Challenging the courts is long overdue - Must Read Alaska
Connect with:
Monday, September 23, 2019
HomeColumnsChallenging the courts is long overdue

Challenging the courts is long overdue

By STEPHAN KRASON
CRISIS MAGAZINE

Governor Michael Dunleavy of Alaska made national headlines with his novel challenge to a decision by state’s supreme court, which requires the Alaskan state government to fund abortions. Dunleavy vetoed a portion of the state’s appropriation for its judicial branch: a portion equal to the amount the court requires the government to provide for abortions each year. The ACLU has stormed into court with a suit against Dunleavy, claiming that his action threatens judicial independence. To quote their spokesman, the governor “cannot impermissibly interfere with the functions of another co-equal branch.”

Now, whether the ACLU can sue to defend the institutional prerogatives of a branch of state government is dubious. But the prerogative belongs with Dunleavy in the first place. The appropriation of public funds is squarely in the realm of the political branches of government, and the state’s constitution gives its governor line-item veto power. Needless to say, there are no exemptions on allocations for the judiciary. In this country, the power of appropriation has never resided in the courts.

Our great government institutional problem today isn’t the lack of judicial independence. Just the opposite, in fact: it’s the upsetting of the proper roles of the three branches, a result of the unchallenged persistent overreaching of judicial power.

The federal courts frequently act to alter or even subvert the meaning of the Constitution and its provisions, often for reasons of ideology. We have even allowed federal district courts to reach well beyond their territorial jurisdiction and issue nationwide injunctions.

[Read this op-ed at Crisis Magazine, a Catholic publication]

Donations Welcome

Share

Latest comments

  • The Alaska Statutes say that the Governor must give a Signed Letter of Commission to every Judge to make him a Lawful Judge BUT when asked about the Signed Letter of Commission T.P.T.B. say “We don’t do that anymore”. Very Interesting because the Alaska Statutes still say this is LAW. Without this Signed Letter of Commission there isn’t a SINGLE LAWFUL JUDGE IN ALASKA!!!!! Just read what the Alaska Statutes say!!!!! The Alaska Bar Association APPOINTS all the Judges instead. The Alaska Bar Association is NOT a part of the Alaska Government, so what gives them any right like this????? Seymour Marvin Mills Jr. sui juris

    • Seymour Marvin mills. Thank you. I did not know many of your points of fact but I have always thought that our method of using the ak bar association to appoint our judges is the main reason we don’t seem to have a neutral bench in ak.
      The left liberal bias has been evident in many decisions in ak and that (I believe) is being used as a tool by the democrat party as they simply file a lawsuit whenever they don’t have enough votes to get a bill through.
      It’s painful to watch sometimes.
      Thank you.

    • So if no judges are actually lawful judges, then when the court let Gov Walker take half the PFD, that should have been illegal, right?

    • Med check overdue.

  • So which court will be hearing this? State or Fed?

  • Most law schools if not all of them lean heavily to the left so it’s not surprised at the bar association is left heavy as well.

  • Many people believe the War of 1812 was caused by the proposal of the ORGINAL 13th Amendment in 1811 or 1812 ? that WAS LAWFULLY RATIFIED because a friend of mine has the Law Books from 3 or 4 different States where it was published at that time. That ORIGINAL 13th Amendment proposed that ANYONE holding a “Title of Nobility” could NOT hold an Office of Trust or Profit in our government. One “Title of Nobility” is “Esquire” and is above a “Gentleman” and below a “Knight” in English Law. Most Attorneys advertised in the phone book as “Esquire” just a few years ago. The ORIGINAL 13th Amendment was RATIFIED in 1813 and Kentucky or Tennessee ? ran all the Attorneys out of their State for 21 years. An Attorney is ONLY to REPERSENT someone who is mentally incompetent OR a LEGAL FICTION such as a Corporation. Article VI of the “Constitution of the United States” says “the accused” is to have the “ASSISTANCE of COUNCIL”. ASSISTANCE!!!!! If you are REPRESENTED by an Attorney, you are REQUIRED to sign a “POWER OF ATTORNEY”. Once you do that T.P.T.B. have ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER YOU. We use to have both, but the COUNCIL disappeared years ago. The COUNCIL charges just a fraction of what an Attorney will. We need our COUNCL back. I VERY MUCH HOPE that these letters get republished because of how important this information is to WE THE PEOPLE. Seymour Marvin Mills Jr. sui juris.

  • Sorry. “Assistance of Council” is Article VI of the Bill of Rights. Seymour Marvin Mills Jr. sui juris

  • The ACLU is pissed because they got played.

    I say… “Well played Governor Dunleavy, well played.”

    Thank you, Governor. Keep up the good work; we need more of this.

  • Time they were all removed by the written law that is still on the books they are unlawful and must be removed!!!

%d bloggers like this: