Judges should literally interpret law
Published 12:00 am Sunday, May 28, 2006
To the Editor:
The only real issue in the upcoming Republican primary is whether Alabamians will choose to live under the protections and guarantees of the United States Constitution or under the rule of an unelected oligarchy of federal judges who refuse to acknowledge the Constitution’s limitations on their authority.
On one side of this argument are Alabama Chief Justice candidate Tom Parker; Supreme Court candidates Hank Fowler, Ben Hand, and Alan Zeigler; and gubernatorial candidate Roy Moore, who believe in literal interpretation of the Constitution.
Their opponents, respectively,
are Drayton Nabers, Champ Lyons, Tom Woodall, Lyn Stuart, and Bob Riley.
Each of these has asserted through word and deed that they think that any ruling by a federal judge must be obeyed, even when it defies both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
It is good that these were not the kind of leaders we had during the struggle against England for American independence.
This group has a high dollar ad campaign backed by special interest groups and political action committees touting their conservative values, but if they are more willing to enforce the illegal rulings of federal judges than the Constitution their conservatism is a sham.
Their oaths of office swear to defend the Constitution, not the sovereignty of the federal judiciary.
Federal judges are not elected by the people. They are appointed to their positions, often for life, and are unaccountable to voters.
If they are not bound by the Constitution then there are no limits on their power.
They are effectively dictators. If we don’t elect state officials who will demand literal interpretation of the Constitution then we might as well dispense with it altogether and give liberal federal judges free reign, in name as well as current practice.
They would certainly be happy to dispense with such an irritating document.