Jim Minnery has just penned an essay saying that it is time for David Eastman to be retired … because he is too much of a constitutionalist. He claims that Eastman’s votes are counter-productive. Why? Because (and Minnery agrees with him!) there is absolutely no need for a constitutional amendment because there is NOTHING in the state constitution wherein the right to abortion can be found, unless people rely on the “tea-leaves” and palm readings of the supreme court.

Actually, it is Jim Minnery and the Alaska Family Council that need to be retired, or at least re-tooled.

When I ran against Ted Stevens in 2008, I also failed to get the AFC endorsement, even though, unlike Minnery, I have been arrested five times for organizing or participating in the blockade of abortion clinics.

He was so terribly concerned about keeping Ted Stevens’ supposedly more moderate vote in the US Senate, he would not allow me to explain to the AFC the constitutional reasoning as to why neither a federal nor state amendment is necessary to protect the unborn. He admitted to me, months later, that he intentionally refused to return my calls. This is the man that so many Christians put their trust and judgment in.

Minnery falls into the trap that liberals love: the belief that once the supreme court makes a decision, it must be followed. As long as he uses that logic, the liberals will continue to use him, and not David Eastman, to keep the status quo.

Now hear this, fellow prolife Christians. We do not have “three co-equal branches of government.” The legislature is supreme, and the constitutional tools are already in place to thwart the judiciary. Are you ready?

— The governor need not enforce the decisions of the court. In Article 3, Sec. 16 we read: He may, by appropriate court action or proceeding brought in the name of the State, enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or 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. Notice it does not give an exception for the judiciary, only the legislative, demonstrating that the three branches are not equal. And it also assumes that the courts might very well be the ones who “violate a constitutional power.”

— The legislature has the power, in Article 4, Sec. 1, to keep the courts out of “judicial review.” It says, “The jurisdiction of the courts shall be prescribed by law.” All they need to do, when passing a prolife law, is to add, “This statute shall not be reviewable by the judiciary.” And even if a court ruling is exercised, is merely an opinion, not a law. The governor is the final filter with his enforcement powers. In a properly functioning system, he would most likely follow the court’s advice in most matters, for he is not a judge. But his oath does not call him to defend the court rulings, but to defend the constitution. It’s a big difference.

— Lastly, there is impeachment. Let me count the ways that the supreme court has overthrown the state constitution. Dunleavy is too sluggish to figure this out, and Minnery himself does not understand constitutions properly. In 1997’s Valley Hospital case, the courts overthrew the people’s and the legislature’s power to amend the constitution; in the Sen-Tan case in the late 90s, it seized the power of the right to privacy being defined by the legislature. Then in a follow up, seized the power of the purse by ordering state funding of abortion. Then, more recently, it overthrew the governor’s line-item veto power, when he docked the court’s administrative budget the exact amount that the state had been paying for abortion. And they don’t stop at abortion, either: they just seized the control of Grand Juries from the people.

Imagine if Minnery had used his influence to explain all this to his Christian supporters! By this time, we might have had enough sincere pro-lifers and conservatives come over to Eastman’s side and begin educating the public. What you think the constitution says, and what it actually says, are two different things. Maybe this election cycle will drive home the point.

Instead, he has found nit-picky ways to always put down his rival in prolife fund-raising, Alaska Right to Life, and now doesn’t like Eastman – even though he agrees that Eastman’s line of thinking is correct!
If you want to know why the status quo on abortion and all other freedom issues continues the way it does, look no further to the constitutional ignorance of the Alaska Family Council. If they are not “controlled opposition,” they sure are filling the bill.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.