Tennessee Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey says that he "respects the plain language of our State Constitution" in voting to advance a bill sponsored by Senator Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) out of the Senate Judiciary Committee that would require that the State of Tennessee return to the full election of appellate judges by the First Thursday in August in 2014. However, Ramsey plainly admits in the same open letter that he does not believe in judicial election.
Every person elected to an office of public trust in this state takes a solemn oath to defend the constitution. I have taken that oath and I take it seriously. Our Tennessee Constitution is unambiguous on the subject of judicial elections. Article VI of the Tennessee Constitution states elegantly and concisely that Supreme Court justices “shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state” and that appellate court justices “shall be elected by the qualified voters of their district.”In 2009, I led the charge to change the way judges are chosen in our state. In the past, under the original “Tennessee Plan,” special interest groups and trial lawyers held a stranglehold on the process virtually forcing the governor to pick from their approved candidates. During the last legislative session, we passed a modified version of the plan that removed the influence of special interests. The plan in place now is a good system. It takes the special interests out of the equation and puts the power to select and appoint judges back in the hands of the people you elect. Those appointed judges then stand after every term for what is called a “retention” election, voting yes or no on whether a judge should be retained or replaced. This is a fair, equitable and efficient way to make sure only the very best judges are interpreting our laws and sitting in judgment of the people of Tennessee.In fact, there is only one problem with the plan – it is unconstitutional.Again, my decision to move a bill forward that acknowledges the truths self-evident in our constitution does not mean I believe contested judicial elections are in the best interest of Tennessee. I do not. The constitution is the constitution. Words mean things. For years our federal government has simply ignored the constitutional limitations placed upon it. We now see the whirlwind such a practice reaps. This is Tennessee -- not Washington, DC. We take our word seriously. We take our constitution seriously. We either need to amend the constitution or abide by it. There is no acceptable middle ground.
Let us thank and praise Almighty God that there are still men like Ron Ramsey who (presuming they are Christians-other faiths have somewhat similar precepts) take the Christian concept of an oath seriously. There are some denominations of Christianity that teach that oaths should never be sworn because Christ said "swear not at all," but of course God made an oath with Abraham, with Moses, and Joshua, and Christ fulfilled an oath-a promise to which God was bound to "fulfill the law" or the old covenant-with the shedding of his own blood for a new covenant. A true oath makes GOD a party to the agreement and it is more than a contract. An oath is a covenant between the oath-taker and Almighty God that they will do what they say in their end of the covenant, and that in doing so, they agree to allow for the Supreme Judge of the World to hold them to account if they break their oath. Literally, the oath-taker asks for God's help in fulfilling their duties with the words "so help me God," and by those same words call upon themselves Divine Retribution if they knowingly break the covenant they have sworn. Ron Ramsey obviously understands that concept, although many of our political leaders in both parties obviously do not-and this writer is glad that he does not have to stand before God in place of those individuals at the Last Judgment.
Because he takes his oath seriously, we must give Ramsey credit for believing that the Tennessee Constitution is more important than his personal views. This is far better than former House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh (D-Covington), who once told former Representative and current State Senator Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) "I have taken that oath enough times, I know what it says" when Kelsey tried to remind Naifeh and others in the House once during a debate just what the oath they swore said and to what they are supposed to be bound. In the world of many such leaders, the oath is just words, it is meaningless to them in reality, as Naifeh's comment to Kelsey illustrates.
However, Ramsey doesn't believe in judicial election, he admits that he likes the current system (which he helped to devise), but understands the original intent of the Tennessee Constitution. Ramsey believes that the right thing to do is to amend the State Constitution. He is right, of course, but he also understands the process. Let us presume that both Houses of the General Assembly pass an amendment according to the prescribed constitutional formula over two separate sessions of the General Assembly, Are we then to believe that it will have an easy time when it goes before the electorate. At some point during that referendum campaign, someone will have to explain to the voting public that "the Tennessee Constitution says that you have the right to elect judges, but we haven't been doing it that way, and this amendment insures that we can keep right on doing things the way we've been doing them." Somehow, this writer finds it doubtful that when it is explained to Tennessee voters that the proposed amendment asks for them to willfully give up part of the franchise which the Tennessee Constitution has endowed to them, that they will subsequently be so willing to part with that portion of their electoral power.
Good luck to those trying to convice the Tennessee electorate to do so...
Comments