History must be viewed in context

The Constitution of the state of Alaska begins with a declaration of rights of its residents. Saving the best for the last, our founding fathers stated in Article 1, Section 22 that “the right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.”

This is a very libertarian ideal not commonly found in the constitutions of the various states, and certainly not found so boldly presented in our U.S. Constitution. Whether such a right exists at all under federal law is the basis of most issues that so cleanly divide liberal from conservative.

Beware those last two terms, for political extremism has made them meaningless. For example, the political liberal of our day has exceeded all moral restraint and deals in license, not liberty. The political conservative of our day has assumed religious excess that compounds laws and empowers the government.

The single issue of abortion perhaps best illustrates this. The “moral liberal” looks at the first 10 amendments to our federal constitution and sees a pattern of personal liberty. He views the Bill of Rights as, in sum, a personal right to privacy. He then argues that a woman should be able to exercise that right over issues concerning her own body. The “moral conservative” looks at the U.S. Constitution as a whole and finds no clear statement of a right to privacy and concludes that the state is empowered and required to protect the sanctity of life. He then seeks ways to empower the government to that end. Roe v. Wade is no longer good law. More recently, Casey v. Planned Parenthood created a semi-fixed divide between the two political extremes founded on viability. The fetus within the woman may be terminated by the woman until that child is viable outside the womb and must be protected by the state. The U.S. Supreme Court also found it is the duty of government to fully educate the public both as to the law and the terrible moral-mental consequence that follows abortion for most women.

My point in presenting the above is to more fully examine the origin of Article I, Section 22 “privacy” found so clearly stated in the constitution of the state of Alaska. Perhaps nowhere is that origin more clearly stated than by Pierre Burton in “Klondike Fever.” Mr. Burton’s 33-page prelude illustrates the creation of the difference between the Canadian (English) conservatism-at-law and the Alaska (American) liberalism separate from formal law. For example, when the town of 40 Mile was found to be located in Canada, many of its residents left for Circle unable to handle the sudden loss of “freedom.” Please read all 33 pages of Burton’s prelude to grasp the difference. The attitude of heart illustrated at Circle soon covered the whole military district of Alaska. Self-government of a more formal type would not come until 1912 when Alaska became a territory. Forty-four years later, our state Constitution came into being, created in large part by the sons and daughters of the pioneers.

As a separate society, we Alaskans have changed a great deal in recent years, with rapid communication making that society less unique with each passing year. If inevitable, still regrettable in many ways. But my topic of “durable law” is intended to deal with its origin, not its future. Abraham Lincoln saw the Civil War as “necessary” to answer the question of whether man can govern himself; whether government of the people, for the people and by the people might long endure. Bottom-up government with no ruling class was perhaps best practiced in the mining camps of the West and of the north country and is the enduring legacy of the Gold Rush Era. It is altogether fitting that we take a few minutes to examine that history to appreciate the attitude and the durable law that evolved from such a sordid past.

Dan Renshaw is a Palmer resident.