By Michael Tavoliero
The Alaska Constitution does not pledge loyalty to the State, its bureaucracy, or its capital; it pledges loyalty to the people. Article I begins not with government authority, but with a declaration of inherent and God-given rights retained by the citizen, meaning the State exists only as their servant and fiduciary.
In Alaska today, that shift is seen in the way public institutions increasingly treat the Permanent Fund Dividend as government property rather than the people’s right. The constitutional duty runs from the State to citizen, not the other way around. Where government inverts this order, the law itself must be invoked to restore it.
John Cowell’s Monarchical Sovereignty
Every great constitutional principle has a moment of birth. England’s history is one of the dominate sources in American jurisprudence. There was a time when someone dared to claim what power most wanted to deny.
The phrase “no one is above the law” is one of those moments. It was born not in a courtroom or a modern democracy, but in the heat of an English quarrel four centuries ago, between John Cowell and Sir Edward Coke.
John Cowell was the eighth Regius Professor of Civil Law, directly appointed in 1594 by the Crown. In 1598, he became the master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. This Mastership besides being the head of the college also signaled leadership of one of England’s chief centers for civil and canon law learning in the Elizabethan era. Moreover, he was a loyal servant of King James I.
England between 1600 and 1610 moved from hopeful stability under the new reign of James I to growing tension, as James’ claims of divine-right authority clashed with Parliament’s defense of common-law liberty.
In 1607, John Cowell published “The Interpreter”, the first major English law dictionary, written to explain legal terms, offices, and constitutional concepts to lawyers, judges, and educated readers. Besides Cowell’s entries on “Parliament,” “Prerogative,” “Recoveries,” and “Subsidies,” which were read as endorsing absolute monarchy over common-law limits and parliamentary authority, the word “King” produced a most remarkable upheaval.
Cowell wrote that the King “is above the law by his absolute power.” The law, he said, was “his creature.” The people had no right to limit him. Parliament itself was but his instrument.
It was the distilled essence of monarchy: law exists because the sovereign wills it. Cowell’s logic was pure absolutism. The ruler stands above the rules.
Sir Edward Coke’s Defense of Liberty
Sir Edward Coke, then Chief Justice and one of the greatest common lawyers in English history, responded with fury. He reminded Parliament that England’s constitution was older than any monarch. In his Institutes of the Laws of England, Coke wrote words that still echo through every free society:
“The King himself ought not to be subject to man, but to God and to the law, for the law makes him King.”
That was the reversal. Cowell said the king made the law. Coke said the law made the king. It was more than a legal dispute; it was a moral declaration that no man, however crowned or elected, may stand above the law that gives him authority.
As a result, King James I was caught between supporting Cowell’s royalist theory and needing Parliament’s subsidies. Parliament sided with Coke. Cowell’s book was condemned as “pernicious,” publicly burned, and ordered suppressed by King James, who was forced to retreat. For the first time in English history, the monarchy was told, in the open, by law, that its power was limited.
Out of this confrontation grew the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of Rights of 1689. From there the idea crossed the Atlantic to a generation of American colonists who took it further than even Coke had imagined.
Alaska Participates in the Conversation
Jefferson, Madison, and Adams all built on the Cokean principle: the law precedes government. The Constitution is not an act of grace but a constraining chain limiting the power of the State. Sovereignty belongs to the people only within the boundaries set by God-given right.
Today, the struggle has shifted forms but not meanings. Where once men like Cowell defended the absolute power of monarchs, we now defend the absolute power of majorities, bureaucracies, or executives. The claim has changed uniforms but not substance: someone still believes they are above the law.
When a legislature treats the constitution as advice, or an agency spends what it has not been granted, we redress Cowell’s argument in modern clothes. The sovereign may have changed, from king to government, but the temptation remains the same.
In Alaska, when lawmakers reduce the Permanent Fund Dividend not by law but by appropriation, when constitutional protections and the law are treated as inconveniences, we see the quiet return of Cowell’s logic: that law is whatever those in power declare it to be.
The State is the Tool of the Law
The phrase “no one is above the law” is often used to celebrate accountability of public officials. But its meaning runs far older and deeper.
It means that law is not the tool of the State; the State is the tool of the law.
The State is the organization of political means. It does not create wealth but takes it through taxation, regulation, compulsion, and command. The State is therefore not the source of right, but its subordinate, permitted to act only within limits set by a moral and legal order that comes before it and stands above it.
Its authority is not inherent; it is borrowed, and it remains legitimate only so long as it serves the rights it did not create and cannot erase.
In a republic founded on natural rights, to stand “above the law” is to stand outside the moral order that justifies political power at all.
The PFD: A Right Given by Law, not a Privilege Given by Government
John Cowell believed sovereignty was absolute. The absolute power of a monarch created law. Edward Coke taught that sovereignty was conditional because law limits power. Their quarrel gave birth to modern liberty.
But that liberty, like every inheritance, must be defended in each generation, or it quietly dissolves into the same complacent servitude it once overthrew. We should remember that “no one is above the law” is not a slogan. It is a warning. It means that when lawmakers rise above law, citizens fall beneath it.
So, it is with the Permanent Fund Dividend. Since its first check, Alaskans have not only received a dividend, they have received it in a quantified and formula-defined amount, derived from the annual earnings of the Permanent Fund and calculated openly, consistently, and without interruption under a constitution which demands stewardship.
The State itself taught the people what their share was. The legislature reaffirmed the formula each year. Households built their lives and planned around it. Children grew up expecting not charity, but their portion of the commonwealth.
This is possession in the fullest legal and moral sense. Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the State cannot now claim that this decades long practice was merely discretionary. And under the principle of long-settled possession, the people’s right has ripened not only in kind but in amount. The share is not abstract; it is measurable, because it always has been measurable. A right without its measure is no right at all. It is permission.
To uphold the PFD now is not to grant a privilege, it is to recognize and secure a vested, quantified right already earned and already lived. It is to ensure that sovereignty remains with the people, that government remains their servant, and that the wealth of Alaska continues to belong to those to whom it was promised: the people themselves.
What has never been put to the public or to government of the State of Alaska and the Board is that the PFD may have our constant attention for its uses to the State of Alaska and the residents as payees, but it also has the attention of the Federal Government’s Bureau of Public Debt. So, the governor, legislation and courts may not be in then knowledge area that the Bureau has a right through Treasury to look at and analyze the fact that it has merit to be seized to insure legal monies for the United States if needed in extreme cases such as wars, etc. There is no way to lock up this chunk of money from the government. All records of the money have been saved over the years, no matter the use within the border of the State of Alaska.
…..and the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt also has a rational by law that the PFD is in “Trust” as the State of Alaska determined it should be.
What a well-articulated and well-thought-out analysis of the reality of the PFD!
I was on the Committee that wrote the first proposal for a dividend; the proposal that the US Supreme Court struck down because it required five years of residency to receive the full amount. Three years later, I was the Chairman of the House State Affairs Committee when it reviewed the second proposal for a dividend, which was the Senate Bill introduced by Jay Hammond; the same Dividend program we have today.
Your analysis could not be more wrong.
Thank you, Ray.
The Alaska Legislators are breaking Alaska Statute every year and denying the intent of the PFD as intended.
Ray, How so is this apparent clear historical review wrong and more, define “the many ways”. Please, as my read gives Michael full support. A second read didn’t make any mind change. The PFD is established by formula within the Constitution, Right? Citizens have not received in recent years the due of the formula, Right?. I’d bet others are confused by your statement as I am.
Cheers,
Al Johnson-Ketchikan
“……… The PFD is established by formula within the Constitution, Right?………”
No, it’s not.
The ‘Right’ to a PFD is likely the most often repeated falsehood
Alaska State Government will NEVER leave the PFD alone
They can’t leave it alone. It’s an appropriation like any and all others. It is constitutionally supposed to be budgeted by the legislature and signed into law by the governor.
It’s time to put the Permanent Fund Dividend in perspective. Contrary to the author’s assertion the PFD is not a right. It is something provided in statute and nothing more. It was a bad idea from the start, but over time it achieved divine status not deserved. As with anything provided by statute the PFD is subject change at the hands of the provider (ie, the legislature). The PFD is analogous to a dividend paying stock and nothing more. The notion that is is an entitlement without means testing is ridiculous. Consider how much better the state of Alaska would be now if those PFD payments had instead been put in the principal the Permanent Fund?
“……..Consider how much better the state of Alaska would be now if those PFD payments had instead been put in the principal the Permanent Fund?………”
Yup. Over $31 billion paid out, not counting the loss of returns on that potential investment. That is nearly half off the current Permanent Fund corpus. Gone.
Gone? No, it’s in peoples lives, their children’s educations, their retirement portfolios, their memories from family vacations, their grandchildren’s bicycles, etc. etc. etc. It’s not gone, Reggie, it’s just not available to the state. Rather it’s available to the people who make up the state.
Wrong. The PFD is in the Alaska Constitution. The part in Alaska Statute is the statutory formula, which the Alaska Lawbreakers have decided that they can break every year since 2016. The Alaska Legislators are not the providers. The Alaska Constitution provided for the PFD.
“……… The PFD is in the Alaska Constitution………”
Yeah, in the limits to appropriations:
Article IX, Section XVI:
“…….Except for appropriations for Alaska permanent fund dividends, appropriations of revenue bond proceeds, appropriations required to pay the principal and interest on general obligation bonds, and appropriations of money received from a non-State source in trust for a specific purpose, including revenues of a public enterprise or public corporation of the State that issues revenue bonds, appropriations from the treasury made for a fiscal year shall not exceed $2,500,000,000 by more than the cumulative change, derived from federal indices as prescribed by law, in population and inflation since July 1, 1981. Within this limit, at least one-third shall be reserved for capital projects and loan appropriations. The legislature may exceed this limit in bills for appropriations to the Alaska permanent fund and in bills for appropriations for capital projects, whether of bond proceeds or otherwise, IF EACH BILL IS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, OR PASSED BY AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE LEGISLATURE OVER A VETO OR ITEM VETO, or becomes law without signature, and is also approved by the voters as prescribed by law. Each bill for appropriations for capital projects in excess of the limit shall be confined to capital projects of the same type, and the voters shall, as provided by law, be informed of the cost of operations and maintenance of the capital projects. No other appropriation in excess of this limit may be made except to meet a state of disaster declared by the governor as prescribed by law. The governor shall cause any unexpended and unappropriated balance to be invested so as to yield competitive market rates to the treasury. [Amended 1982]………”
“………The PFD is in the Alaska Constitution……….”
The PFD is not mandated in the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that requires funding of a dividend at all. It is funded (or not) by vote in the budget just like all other appropriations.
No, the PFD formula is not in the Constitution, but education is. See Article 7 – Health, Education, and Welfare. Today’s state revenues would not be sufficient to meet the constitutionally mandated education obligations if the statutory formula were paid first.
You focus on the wrong issue. In exchange for campaign contributions and sometimes bribes, a majority of Alaska’s legislators have been voting to allow oil companies to extract the oil we all own for a tiny fraction of what our oil would sell for on the world market. If we were to demand and receive market value for our oil, paying a full dividend would be no problem.
Manda Gershon, you said, “The PFD is in the Alaska Constitution.” Can you please show me which Article that is? I went back and read it for about the 100th time, and I just can’t find it.
What did we give up our subsurface rights for?
Alaska Lawbreakers have decided that they are above the law, and an Alaska Supreme Court judge has backed that play without any recourse available for the people of Alaska.
“……… an Alaska Supreme Court judge has backed that play………”
It was a unanimous decision. All five justices, and it was an affirmation of the Superior Court decision. It was a grand slam. The statutory PFD was unconstitutional. Period.
Hmmmmm. With actions we are seeing by judges across the nation….. many judges do believe they are above the law it seems hence that argument doesn’t bode super well. Your other arguments though do make sense and I would like to learn more. We did give up our subsurface rights – would we have done that just to fund government? I am asking sincerely.
Supreme Court Justices ARE “above the law”. They determine the constitutionality of laws. If the law violates the constitution, the law is nullified. This is middle school civics.
“…….. We did give up our subsurface rights – would we have done that just to fund government?………”
What “subsurface rights” are you referring to? Do you have a gold or platinum deposit under your house?
Are you familiar with the Boneyard Alaska? Tell me that Mr. Reeves doesn’t have “subsurface rights” to sell the gold under his land……….and even prehistoric fossils.
The “subsurface rights” mantra is pure BS, and the phrase had absolutely nothing to do with the initial mistake of passing the PFD laws in the late ’70’s. Somebody came up with that silliness later, and it’s meaningless. The state and feds aren’t even going to make the mistake of letting you own lands with minerals or oil under it.
Wrong. The statutory PFD was not found to be unconstitutional.
It was found to be not binding and that the PFD formula head subject to appropriation process, just like school foundation formula and other statutory formulas.
Grand slam theft by lawyer Walker, backed up by judges.
With judges in Alaska not elected judiciary need to worry nothing about violating the law.
I find it very ironic that a conservative website such as this should publish an article about “no one being above the law”. Quite clearly, and especially in view of the fairly recent Supreme Court immunity decision, Donald Trump almost most certainly is. And that is utterly disgusting.
Hans, hasn’t President Trump shown up in court for every charge bought against him? He even showed up when no crime was bought against him, resulting in a guilty verdict on 34 felony counts with not one being determined by a unanimous vote of the jury. Please tell us what law he is above?
OMG! For years I’ve heard about people like you, Joel, that were born without critical thinking skills.
Spot on!
And by the way, what happened to the 50-word comment limit? Judging from the above, it seems to have been tossed out the window.
Hello Hans, thank you for commenting! After receiving feedback from readers, the 50-word limit has been suspended. I will be working on finalizing our standard “comment guidelines,” making those guidelines available to readers, and ensuring equal implementation. We appreciate yours and all our readers’ patience and support as we continue to improve reader experience and promote civil discourse.
I appreciate – I guess – the author’s scholarship. That said much of it is irrelevant. As pointed out above, the PFD is not a Constitutional creation. It has always been subject to appropriation and the same is true for the earnings of the Permanent Fund.
Many politicians over the years have tried to claim that the PFD is a constitutionally protected entitlement. It is not, until the Constitution is amended.
I’m just saying and Bert Stedman is correct. “We don’t have a printing press like they do in Washington.”
break the piggy bank!
I want to spend it all!
spent on those that give me power!
its not the voter that gives them power, it the provider of funds to gets them elected!
special interest groups, mostly unions.
compare public job cost to private sector.