Michael Tavoliero: We need a constitutional convention in Alaska in 2022




We need a constitutional convention in Alaska.

November 2022 could provide another angle before moving in that direction with a better-functioning legislature and a conservative governor, unless Ballot Measure 2 upsets that view, which it may be.

Our vote on the constitutional convention will not take place under the measure of the ballot 2 and can therefore be an opportunity and a decisive decision for republicanism (Small “r” where power is held by the people and their elected officials.) .

I would like to stress that fascism is the left on the political spectrum moving towards totalitarianism, while anarchy is the extreme right.

I do not see Bob Bird, in his column Must read Alaska, as advocating the tyranny of the left nor the anarchy of the right. If anything, Bird tries to shift the discussion to the right side of the spectrum roughly at the position of the US Constitution. Incredibly precise, if we are to maintain Americanism and a constitutional republic.

But I meander, let’s stay on topic.

Keep in mind that the state refused to implement Janus, Espinoza, and Thompson. If you don’t know what those rulings are, research them (they refer to public sector employee unions, education taxes, and Citizens United). It’s time we all had a better civic education lesson in Alaska.

These are fundamental decisions of the Supreme Court in the implementation of individual constitutional protections under the First Amendment. Such implementations can provide the people of Alaska with more responsibility and accountability, rather than current law and hegemony, thus enhancing strength and comity instead of weakness and chaos.

Although the Governor has not implemented his duties under Article III, Sections 22 and 23, in a way that I believe he has the power to do, the Governor has sought to submit to the electorate three constitutional amendments, the PFD, the budget expenditure ceiling and the voter taxes approved.

All three are timely and necessary in the world’s greatest natural resource development potential, to help stop the plunder of our public treasury.

For some it was a good start.

For my part, I agree with Bird that the Governor of Alaska clearly has the constitutional power to make radical changes in the organization of government in our state. He didn’t, and that’s why I put it at his feet, especially when he had the strategic advantage when the Alaska Legislature had taken so long to organize.

Concerning the constitution of our State:

My first thought is to elect candidates who do their duty under the oath of office and honor and obey Article I, Section 2, allowing the true government source to decide the issues as stated above. Simple and authentic.

Article IV, Section 1, second sentence, although there is no real constitutional explanation of 1955. I still contend that this gives the legislature and voters an effective tool to regulate the judicial jurisdiction of the state as well as to regulate the role of the judicial council, but to my knowledge that has never been done.

The cornerstone of our social construction is Article VII, section 1, but the constitutional delegates of 1995 did not have a committee to study it. political weapon.

Article VII, Section 1, has yet to be addressed despite several sweeping federal laws that have impacted the state.

Delegate Bob Bartlett believed that the role of resource development in Alaska’s future could only benefit the state through careful management when he said, “”. . . fifty years from now the people of Alaska will be able to judge the product of this Convention very well not by decisions made on such matters as local government, distribution, and the structure and powers of the three branches of government, but rather by the decision taken on the vital question of resource policy.

Fifty years later, the “Petition Recommended by the State of Alaska to Congress and the Executive Branch for the Transfer of Certain Federal Lands to the State and the Sharing of Power in the Governance and Planning of the Rest of the Commission Federal Lands Advisory Group and the State of Alaska Federal Lands’ Advisory Group launched the state of Alaska’s biggest challenge to federal colonialism.

Yet this topic, which should feature in every course in the Alaskan education system, has received little or no recognition and attention as we approach 2022. It is the foundation of our State Constitution, the real vestige of our last frontier.

Bob Bartlett may be turning in his grave.

The list goes on and on with each successive government administration working hard to deal with the plunder of our state in spite of themselves. It is behavior derived from the schizophrenia of our current Constitution.

I contend that if we look at the actions we will find that we no longer have a Democratic and Republican Party in Alaska, but are now “Marxists” and “Conservatives.”

This is probably another part of the discussion, but the tolerance and courage to avoid risk seems to be much greater among Marxists than among current conservatives and that is the real dilemma.

After all, when we read the State Constitution, do we all realize that the goal of Article XII, General Provisions, Article 11, was to avoid the confusion created by different expressions for the concept of law, but it does exactly what the delegates wanted to prevent by creating unlimited discretion by the state government over the scope of the development of laws, whether legislative or by the people?

Yeah, I realize we probably ran out of time, but then again, where are the adults in the room? Bob Bird is an adult in the room trying to create a reasonable and legitimate discussion and change among many who won’t even try.

“It is much easier to whisper advice in cover than to risk its merit in the moment of attack. ” – Sir Cedric Willingham, King Ralph.

Michael Tavoliero is a real estate agent in Eagle River, is active in the Alaska Republican Party and is President of Eaglexit.



Leave A Reply