Let’s play baseball. Get out the rule book. Like most sports, it is packed not only with rules that are macro and fundamental, but also micro and nuanced. Rules change, and are done so by mutual agreement, because experience dictated the necessity.

Thus, an Intentional Walk has become automatic, a pitch clock is employed and changing pitchers is no longer exclusively controlled by the manager, but by the rules. We may not like the changes, but the mutual agreements were made.

Some rules don’t change old ones, but might be invented because of new and unanticipated situations. The appearance of ambidextrous pitchers throwing against switch hitters caused insufferable (and laughable) situations, and so a new rule had to be invented.

But one thing remains: you cannot change the rules in the middle of a game, or even in the middle of a season, even if both teams – and the umpires – want to.

Violating the constitution has gone on for a long time. We should not be surprised to learn that it was initiated by the judiciary.

While baseball is just a game, government is not, nor are the rules of government the playthings and toys of the falsely named “three co-equal branches of government.”

It does not follow, however, that politicians follow the rule books of government, which are, of course, the federal and state constitutions. What politicians usually are trying to preserve are not the two constitutions, but what the accepted and long-standing violations have been.

These violations usually – but not always – have been initiated by what is supposed to be the weakest and least significant of the three branches, the judiciary. And these violations have become a body of conglomerated court opinions, also known as “case law.”

But now the Democrats and RINOs in the Alaska Legislature have changed the rules, without consultation from the people, and in the middle of a season and the middle of a game. It happened late last session. Its violation is so obvious, so blatant, that their cooperative allies in the media and the bureaucracy have kept it suppressed until now.

And they did not defy a micro rule. Instead, they violated a macro, basic and fundamental rule, one that was arguably a shining gem in a constitution that this author has often criticized.

If you read David Eastman’s column recently, the implications are enormous. It means that the legislators, not the courts, can do anything they want, and at any time – the constitution be damned.

It’s like playing baseball without a rule book. You simply get enough of the players together from both sides, and make up rules as you go along. When we were kids, we did that for backyard games: “Right field is closed! Hit it there and you’re out. Little Jimmy gets to stay at bat until he makes contact! No stealing, no leading off! The teams get to keep batting until everyone has come to the plate! We’ll spot you five runs.”

Violating the constitution has gone on for a long time. We should not be surprised to learn that it was initiated by the judiciary.

In the 1996 Valley Hospital case, the state supreme court actually wrote, “We are under a duty to develop additional constitutional rights and privileges under our Alaska Constitution if we find such fundamental rights and privileges to be within the intention and spirit of our local constitutional language and to be necessary for the kind of civilized life and ordered liberty which is at the core of our constitutional heritage.”

If this looks like a complicated mess, it is the logical outcome that results from decades of unconstitutional actions. All three branches are collectively guilty.

This stole the right to amend the constitution, which must be approved by a 2/3 majority of both legislative chambers, and then approved by the people through a referendum. Because the issue was over abortion, there were no principled pro-abortion members who suggested that this was a decision that they personally favored, but found it a dangerous precedent for judges to invent novel “constitutional” rights.

In 1972, Alaskans approved Article 1, Sec. 22, recognizing the “right to privacy,” but required that the legislature implement (define) the parameters. Sure enough, the judiciary quickly stole this from the legislature, not only declaring abortion a privacy right, but that this included public funding for its surgical, per diem and transportation costs. Thus, the power of the purse was stolen from the legislature.

In the ACLU v. Dunleavy decision of 2019, the courts stole the line-item veto from the governor and the right of the legislature to perform the function of veto-override.

In the case regarding the same limitation that was required of the legislature, the statute that says that citizen initiatives should be limited to one subject, the courts decided otherwise. This led to multiple-subject citizen initiatives in both 2020 and 2024, and brought us ranked choice voting and other evils.

The courts have also stolen Grand Jury rights from the people, avoiding the process of running their changes through a consultative committee. It has been well catalogued for years now, and has fueled grass roots efforts to reign in the judiciary, an effort that ought to have been done by the legislature or the governor.

These were violations by the judicial branch. They could have been stopped by the various governors, for Article 3, Sec. 16 gives them the right to halt violations of the constitution, except in regards to the legislature. This proves that there are not “three co-equal branches of government,” as is often repeated. The legislature is supreme! For better or worse.

This brings us to Senate Bill 189.

Article 2, Sec. 13 limits bills to ONE subject in order to avoid “omnibus bills” which make it impossible for an individual legislator to pick and choose the good from the bad. SB 189 weaseled its way through even the very predictable third-down punt by Gov. Dunleavy. He refused to veto or sign the bill, which made it become law automatically.

SB 189 was a direct violation of the clear constitutional requirement, placed not upon the citizens but on the legislature. The RINOs and Democrats brushed aside Art. 2, Sec. 13 like children who needed to quickly clean up a mess in the house before Mom and Dad get home.

Eastman’s lawsuit is brilliant. Either the state supreme court will join the legislature in this constitutional overthrow, or it will, at last, discover that the constitution’s words actually have meaning.

Of course, it will be utterly hypocritical of them, since they passed over the obvious constitutional wording regarding privacy, line-item vetoes and veto-overrides. The smart Vegas money will bet on the judiciary not accepting the case, on trumped-up technicalities, or perhaps a blatant expunging of constitutional things that they don’t like … which is what the state and federal courts have been doing since the start.

But this gives us a new and amazing problem. Let’s suppose the state supreme court rules that SB 189, with its multiple subjects, is unconstitutional. How does it get enforced? In the past, all governors and legislatures have acted as if the court’s opinions were self-enforcing. But they really are not, because [Gasp!] there is nothing in the constitution that says so!

But Dunleavy could actually “enforce” the ruling by actually failing to enforce the multiple-subject provisions found in SB 189. Yes, he could do that.

But would he?

And what if the legislature suddenly becomes “constitutional” in this one regard, and chooses to ignore the hypothetical ruling? Do they send orders to the bureaucracy? Would they be counter-manded by the executive and judicial branches? Remember the limits of executive authority halt in regards to the legislature, as cited in Art. 3, Sec. 16.

If this looks like a complicated mess, it is the logical outcome that results from decades of unconstitutional actions. All three branches are collectively guilty. So, if the once-honored officers of government will not obey the people’s rules, why should “We the people” obey their laws?

We are now in a colossal whirlpool. And do not blame merely the government and the bureaucracy. Blame also the media, the self-appointed guardians and self-appointed “fourth branch,” for failing to inform the people every step of the way in this decades-long anarchy-by-government. This article is but a small effort at awakening the citizens. Unless it is joined by others, we’ll all go down the drain together.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.