SAVE OUR ALABAMA CONSTITUTION

SAVE OUR ALABAMA CONSTITUTION

Pernicious forces are attempting to overthrow government as we know it in the great State of Alabama. For months now, we have been subjected to newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial designed to whip up the masses into a frenzy for a new constitution in Alabama. It is interesting to me that the proponents of the new constitution are, to an individual, also the proponents of higher taxes. They also claim the mantle of protectors of the poor. None of the visible proponents are themselves poor, but most are rather quite wealthy. No one can doubt that constitutions, although they are founding documents and agreements between the people as to how we operate our government, may need occasional updating. But constitutions, unlike editorial opinions, should be sacred. If a scholar suggested updating the language of The Bible to fit modern usage, he would generally be applauded. If, however, he then re-wrote the Scriptures to suit his own purposes, he would - and should - be roundly condemned. And someone should make sure he has no access to the manuscripts in the future.

There is a debate in Alabama about taxation. One the one side, tax reformers claim that the State's method of taxation is unfair to the poor and should be radically changed. One the other hand, there are proponents of the present system who claim that it is not only fair, but that the State actually has the funds to properly finance education and other government services if it would simply use its funds wisely. Generally speaking, the former group consists of a small clique of wealthy liberal do-gooders, many of whom are newspaper editors. The other group consists of a small band of wealthy land-owning corporations, their officers and adherents. Both groups realize that they must motivate the vast numbers of regular citizens in the middle toward their way of thinking. The tax reformers have been very busy lately in Alabama creating a "grassroots" movement for constitutional reform. They see the Alabama Constitution of 1901 as a major impediment to higher taxes and bigger government. Since the masses had no inclination toward tinkering with the constitution, they have formed "grassroots" organizations from the top down, such as Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform, and churned out endless editorials urging a new constitution. (This hobby replaced the recent, failed lottery campaign, for the most part.) Out of this morass of calls for constitutional revision, the legislature is now acting and therein the trouble lies.

No matter where one stands relative to tax reform, it is hard to believe that any free people would approve the virtual rape of the present constitution that is being perpetuated by the Alabama legislature. Higher taxes are one thing, constitutional revision another, but to abandon principles of freedom and notions of government that have been with us since the American Revolution, is another proposition entirely. Yet it is the very proposition which we citizens of Alabama now face.

There is little more sinister than House Bill 63, sponsored by Jack Venable (D- Tallassee). Jack Venable has been in the legislature longer than many Alabamians have been alive. He is, according to his official biography on the web pages of the Alabama legislature, a newspaper editor. Venable's HB 63 sailed through the Alabama House of Representatives on Thursday, February 15, 2001, and is, at this writing, in the Senate for consideration. There is little doubt that Democrat Governor Siegleman will sign the bill if the Senate sends it to him. HB 63, if approved would radically change Article One of the Constitution of Alabama. Article I of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, provides for the Declaration of Rights of the citizens. If the Senate approves the bill, the only hope to defeat this poisonous legislation will be an appeal to the people and I fear that the forces who have created this monster own most of the media. It is therefore time for a REAL grassroots movement to derail this attempt to overthrow government as we know it.

How radical is HB 63 ? Look at these changes:

First and foremost, the present constitution provides that the source of governmental power is the people themselves. Every constitution ever written in this country, insofar as this writer is aware, affirms this basic principle of democratic, constitutional republican government:

SECTION 2

People source of power.

That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Representative Venable apparently does not agree, for he has eliminated this provision from his constitution ! Worse, the Alabama House on Thursday, agreed with him. The power no longer deriving from the people, from whence does it therefore come ?

Secondly, the framers of the present constitution made a statement regarding the proper role of government:

SECTION 35

Objective of government.

That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.

Bravo ! That expression is a summation of the general opinion on the role of government as held by the American Founding Fathers. Not content to cast his lot with them, Venable deletes this statement from his new and improved constitution.

Venable's constitution would allow soldiers to be housed in private homes. Article I, Sec. 28 of the Alabama Constitution presently prohibits this. The prohibition against "quartering of soldiers" in private homes grew out of the practice of the British Army during the Revolutionary War of lodging its soldiers wherever it wanted - including the homes of private citizens. Section 28 was designed to prevent the government from REQUIRING that citizens give up their homes to house soldiers. We have not seen a lot of this in 200 years of the American experience, but having one's home overrun and occupied by the Alabama National Guard or others could not be a pleasurable experience. The national government considered it such an objectionable proposition that it was prohibited by the Bill of Rights. Many of the States did the same. However, Representative Venable and the Alabama House thinks its no big deal. This prohibition was "considered unnecessary."

What else does the Alabama House consider unnecessary ? The answer should shock the average citizen. Believe it or not, Mr. Venable, or the bureaucrats who wrote his bill consider unnecessary the prohibition of SLAVERY ! Section 32 of Section I of the present Alabama Constitution prohibits slavery:

SECTION 32

Slavery prohibited; involuntary servitude.

That no form of slavery shall exist in this state; and there shall not be any involuntary servitude, otherwise than for the punishment of crime, of which the party shall have been duly convicted.

Venable and the Alabama House delete this provision ! Surely, they must not advocate slavery. Why do they not condemn it as did the framers of the present constitution ? Arguably, one could assert that the United States Constitution and laws offer a protection against slavery. But, even if such be so, given the fact that a constitution is, in effect, "the rule by which we live," what mischievous forces would even suggest the removal of a ban on slavery ? But given the fact that the legislature apparently no longer believes it derives its power from the people, who knows what wickedness this way comes ?

There is more. Evidently not content to overturn years of wisdom concerning good government, the Alabama legislature has decided to repeal the ban on titles of nobility in the State. That's right. Kings and princes and earls and dukes may soon populate the Alabama parliament and thrones. The U.S. Constitution, an instrument which tried to embody the opinion of post-revolutionary America concerning the equality of man, found titles of nobility offensive to the concept that "all men are created equal." No matter how America has failed in the past to live up to that ideal, the ideal has remained. In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton opined about the prohibition on titles of nobility:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people." Yet, the Alabama legislature does not think the Alabama constitution should retain such a prohibition !

It gets worse. The present constitution contains a prohibition as follows:

That no person shall be attainted of treason by the legislature; and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

Art. I, Sec. 19

There is a similar provision in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. Historically, and generally speaking, the English King could declare a person guilty of a felony or treason against the Crown and thereby take the lands and holdings of the offender. Even if the offender died leaving heirs, the heirs would not inherit the lands of the guilty party. This is because the law regarded the offender as having "corrupted" or stained his entire bloodline, or as legal scholar Blackstone has suggested, the law viewed the line of descent as having been terminated by the offender. It was as if the guilty party had no legal heirs and the Crown (government) would take his lands and possessions. There evolved in America, and even England as well, a distrust of empowering the King or even Parliament to declare a person guilty of treason or felony and thereby take his lands. Out of this mindset, these prohibitions were included in constitutions. The current Alabama legislature sees no objection to this practice and would therefore not prohibit it. In a current context, forfeiture laws could therefore be written such that anyone convicted of a felony would forfeit his home even if the home were not connected in any way with the crime. This is a complicated area of law and the undesirable possibilities are numerous. It also seems that the repeal of this prohibition might have a negative effect on current real property law as we know it, possibly affecting the right of an owner to guarantee absolute of "fee simple" title to lands.

More trouble is brewing in the proposed changes. The law of eminent domain, that area of law whereby the State can take private land for public use, is being expanded. The current constitutional provision prohibits the government from taking private land except for public use, and then only when just compensation has been paid to the owner and never for the private benefit of other parties:

...nor shall private property be taken for private use, or for the use of corporations, other than municipal, without the consent of the owner;

Art. I, Sec. 23

The new Venable Constitution deletes this clause. Therefore, in the future, the State may ostensibly require one citizen to give up his or her property for the benefit of another private citizen or corporation. Inroads have been made in this area over the years, by quasi-public corporations, anyway. But I'm not sure that I have the lobbying power of say, a Wal-Mart, that may want my land. If these new provisions are approved, we could have a virtual bidding war wherein private parties try to get legislators and even city councilmen to use eminent domain to help them acquire the lands of other residents who are unwilling to sell.

As ridiculous as some of these proposals may seem, this list is not exhaustive. Find a copy of HB 63 now, and read it over. It is presently available on the web pages of the Alabama legislature at http://www.legislature.state.al.us/prefiled/HB63.html. It is somewhat amusing and somewhat tragic. Amusing that the legislature - or the authors of this sinister document - apparently believe that the citizens of Alabama will blindly allow them to eradicate centuries of good, honest jurisprudence and constitutional law without questioning the motives or results of their efforts. Tragic in that many citizens will not realize the dire implications of these changes and probably vote for them, taking heart only in the thought that they are helping further "constitutional reform."

Both amusing and tragic is the glib manner in which the authors attempt to rationalize their gutting of a beautiful document that declares the rights of the citizens of Alabama:

"The proposed revision would delete various current provisions considered unnecessary for inclusion in the article including provisions providing that the people are the source of power; accusation, arrest and detention, and punishment limited to laws established prior to the offense; prosecution for libel or for publication of certain papers; bills of attainder of treason by the Legislature; navigable waters; quartering soldiers in houses; titles of nobility and restriction of appointments to office; immigration; residence not forfeited by temporary absence from state; prohibition of slavery; protection of suffrage; property rights of aliens; objective of government; and the construction of the Declaration of Rights." HB 63 (Emphasis mine).

Perhaps the law clerks or bureaucrats who wrote these revisions were absent the day they were to be taught about the evils of quartering soldiers against the wills of private citizens. Perhaps they do not understand the implications of allowing titles of nobility under state law. Perhaps they believe, in error, that the U.S. Constitution will cover these areas. They should take little solace here, in that a number of the Bill of Rights provisions have never been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as prohibitions upon the States. On the other hand, perhaps they do understand all of the implications of what they propose. Perhaps they are telling the people that they propose that the people agree that they are no longer the source of the power of government. Perhaps a number of citizens agree. But, before declaring victory, the authors of this bit of treachery, intended or unintended, should consider the Alabama motto: "WE DARE DEFEND OUR RIGHTS !"

This article may be reproduced, forwarded and/or published in any manner whatsoever so long as the article and this notice remain fully intact .