Bob Bird: Alaska’s constitution rejects judicial supremacy

By BOB BIRD

“What Alaskans should know is that my obligation is to the law as it exists. That includes the Constitution and State statutes, but it also includes the Alaska Supreme Court’s binding interpretation of Alaska law and the rules the Court has promulgated. That is what my oath requires. It does not mean substituting my own reading of the Constitution for the one that governs.” — Stephen Cox

Stephen Cox, if he really believed what he wrote, would hearken to the statute that limits citizen initiatives to ONE subject or topic. As such, his predecessor Kevin Clarkson instantly dismissed the 2020 RCV initiative, which included 4 different topics. The statute was allegedly struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court.

Attorney General Stephen Cox: On Alaska’s investigative grand jury

I say “allegedly” because there is absolutely nothing in the state constitution, nor the federal one, that says all supreme court decisions are binding. In fact, it says quite the opposite.

Like almost all lawyers, he is not properly schooled in constitutional law, either on the federal or the state level.

I would ask Mr. Cox, “Do you believe that we have three co-equal branches of government?”

If he says “Yes,” I would tell him to read Federalist #78, which shoots down that premise.

Here it is: The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

That means, Mr. Cox, that the judicial branch merely gives advice. It may or may not be acted upon, and relies on the executive branch for enforcement. The governor also has an oath to follow the constitution and statutes, and he is not the peer of the judiciary, he is superior to it.

 I would remind Mr. Cox that he is the enforcer of the executive branch. Although what was just quoted is in regards to the federal constitution, it also applies to the state of Alaska. We read in Article 3, Sec. 16 the following: The governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws. 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.

So, the courts ruled that the statute limiting the citizen initiative to ONE subject was unconstitutional. A true governor ought to have yawned and refused to enforce it, because it was merely their advice. And, as we can easily see, the judicial reasoning was not following any true constitutional opinion at all, but merely their political bias. We know this because we read the following regarding the legislature, in Article 2, Sec. 13:

Every bill shall be confined to one subject unless it is an appropriation bill or one codifying, revising, or rearranging existing laws.

So, by constitutional authority, the legislature must confine their bills to one subject. It is absurd to think that citizen initiatives would be exempt of such a similar limitation. That is why the statute was passed. Why?

Because the process of making a law is complex: it goes through numerous committees, in both chambers, endures amendments and modifications, reconciliations between the different chambers, three readings, possibly floor amendments, then a floor vote, and finally a governor’s signature. And all this among elected representatives who have been scrutinized, debated, opposed and voted into office to use their judgement in such matters.

But the general public cannot be expected to understand all the nuances and complexities of the law-making process, nor the implications of a law. The explanatory statement on an initiative is usually too complicated for most voters anyway. It is insane to think that the public could weed out three or four different provisions of an initiative, and then decide, in agony, if they will vote for the initiative that has, to their way of thinking, one good provision but two or three bad ones.

 Yet that is exactly how we got RCV. It is illegal, and the governor’s power in Art. 3, Sec. 16 could have stopped it. It still can. You will notice that his power cannot be extended to the legislature. That is because the legislature is supreme. But the judiciary enjoys no such immunity.

Thus, the legislature’s statute can only be struck down if the governor decides to accept the judicial branch’s advice. It is not binding. And, if the legislature decides that the judicial and executive branch have acted in such a serious way as to violate the constitution, impeachment articles can be introduced.

The judicial branch and the executive branch have absolutely no power to expel members of the legislature.

Is there any power above the legislature? Yes, there is. Article 1, Sec. 2: 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, it is the people, through a recall petition as well as through their instrument of the Grand Jury, that are superior to the government.

Face it, folks. The judicial branch is corrupt, and has proven to act in such a way not only to protect its own, but has been warping the constitution for decades. The executive branch refuses to exercise Article 3, Sec. 16, to halt it, and as a body, the legislature is content with the status quo.

We have lost confidence in election integrity, we have had a governor and lt. governor who have done nothing to reform it, and we have ignorance and complacency rule the legislature. Everyone knows this state is sick with corruption and the will to correct it can only come from the people.

The Grand Jury issue is where we must accept battle. Persistence, prayer and penance are the keys. “In God We Trust.”

Conservative talk radio host Bob Bird anchors the “Talk of the Kenai” show for KSRM, and was named the 2025 Broadcaster of the Year by the Alaska Broadcasters Association. He was chairman of the former Alaskan Independence Party.

After AIP dissolution fight fails, Bob Bird launches new “Alaskan Party” and begins push for 5,000 members

Bob Bird: Who should re-register with the renamed ALASKAN PARTY?