Open letter to Iowa House Representives Dwayne Alons and Tom Shaw
Representatives Alons and Shaw,
As a fellow Iowan, I want to voice my disappointment in your proposal to cut the salaries of the Supreme Court justices who were part of the Varnum v. Brien decision. I am most alarmed by the way you paint the justices’ unanimous action as judicial activism that has “trashed the separation of powers.”
I want to remind you that:
-Article I, Section 1 of the Iowa Constitution states “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights — among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”
-Article I, Section 6 states, “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
-Article V, Section 4 states, “The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe; and shall have power to issue all writs and process necessary to secure justice to parties, and shall exercise a supervisory and administrative control over all inferior judicial tribunals throughout the state.”
-Article XII, Section 1 states, “This constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith, shall be void. The general assembly shall pass all laws necessary to carry this constitution into effect.”
The Supreme Court acted as it was designed and in accordance with the Iowa Constitution when it voided Iowa Code 595.2(1), which only validated marriages between a man and woman. The law, approved by the legislature, was inconsistent with the equal protection provided by the Constitution.
I am alarmed that you are portraying the action of the Court as judicial activism, especially when it dutifully upholds the protections and equal rights we are granted by our Constitution. I feel it misleads the public and shames our form of government. I encourage you to study and respect our Constitution and craft complementary legislation that builds on its foundation.
Sincerely,
[The Quiet Man]
As a fellow Iowan, I want to voice my disappointment in your proposal to cut the salaries of the Supreme Court justices who were part of the Varnum v. Brien decision. I am most alarmed by the way you paint the justices’ unanimous action as judicial activism that has “trashed the separation of powers.”
I want to remind you that:
-Article I, Section 1 of the Iowa Constitution states “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights — among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”
-Article I, Section 6 states, “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
-Article V, Section 4 states, “The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe; and shall have power to issue all writs and process necessary to secure justice to parties, and shall exercise a supervisory and administrative control over all inferior judicial tribunals throughout the state.”
-Article XII, Section 1 states, “This constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith, shall be void. The general assembly shall pass all laws necessary to carry this constitution into effect.”
The Supreme Court acted as it was designed and in accordance with the Iowa Constitution when it voided Iowa Code 595.2(1), which only validated marriages between a man and woman. The law, approved by the legislature, was inconsistent with the equal protection provided by the Constitution.
I am alarmed that you are portraying the action of the Court as judicial activism, especially when it dutifully upholds the protections and equal rights we are granted by our Constitution. I feel it misleads the public and shames our form of government. I encourage you to study and respect our Constitution and craft complementary legislation that builds on its foundation.
Sincerely,
[The Quiet Man]
