of the governor exists for a reason. The judiciary itself, and its gobbledy-gook case law, are at the bottom-rung of constitutional power and authority. It is daring to call itself above the executive and legislative branches. It claims the constitution is owned by them, not the people, to whom all three branches are subservient.
And they have only recently overthrown grand jury rights, along with the power to amend the constitution that belongs to the people and the legislature in the 1997 Valley Hospital case.
Its bluff has never been called.
We cannot abide by the illegality of RCV and multi-topic initiatives. It will go on so someday we will soon have five, ten or more topics! And we cannot go on with an out-of-control judiciary. Trying to change the Judicial Council would be irrelevant if we properly understood that ALL judicial opinion is merely advice, with the final say belonging to the executive.
And that is also in the Federalist #78!
Citizens: Call on Gov. Dunleavy to cancel ranked-choice voting now by invoking Art. 3, Sec. 16, because it violates both constitutional and statutory law.
Then leave the impeachment of those black-robed clowns to the legislature.
Bob Bird is former chair of the Alaskan Independence Party and the host of a talk show on KSRM radio, Kenai.
Judges should never be in a lifetime position. They need to have a set time limit.
Definitely so. You took the words right out of my mouth. Have a ballot measure to change judges terms and limit them !
Face it. We’re a corrupt state.
Well said!
While I do not have a full comprehension of Mr. Bird’s presentation, the contents goal seems to be substantiate given the quotes and references.
Of course, I agree with the intent fully suspecting that the desire to have public outcry or specific action taken by the Governor to overturn the outcome of RCV ballot issue will not develop. With this then, is the solution in rebuttal is to bullet vote on future ballots that contain the RCV format? This seems an alternate. Is it too simplistic to consider?
I am in whole hearted agreement, the judiciary has become a political tool of the socialists to hammer on the individual to keep us in line. It is well past time that these self important elitists are reigned in.
Isn’t there a provision for demanding a recount when the tally’s are so close?
We need to be able to physically inspect those ballots. What do their markings look like? Machine-made or man-made? We need to be able to verify if all of those absentee ballots that came in AFTER ELECTION DAY are actual registered, legal voters and that they did not double-vote. Once again, the ballot measure lost by a small percentage due to absentee ballots…WHY?
I believe Mr. Bird has said it all and as a citizen of the State of Alaska I call on the Governor to strike RCV from the Elections process. I also dare the Judicial Branch to try and circumvent the process and they may very well feel the wrath of an electorate that is done with their meddling in the affairs of the state.
Still not understanding the unconstitutionality of the bill in 2024. Seems to be focused on 2020 with no real meat of an argument after a 2024 vote.
The 2024 vote is entirely MOOT because we ought to have never voted on the repeal of an illegal initiative in the first place. If laws mean nothing, if a constitution means nothing, why even have a government? Because the oligarchy (insiders) decide that SOME laws will be followed (the ones they like) and others (that they don’t like) will not.
Why was RCV not repealed? Because the question on the ballot was convoluted (on purpose?) And I would venture that many thought they were voting to repeal, when the exact opposite ended up being voted for.
My guess. As good as anyone’s!?!?
A recount would be the same…you can count the money in the cash drawer again, but it you don’t know what bills are fake (which voters are fake), the count will always be the same.
All voters of Proposition 1 and 2, need to be validated as having a legal residence in Alaska. Not Dead, not moved out of state and some pretend person.
I agree!
RCV seemed complicated at first but it’s actually very simple. One party has two candidates while the other has one. The two candidates of the same brand split votes while the single won receives all and wins. in the case of Begich, Republicans were smarter this time and fielded one candidate.
Our Alaska elections have been fake for decades.
We are approaching the 2 year anniversary of the release by our Grand Jury, their report written up from their information provided them on systemic Judicial Corruption.
Judge Matthews is still holding and hiding this report from the citizens. Speak up and DEMAND he release this valuable report!
Excellently presented. Sadly I believe many Alaskan’s just don’t get it… Until its in their back yard. So to speakl
We can use Rank Choice Voting against Lisa Murkowski by everyone or at least most voting for someone else but Lisa.
Thank you Bob – this is the best article you have written on MRAK. The first ballot measure to give us RCV was taken to court for being 3 topics, but kendall & friends took it directly to the AKSC and the the “supremes” ruled it one topic – since they were “related”. Your points are accurate and well presented, but will never prevail without a revolution. No Governor will overrule the court because there is no mechanism for appointing judges apart from the arrangement the lefty lawyers have made to preserve their power. We have rule by/of/for lawyers, not rule of law.
Bob almost sounds educated and sophisticated…until he falls into the routine silliness of right winger…”Democrat controlled media” (channeling Sarah P are we?) and starts to call on “God” and “natural law”. Just what is natural and God given law, other than whatever we want it to be at any given time. Give it a rest Bob, and accept the outcome of the vote, regardless of how close it is.
With the recount being setup now, it will only be meaningful if all the ballots are scrutinized and double-checked against the actual registered-voter rolls. Those that are found to be suspicious, falsified, or tampered with, they should be thrown out, and only then will the recount be worth it. Anything less, will be just another waste of time and money.
Comments are closed.