Although I have been absent from my blogging duties,It is my intent to refocus my efforts and give regular posting on subjects and points of view not well covered elsewhere. The following is such a subject.
The Implications of Miller Vs. Treadwell, is far reaching.
The Alaska supreme court decision in rejecting Joe Miller's arguments gave reasonable responses to his reasonable arguments, with one glaring exception. In it's decision, the court declared, “Voter Intent Is Paramount,” later, in their reasoning, they focus on individual voter intent in stating “ Our prior decisions clearly hold that a voter’s intention is paramount ” but that does not discount there original declaration.
Lets look at the word Paramount as defined;
Paramount- Having the highest rank or jurisdiction; superior to all others; chief; supreme; pre["e]minent; as, a paramount duty.
It seems the court is saying our government is, at it's core,a democracy. In their decision they affirm this sentiment with the following statements.
“ The right to vote “is fundamental to our concept of democratic government””
I suppose we can forgive them for this one since the people do vote for a portion of their government you can say we do have a element of “democratic Government” within our Constitutions, but there is more, the also stated,
“As we have recognized, “a true democracy must seek to make each citizen’s vote as meaningful as every other vote to ensure the equality of all people under the law.”
A “True Democracy”?
How does the above reasoning correspond with the Alaska statehood act that says; “The constitution of the State of Alaska shall always be republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."” Is not the term “under the Law “ contrary to a true democracy?
So now that the court has affirmed voter intent paramount, meaning it is Superior to the legislature, courts and even the constitution, lets look at some of the implications.
In the Alaska constitution,
Article 2 section 12 “”each (senate and house)is the judge of the election and qualifications of it's members and may expel a member with the concurrence of two thirds of it's members.
If voters intent is paramount, this section cannot be applied since voters elected, only voters could remove an individual.
The same reasoning can be applied to Article 2 section 20, the legislature could not impeach an elected official they could only be recalled. Also Under the Voter Intent being Paramount ruling there could be no restriction on what could be put in an initiative as this limits voter intent Article 11 section 7 is at risk as well.
The most startling impact of this ruling is the effect it would have on the initiative process (Article 11 section 6 in particular).
Since The court has ruled, voter intent is paramount. (Superior to all others) a law passed by voters through the initiative process, could not be modified or deleted by the legislature or courts, only by a vote of the people.
It seems to me in the Alaska Supreme court zeal to dismiss Miller's case the opened the door for litigation on the last vestiges of the Republican form of government in our constitution that we the people created at Statehood.
On the bright side the parental consent law should be upheld in it's entirety as it represents the voters intent as passed.
A hollow victory when you consider the death of the republic and the instigation of mob rule.