Alabama Amendments for November 4, 2014

VoteHere is a rundown of the various amendments for the November 4, 2014 elections in Alabama.

Amendment 1 – The purpose of this seems to be two-fold. First, it should prevent the application of Islamic law to cases here in Alabama. Additionally, it should prevent acknowledging gay marriage from other states via judicial methods here in Alabama. Similar laws have been struck down by the Federal courts in other districts, but apart from that, it should be a good amendment.

Amendment 2 – This amendment would allow the state to borrow an additional $50M for the national guard. An additional drawback is that it will decrease county funding from the Alabama Trust Fund. Thus, not recommended.

Amendment 3 – This one is tricky. It sounds great on its face. Strict scrutiny is the legal lingo for the highest level of scrutiny that the U.S. Supreme Court uses when assessing whether a law is constitutional. Thus, say someone passes a law in Alabama that prohibits the purchase of all ammo. The courts would then apply high level of scrutiny to this and in theory, strike that ban on ammo down. Thus, that could be a good thing, right? The only problem is that it then implies that some level of scrutiny is allowable and as long as it is strict, then it is OK to scrutinize/remove rights. Thus, it opens a door for liberal courts to scrutinize in a liberal way. Thus, the unintended consequences may be worse that the intended fix. I don’t recommend this one.

Amendment 4 – This makes is harder for the legislature to pass a unfunded mandates to the local level. The plus side to passing this, even for folks not involved in the government run school system, is that it makes is harder for the State to force the County to spend money (thus mandating local tax increases). What that will do is push the local levels to pass more tax bills which will have to be voted on locally. However, the language of the amendment does put boards of education on the same level as counties and cities, and some believe this could be used a back door to allow boards of education. Additionally, 100% of all legislators voted for this amendment, which makes me highly suspect of the motives. Thus, based on that, I recommend not supporting this amendment.

Amendment 5 – Same rationale as Amendment 3 above. I’m very leery of the “subject to reasonable regulations” language in the amendment, thus I would recommend not supporting this one as well.

Thus, in summary, the only one I am in favor of is Amendment 1.

I hope that helps! Sample ballots can be found at the Alabama Secretary of State site. That should allow you to see in advance everything you will be voting on tomorrow.

Chief Justice Moore Stands for Law

Chief Justice Roy MooreChief Justice Roy Moore has once again taken a stand for the law in both reaffirming the basis for standing against homosexual “marriage” as well as calling for action by the states to take a unified stand against the same. In his letter, republished below, Chief Justice Moore outlines the need as to why at least 2/3 of the states need to call for an Article V Convention of States to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Although the individual state legislatures can each take a stand by passing laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, the trend has been in the last few decades (and some will argue the past few centuries) to continue to whittle away state sovereignty. Thus, a federal amendment would help prevent the gradual etching away of what Alabama has decided to legislate.

The Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment was approved in 2006 by an 81% vote. The amendment provides that:

  • Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
  • Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
  • No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
  • The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.
  • The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex.
  • A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.

Chief Justice Moore wrote the following letter to each governor of the United States:

Dear Governor Robert Bentley,

The moral foundation of our Country is under attack. In 2003, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 6-3 majority of the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), struck down a Texas statute criminalizing sodomy. In that case, Justice Kennedy stated that the case did not “involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationships that homosexual persons seek to enter,” but that a “right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.” Id. at 578.

Just 10 years later in 2013, Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority of the Court in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), decided that the time had come to give “formal recognition” to the “marriage” of two persons of the same gender from the state of New York. Striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress in 1996 to preserve the definition of marriage for federal purposes as one man and one woman, Kennedy stated that DOMA violated “basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.” Id. at 2681.

However, prior to 2003, neither our history nor Supreme Court precedent had ever recognized a “right” to commit sodomy or a “right” for homosexuals to enter a same-sex “marriage” relationship, nor any “liberty” associated therewith secured by “due process” under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

In fact, as recently as 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), the Court declared that the United States Constitution did not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. Recognizing a long and well- established prohibition against sodomy by the several states, the high court stated that,

“There should be, therefore, great resistance to expand the substantive reach of [the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments], particularly if it requires redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily takes to itself further authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority.” Id. at 195.

As a matter of fact, Justice Anthony Kennedy and four members of the U.S. Supreme Court have done exactly what the Court in Bowers predicted would occur when courts redefine rights deemed fundamental: they are governing the Country without express constitutional authority. Their willingness to expand the substantive reach of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to encompass same-sex “marriage” is dangerous and will ultimately lead to the total destruction of our moral foundation and our Country.

Already, proponents of same-sex “marriage” are working to bring yet another case before the Court which is poised to declare unconstitutional all state statutes and constitutional amendments which preserve traditional marriage.

The time to act is upon us if we mean to preserve the basic foundations of marriage and family upon which our Country rests, which the U.S. Supreme Court has referred to as the“union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement,” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885), quoted in United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 401 (1908).

Article V of the Constitution provides for amendments to the Constitution “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,” in which case Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,” which shall become a “part of this Constitution” when ratified as set forth in the Article.

This manner of amending the Constitution was suggested by Col. George Mason, Father of our Bill of Rights, shortly before the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention to provide a manner in which the people would be able to propose amendments “if the Government should become oppressive.”

Please find enclosed a proposed Joint Resolution of the Legislature of your state for your consideration.

Your assistance in securing a Resolution from the legislature of your state to the United States Congress in both Houses is a first step toward the preservation of marriage and the moral foundation of our Country.

Roy S. Moore
Chief Justice
Alabama Supreme Court

See Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Letter to Governor Bentley.

Alabama Elections – November 5th, 2013

Only one election is on the horizon in Alabama this November, and it is in the 1st District (Mobile and surrounding counties).  The race pits veteran politician Bradley Byrne against Tea Party backed Dean Young.  Young, although not a favorite amongst many traditional republicans, has taken a more principled stand on the issues, similar in vein to Dr. Ron Paul.  congressional_districtsSupported by Chief Justice Roy Moore, Mr. Young has stood out as a candidate who is “not afraid to speak the truth and stand up for those ideals and principles which have set us apart from the rest of the world.”    He has been very vocal in his opposition in the local area against tax increases (and their sneaky cousins, the government “fees”).  You can read more about his platform directly on his website at:

Some highlights, though, of his pro-freedom platform:

  • Cut inflation by returning to sound money principles, and auditing the Federal Reserve.
  • Reduce the size & power of the IRS, as well as consider ways to replace them permanently.
  • Stop using taxpayer money to bailout private companies.
  • Defend your privacy from government snooping (e.g. – the NSA).
  • Fight tirelessly to repeal & defund Obamacare.
  • Defend life and the rights of the unborn.
  • Cut government funding of Planned Parenthood.
  • Support generational families by killing the death tax.

Mr. Young appears to be a man of principle, and we wish him the best in his runoff election tomorrow.