Turn Over the Trees and No One Gets Hurt.
Senator Albert Kookesh at the 2009 Alaska Federation of Natives Convention in Anchorage
Wasn’t it just swell of Senator Al Kookesh (D) to give us such a great lesson? We should all say thanks, because we were wondering to ourselves, “Gee, is it really that bad if corportate interests can insinuate themselves into our government? I mean corporations are people too. And they have free speech – it’s just called ‘money.’ So what’s the big deal?”
Well, Senator Kookesh decided to be a living breathing cautionary tale about mixing corporate interest and government and why it has nothing to do with being a Republican, or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal.
Senator Kookesh represents a large disctrict in the state of Alaska that includes land covered in what some would call “timber” and what others would call “old growth forest.” It all depends on your perspective. And in the senator’s vast district, there’s a little town called Craig, which is about 50 miles away from Ketchikan, down by our state’s capital.
And the residents of Craig have been contemplating the potential transfer of tens of thousands of acres of federal land currently in the Tongass National Forest to the hands of a Native Corporation called Sealaska – think “timber.” The land in question and the town of Craig are both on Prince of Wales Island, the fourth largest island in the United States after the big island of Hawaii, Kodiak, and Puerto Rico. Residents there have been thinking about whether cutting down the trees is a good idea or not.
Senator Kookesh, who in addition to being a legislator for the area, also sits on the board of Sealaska Corporation (which stands to profit handsomely from the timber sales) has an opinion about what should happen, and I’ll bet you can guess what it is. Now this presents a pretty sticky situation. On the one hand, as a legislator he is bound to represent the will of the people in his district. On the other hand, as a board member of Sealaska, his interest is in chopping down a bunch of trees and enriching Sealaska’s coffers. This is a predicament, and a pretty clear conflict of interest.
Well, the City Council of Craig had a meeting, in part to talk about making a move to oppose the bill and the land transfer. And Sealaska stopped in to try to convince them to drop their move to oppose the bill. I don’t want to speak for the good people of Craig, but I would imagine that the residents like their island, and they are justifiably concerned about what will happen if it’s clear cut. Let’s face it, there are plenty of ugly places without trees in the world but there is almost no old growth forest left. Prince of Wales Island is pretty special. Clear cutting kind of ruins that. And then there’s the fact that once the trees are gone, the jobs are gone and there they are with a naked island AND no jobs.
So back to our moral dilemma. Senator Kookesh has a foot in both worlds – he’s a legislator, and also a corporate board member. How does he navigate this ethical mine field? Does he avoid the meeting so as to eliminate any appearance of impropriety? Heck, no. Not only does our esteemed Senator show up with the contingent from Sealaska Corporation, but he insinuates that if the City Council of Craig, doesn’t play ball and decides to proceed with their opposition to the land transfer, that he could (as their Senator) make it difficult for them to find state funding for future projects. And so could their Republican Representative who also sits on the Sealaska board (and who is thanking his lucky stars right about now that he wasn’t at the meeting.)
Nice.
Can anyone say, “coercive extortion?”
Here’s the exact quote from today’s Anchorage Daily News: (Feel free to imagine pin stripe suits and cigar smoke and New Jersey accents if you like)
“I am the state senator that represents Craig. I’m not a vindictive person,” Kookesh told the council. “I see you’re going to have your 2010 capital projects on the table here tonight. And who’s it going to go to? It’s going to go to me. And to (Rep.) Bill Thomas, who is also a Sealaska board member. We have to be good neighbors.”
“There are times you are going to need my help and Bill Thomas’ help,” Kookesh said next, according to an audio recording of the council meeting. “And this is a time we need yours.”
[snip]
After Kookesh made his comments about how Craig’s projects will have to go through him, he went on to say that Sealaska would appreciate support.
“And if you can’t support us, remain neutral, and let us go forward with what we think we have to do to make sure that we continue to be a force in the Prince of Wales Island area,” he said.
So, if you can’t support us, don’t actively oppose us. “Us” being, Sealaska Corp, not “us” the Legislature, or “us” the citizens of Southeast Alaska. Let’s not get that confused.
And for you sticklers who want to know the letter of the law, here’s the relevant part of the Alaska Legislative Branch Ethics Act, kindly provided by Sean Cockerham of the aforementioned Anchorage Daily News:
(e) A legislator may not directly, or by authorizing another to act on the legislator’s behalf,
(1) agree to, threaten to, or state or imply that the legislator will take or withhold a legislative, administrative, or political action, including support or opposition to a bill, employment, nominations, and appointments, as a result of a person’s decision to provide or not provide a political contribution, donate or not donate to a cause favored by the legislator, or provide or not provide a thing of value;
(2) state or imply that the legislator will perform or refrain from performing a lawful constituent service as a result of a person’s decision to provide or not provide a political contribution, donate or not donate to a cause favored by the legislator, or provide or not provide a thing of value; or
(3) unless required by the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, take or withhold official action or exert official influence that could substantially benefit or harm the financial interest of another person with whom the legislator is negotiating for employment.
Unethical? You make the call.
And now, thanks to the Supreme Court and their recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it would appear that Sealaska Corporation can now pay for as much political advertising as it wants for whomever it wants, and against whomever it wants.
I know if I sat on the City Council of Craig, Alaska, I’d have just made up my mind how I was going to vote not only on the Sealaska issue, but on how I was not going to vote in the next election.
Tragic to see old grown forest cut down. Sounds trite, I know, but once it’s cut you don’t get it back. Short-term greed is the name of the game for too many people. As long as they get their goodies, damn to all others.
Unethical? Absolutely. Immoral? Certainly. Legal? Gees, there must be someone who can find a technical way to stop this insanity.
I still think we need to get busy with legally removing a few Supreme Court Justice – well, really one would be necessary if our President would nominate another moderate or progressive. Let’s see – which one to choose (five delicious choices, which should be on the impeachment menu?)
In the meantime, someone needs to come up with a legal way to slow this decision down, to ball it up so badly that calmer, clearer heads (and progressive money) can make its way into the area.
Why aren’t the locals trying to figure out ways to make money from environmentally friendly jobs? Why aren’t eco-oriented companies looking into this area as a way to prove to the world that you can save old growth forests and still raise employment figures? Why take the easy-peasey route to short-term greed by destroying the irreplaceable?
1 ks sunflower-
This has to do with a lands swap for Sealaska. The locals don’t do too badly there on their own …
Thanks for going after this one AKM. This Senator just flushed himself as a legislator…
hope Sealaska and AFN flush him too… also.
Woops- got overexcited about pushing buttons there…
Here’s some background to the land issue involved…
http://aprn.org/2009/02/09/some-prince-of-wales-island-residents-oppose-sealaskatongass-land-sale-prop/
In regard to the SCOTUS Decision from He11, do any of our legally-minded Mudpups know if there’s an appeal process in the Supreme Court?
Since there is one in all of the lower courts, I assume there must be, but I have no idea how the Supreme Court works. Or should I say, is SUPPOSED to work since it’s clearly just dumped a large messy moosepie on the American people.
I’ve seen clear cut sections on the Washington coast, and they aren’t pretty. It will take decades to undo the damage. I hope Senator Kookesh gets slapped with an ethics violation- stamp his forehead with a big, red “V”. Or “A” for asshat, as in “I am an asshat”.
@leenie17 (#4):
There is no appeals process, as the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. However, Congress can pass, modify and/or repeal laws that the Court finds unconstitutional, thus undoing what the Court decrees.
It is fairly apalling that this elected official is even able to maintain the conflict of interest on the surface, that is, be a member of the board of a corporate interest that has direct dealings with the local government. Can corruption be much more obvious?
It strikes me as odd how asymmetrical law enforcement is. For example, some poor slob who happens to fall afoul of the law by speeding, or having a broken taillight, and who is carrying his hash pipe in a pants pocket, gets busted, searched and on the basis of a bit of circumstantial evidence obtained by an illegal search, has his vehicle and all his cash confiscated and subsequently sold, incurs enormous legal expenses or acquiesces to a term of incarceration, and thereafter finds continuous impediments to any efforts to survive for the rest of his/her life. On the other hand you have a politician obviously defrauding his constituency, in a brazen manner, who suffers no consequences whatsoever.
I say that defrauding because there is almost no doubt that even what the honorable senator is proposing is in my opinion, just a soup of half truths and whole lies.
We will have to learn to define the differences between corporate persons and ordinary flesh and blood human beings. Some are obvious.
We must make ourselves heard. We must bear in mind that we can spread an idea if we communicate it to each other. But we must make it coherent and simple and plain. It is a tall order for a complacent population.
Just my thoughts….
This is incredibly bold on Mr Kookish’s part. But then again he has nothing to worry about. Politicians are rarely held accountable for questionable ethics. Haven’t we just seen that recently in the news?
Too many poo-poo the value of old growth stands, particularly foresters.
“Oh, we need to cut the trees to keep forest life alive.”
Pardon moi?
What about the life that is in an old growth stand? Life found nowhere but in an old growth stand?
Reminds me a bit of how they approached life issues at the Gettysburg Military Park. First, they complained the deer were causing too much damage to trees and undergrowth. So they shot the deer. Then they cut down the trees because the branches, leaves and trunks blocked the view. Now they wonder why there’s no deer. They are considering growing trees to attract deer to the Park.
Why don’t they just leave it alone? Why does every inch of this planet need to be about humans? Humans that are hell-bent on sending this planet back some 3 billion years.
Our Maker gave our species a highly functioning brain. Cutting everything down for the sake of pocket change is a misuse of the gifts He gave us. Why do old growth forests need to be cut down? There’s life in there… unique and often found no where else on this planet. Let it alone.
The Prince of Wales flying squirrel is found nowhere else on earth. Sigh…. AKM
This is normal Kookesh operating procedure….
He is also senator for a big swath of the interior and his wife’s family is all there, very big and very extended with varied tribal affiliations, with massive amounts of land, natural resources and federal dollars at there disposal.
I think by the 5:00 pm news Monday evening the Craig City Council members will see the error in their ways and of course support whatever it is that the Alaska Native Corporation, Sealaska wants them to do.
If one doesn’t do what an Alaska Native Corporation tells them to do bad things happen. Ask around, you’ll find more than a few people who will tell you they’ve been subjected to similar threats over a variety of issues.
Everyone has a price. Especially in Alaska.
All I can say is Alaska, for supposedly having some of the toughest laws on ethics, needs to go back to the drawing board.
The FBI needs to look into MORE things not less and I am at the point, as a resident, they need to be asked by us!!
“ALL I SAW..” If this is also how the AFN works, shame on them. NO one will benefit in the long run. The kick back will happen and hurt everyone.
AKM, thanks for bringing more light to this and I hope the residents in his voting area see it AND ACT.
Sad state of things!!
OT, but pretty funny; from “Alaska Ear”, a column in ADN:
“NOT QUITE RIGHT … A local outfit called Conservative Patriots Group Inc. was so elated by the U.S. Supreme Court decision lifting restrictions on corporations’ political spending, they pounded out a demanding letter a scant 24 hours later.
“Dear Commissioners,” it said, followed by a request that the “Commission” change Alaska’s campaign finance regulations, forms and APOC guidelines by Feb. 15 to conform to the decision so they can “financially support certain candidates running for office in the upcoming Anchorage Assembly races.” It’s signed by Frank J. Bettine, “In-house Counsel,” and cc’d to “All Alaska Legislatures” (sic).
Seems reasonable. Just one problem: It’s addressed to the “Alaska Public Utilities Commission.” Aiming for the source of all power, perhaps?”
heh heh…..
This story is EXACTLY why we need a smart, free press that’s not beholden to any government for its operating budget.
Good report, AKM and Sean. Keep shining the light on these selfish maggots.
This is a little too public and obvious. Even here in Chicago, that kind of upfront demand for quid pro quo has been known to interest the US Attorney and lead to prosecution. Apart from the environmental/conservation aspect, this is moral/ethical pollution that insidiously poisons civil society. As Krubozumo Nyankoye said, our law enforcement priorities are skewed.
As I read through your article I had to stop for a moment or two because I was so ANGRY! That idiot! I am definitely sending him a letter/e-mail stating EXACTLY what I think of him and his immoral, corrupt, attempted intimidating, stupid, imbecile decisions. And if he comes to my village again, I’ll blast his betraying butt out of here! Not to mention, I’ll be letting everyone I know here what he tried in the south. Moron.
How big is this clown’s district? In my experience, even people-of-that-other-party respond negatively to threats.
I can’t believe that this jerk is so brazen about his obvious conflict of interest. Wow. But the whole issue reminds me of the old growth forests that are gone in Washington state. Every once in a while, I see a photo of early 20th century loggers, proudly standing by a tree that was cut down, a tree that was hundreds of years old and healthy.
And then I remember the controversy over the northern spotted owl. Loggers hate them, and environmentatlists managed to stop some of the destruction of the old growth forests by getting them on the endagered species list. Cute little unassuming owl that turned out to have a lot of power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Spotted_Owl
And I say, more power to them. Once those huge beautiful trees are gone, we won’t see anything like it in our lifetime. Not only are the old growth forests beautiful to look at, they are home to all kinds of creatures. We need to find a way to live with nature, rather than destroying it for nothing more than greed.
I hadn’t realized that with all the other issues in Alaska that the battle to save the old growth forests is also one. I hope the people of Craig stand up to this kind of bullying and then vote the SOBs out of office.
I do need to correct what I said. Not all the old growth forests are gone in Washington state. Some are protected, but it’s an issue that is not dead. I remember when we first came here from Kansas, I was in awe (and still am, really) of the gorgeous trees. There are still some freeways where the trees are right next to the road. It’s incredible. And the fresh smell is something that my Kansas nose, accustomed to smelling wheat fields and dust, really notices.
I was horrified, as you can imagine, the first time we drove through an area that had been clear-cut. I thought it was from a forest fire, but, no, it had been logged.
It’s not being done as much in Washington state, but that’s only because people actively fought against the practice. I get it that people have to make a living, but just what do the loggers think they are going to cut down when they’ve cut down the trees that are over a hundred years old? Sometimes people need to find a new job, do the retraining that it takes and leave the environment alone.
I live in Senator Kookesh’s district. It’s absolutely humongous — a big chunk of the Interior and extending down to Southeast. It’s very *very* rural, and quite bush-oriented.
This really bothers me, as in the past he and his staff have been extremely responsive whenever I’ve written them, and for the most part I’ve been pretty satisfied with his voting.
Something is really, really wrong here. This is such a clear-cut conflict of interest, yet he’s brazenly bringing it to everyone’s attention …… why????
He needs to recuse himself from any discussion or votes on the subject!
can’t he be forced to either resign his position with sealaska or resign as senator? that is so in-your-face corrupt. and then to extort the citizens openly in a meeting? isn’t that prosecutable?
Fascinating. . .
Do you think we’ll hear (eventually) a coordinating pop when all these (and not just in AK, did you hear about the SC guy running for Governor and compared people on Welfare to stray animals?) self-absorbed, money grabbing, out of their minds, politicians’ and justices’ (note no capital use) brains implode?
I mean reality has to hit them at some point.
Doesn’t it?
AKM, this has to go to the local chapter of the Sierra Club, Dept. of the Interior and anyone else who has a hand in endangered species. That squirrel exists NO WHERE else!
When we rode through Washington State three years ago the stark horror of clear cut logging brought tears to my eyes. The land is raped – pure and simple. Not to mention the tremendous impact on wildlife and birds. Can’t we go back to the time when men did the actual logging and not machines that come in to destroy and devour?
@Newfoundland Dogs Rule
I believe nothing short of an actual brain transplant will help these people. They do not “get” that they spew idiocy every time they open their mouths. And I don’t believe that even a bulldozer of reality will get them to change or understand their hypocrisy.
@ LiladyNY
Sadly, I think you’re right, I mean left, I mean correct.
@NDR
LOLOLOL
Take a look at California. The very reason they have major flooding and mudslides all the time: FORESTS BULDOZED DOWN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. I know, I lived there for many years. It used to be beautiful there, no so much anymore.
Just wondering..now that corp have been deemed people and thus protected under our constitution.,..can he, and others, openly represent the corps interests – as one of the “people” from his district?
@28 Judi, Sen. Lieberman has been doing that for years for the insurance industry in CT, even more so lately with his pro-filibuster-his-own-party threats.
I voted against Bill Thomas last go ’round, but we have a pretty serious divide here, lots of us and them regarding logging other non-tourist development. The other candidate is awfully green, I mean the guy actually has solar panels on his house! (add in your favorite anti ‘hippy’ complaint here)
Small town southeast irony: on my Facebook page, your entry about Kookesh is right above a Sealaska Shareholder’s news about a new grandchild. I remember when they started getting their annual checks when we were in Jr. High. Life in the rainforest has never been the same.
For myriad reasons, clear-cutting *any* land is an unsound practice ~ beyond the ugliness it creates and the disruption of habitat it makes, it is financially unsound for both the logging company and the land owner.
There is such a thing as “Ecological Forestry” in which a win-win situation, all around, is created – the timber is harvested AND the land/habitat is protected/preserved. It’s being done with the California redwoods…or at least some logging companies are doing it. It doesn’t appear as if Sealaska has that in mind, though; possibly it might be a ‘solution’ to the current problem/dilemma of wanting timber and money, on the one hand, and wanting to preserve an old-growth forest on the other. [See: "Redwoods: The Super Trees," a 12-page article in the October 2009 National Geographic @ http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/10/redwoods/bourne-text ]
If this (ecological forestry) is the type of harvesting Sealaska ends up adopting/planning, it might not be so horrible. That’s a mighty big “IF”, though. Strict accountability will have to be insisted upon with constant vigilance by/from concerned citizens… I don’t think it’s too late for concerned citizens in AK to educate Sealaska about both preserving AND harvesting…for the benefit of all.
That said, I think the greater issue is the undeniable conflict of interest resulting in the blatant intimidation of citizens by Senator Kookesh. It couldn’t be more of a red-flag for his recall than had he been the regional manager for W-Mart and insisted that the area government and all citizens only purchase goods and services from W-M…on ‘penalty’ of his throwing a gigantic monkeywrench into [any and all of] their future plans. Supporting a plan/agenda is one thing; making threats (however ‘veiled’) to insure citizens also support that plan/agenda, is something else, entirely. beth.
In response to Leenie17, no there is no appeal process for any decision of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US). The relevant legal principles are those of “stare decisis”, and “sua sponte”.
STARE DECISIS – Lat. “to stand by that which is decided.” The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts. Of course, decisions of lower trial and appellate courts ARE overturned/overruled by higher courts, but re SCOTUS, there are NO higher courts.
To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.
An appeal court’s panel is “bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions.” United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).
Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, “It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . ‘is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.’” (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.)
Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law. ”
SO, the “en banc” decisions mentioned in the decision are only available at the state court levels, not at the SCOTUS level. And the definition explains that even a “new” SCOTUS (say, Scalia spontaneously explodes from a combination of uncontrolled rage and overeating, and is replaced with a moderate judge, thereby changing the balance of SCOTUS) would have to wait for a brand new case to wend its way through the lower trial and appellate levels (which would take YEARS) to revisit the issue.
That brings us to the other latin phrase, “sua sponte”, meaning to act spontaneously without prompting from another. Judges may act “sua sponte” for example, in recusing themselves for a conflict of interest. Justices may not reconsider their own earlier decisions.
Unfortuately, in regard to this decision – which I consider the WORST, most OUTRAGEOUS, TRAVESTY of a decision in the history of the United States the only possible corrections IMHO require either legislation (most probably a Constitutional amendment excluding corporations from legal status as “persons”) or a similar but new case being heard by a different group of SCOTUS justices. In either case, we’re looking at years.
Amending the US Constitution is no small task.
The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
“Informal Amendment”
Another way the Constitution’s meaning is changed is often referred to as “informal amendment.” This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.
There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation’s outlook on these issues changed.
In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge’s ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.
——————————————————————————–
Popular Amendment
One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar’s book, The Constitution: A Biography.
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, “… the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”
It makes sense – if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today – even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.
Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.
Kookesh thinks he has the votes in the rural native villages sewn up; that his legislative seat is secure. If word of this gets around, and it will, there will be some very interesting ramifications from this behavior. While the Native Corps are strong in Kookesh’s district, folks don’t take kindly to being railroaded and will turn aroundand go the other way just because they are being pushed. The recent court decision is in his favor though, as he’ll be able to put out a lot of media noise to drown out the sound of his own ethical lapses.
My apologies for the length of my response above. I tried to provide enough detail to avoid “yes, but what about . . .” questions.
The thing is, you really need a law degree to fully comprehend the absolute horror of this decision! It basically turns our country into the United Corporations of America (with “personhood” rights even further extended to foreign corporations).
Clearcutting selected tracts has been stepped up in western Oregon (eastern Oregon is more arid, fewer trees) from the Cascades to the sea. Just open Google Earth and look at all the clearcut patches.
Sure, Weyerhaeuser and the other companies re-plant 1 ft. high baby trees, but obviously they reach maturity by the time a human baby hits Medicare age. Meanwhile we get to look at the ugly stumps and slivers of wood left behind, and the junk trees and inedible weedy undergrowth move in and make the whole tract look trashy.
I realize the real topic here is Albert Kookesh using a Vito Corleone approach with the good citizens of Craig, and I wrote about this myself.
However, if anyone would like to ask our U.S. Senators Murkowski and Begich about the legislation THEY introduced (S 3561) that inspired Kookesh’s mafioso approach, here’s a bit of background information.
Sort of astonishing.
give them an inch, they take a yard…STOP GIVING!
Maybe Kookesh in his ‘ little world ‘ there thought nobody would notice his behavior and ‘ mafia tactics ‘.
???? Didn’t you have a Governor that thought She could do anything she wanted and nobody would say a peep as well..?
The Sierra Club or one of these Nature Organizations should publish in their National Newsletter the recent developments there so that it gets as much of a LOUD voice out there so people hear it.
IDEA**** Any Mudflatters who are Members of ‘ any ‘ Organizations should forward AKM’s story so that the Senators words get reprinted elsewhere or in some other Online publications. The internet is a little larger than his little world he lives in. Make him ‘ eat his words ‘ so to speak.
If this speech is on audio….someone post it to YouTube….?
PennLawyer @34
The thing is, you really need a law degree to fully comprehend the absolute horror of this decision! It basically turns our country into the United Corporations of America (with “personhood” rights even further extended to foreign corporations).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think this is one time I’m glad I didn’t listen to my high school guidance counselor and go to law school. I know fairly little about law, but I understand enough about this decision to keep me awake at night. If I had a law degree I’d NEVER get to sleep. Thanks for the thorough (and thoroughly terrifying) response…I think!
If a state senator from southeast Alaska has enough b@lls to threaten the city council to either play ball or not get state funding for projects completely unrelated to the particular issue at hand, just imagine the control that the CEO of Exxon or Citibank could have over our national political system.
I just don’t understand how anyone, in ANY political party, could praise this decision. It goes against every principal this nation was founded upon and completely strips power away from its citizens, handing it over to corporations, many of which are foreign-owned. If the Republicans who support this decision thought about it for more than ten seconds, they should be horrified at the implications.
And I thought the state of the economy and health care were enough to worry about…
Why, you ask?
Because Alaska’s most powerful Native Corporations are trying to execute a hostile takeover of Alaska as a whole.
First it was the fisheries, now its the construction industry. There is a reason all the good tradesmen are sitting home not working – because there is an orchestrated effort to squeeze the Unions (i.e. Alyeska/ASRC Energy Services) and import cheap, dump, ask-no-questions, corner-cutting employees. They picked up some really slick managers in their post-Katrina contracting stints and now their bringing the road-kill home.
They aren’t helping the Native People’s of Alaska, they are exploiting them – follow the money. Lots and lots of “joint ventures” and LLC “members” who have never even been to Alaska. Follow the money – only Uncle Ted designed the ANCSA Corporations so that the ONLY group that has any legal authority to change it are the shareholders – only they have to do it out of their own pockets because the Boards of the companies have hijacked everything.
Of course, not all Native Corporations operate this way – but a lot wish they could. This has nothing to do with Alaska’s indigenous people’s – of course their culture should be treasured – but the corporations that were set up in their name are bad actors.
impeach that guy on ethics violations… dump him…
This guy is a huge dink. Trying to throw his political weight around for the benefit of a company he has ties to? He wouldn’t know a conflict of interest if it bit him on the ass.
PennLawyer @ 32 and 34. Thank you!
…and now, the question (I know, I know; you were hoping to cut questions off at the pass – sorry):
Would the last week SCOTUS decision be anything like the SCOTUSs “Dred Scott” decision wherein the ‘end result’ ruling [that Scott could not sue for his freedom] was based on a commonly-held presumption/assumption that: a person of color could *not* –ever– be “a citizen,” ergo, he had *no* standing before the court?
Wasn’t last weeks decision based on a similar type of deal; based on a fatally flawed presupposition/’assumption’? Wasn’t the decision the result of a totally absurd ‘snafu’ caused, *not* by any SCOTUS (or any court’s) ruling, but by the years-ago carelessness of a court clerk who –incredibly, all by his lonesome– ‘conferred “citizenship”‘ to corporations? Do clearly proven carelessnesses [is that a word?] ‘count’ as viable and citeable precedence for the SCOTUSs decisions? beth.
I just used my own advice from what I posted above and sent an email letter to “The Sierra Club”. I sort of did a little background on AKM and the Mudflats blog and how AKM covers these environmental issues and then told them to just read the story for the facts and forward the story or re-print it in a Newsletter maybe.
This is just one Organization… if you can think of others, please share and post them here.
Imagine if The Sierra Club got another 20 ( or More ) additional emails today.
They might ask ” What is going on? ”
The active link on this webpage has their email address and you can compose a short letter if you choose. It is not one of those ‘ fill in the blank lines ‘ contact pages.
http://www.sierraclub.org/foundation/about/contact.aspx
Reply to 43 Beth.
Good questions – I certainly think the decision was fatally flawed, but I can’t answer re a specific comparison to Dred Scott.
The dissents I would expect lay out all the flaws in the decision, and I also refer you to this column.
-An Intellectually Dishonest Power Grab
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/23/a_...
An Intellectually Dishonest Power Grab
By Ruth Marcus
It is so discouraging -everyone under so much pressure and stress worrying about and dealing with the economy, the wars, and health care – and then this outrageous decision.
I maybe wrong, but I believe if this is Federal land the land swap (is it a land swap?) has to be approved by congress. What type of work do the citizen’s of Alaska do in this area? What is the Forest Service requirements for a land swap? One note regarding the Forest Service; if they are the one’s evaluating the land swap, stay on top of them under the Freedom of Information Act. We had a land swap deal in Arkansas, over 4,000 acres were involved (I learned about if after the fact). I did get a copy of the biological opinion and it was a joke. Two biologists surveyed 4,000 acres in one day! When I asked for their field notes under FOIA – guess what – they don’t exist. So we ended up with stripped land (a third party retained the mineral rights!) and the developer received prime property which he is currently selling as residential lots. Price of land he swapped was appraised (never could get the info as to who appraised the land) at $2,500 an acre; within a month he was selling the lots for $20,000 an acre. What did the tax payers get in return; erroded land and no rights to the minerals. Maybe in 500 years the land will restore it self but it will never be the same with the top soil removed. Good luck!
PennLawyer @ 45: thank you for the mention of the article – excellent explanation(s)/exposing by Ruth Marcus of SCOTUSs most astounding mooseplop. beth.
BTW: The automatic link generator thingie [that's its technical name, if I recall correctly] doesn’t recognize items in some URLs…like “-”s and such; clicking on them takes the clicker to a “page not found” notification. Such appears to be the case with the linked article; I copied the article title, An Intellectually Dishonest Power Grab, into Google and super-easily found it from there. b.
Isn’t it sad that once a person gets the smell of ‘money’ in his/her nostrils, common sense, ethical behavior, do unto others as you would have done to you, ALL go out the ear holes and the brain turns to mush…..I just lost any respect I might have ever held for Mr. Kookesh. I lived in SE for 38 years before moving ‘north’ and it sickens me to hear these kinds of threats and ultimatums given out in the guise of ‘representation’ of the people of SE. Or anywhere in Alaska for that matter. Every time I hear of a new ‘project’ these days I wonder who has the money behind the project, and how is it being used to coerce us into believing its the best thing since sliced bread!! I am instantly negative about the project because of the secrecy, threats, and tactics used to foist it off on us. It might be a perfectly good project…..too bad!!
PennLawyer Says:
January 25th, 2010 at 9:42 AM
My apologies for the length of my response above. I tried to provide enough detail to avoid “yes, but what about . . .” questions.
The thing is, you really need a law degree to fully comprehend the absolute horror of this decision! It basically turns our country into the United Corporations of America (with “personhood” rights even further extended to foreign corporations).
**************************************************************************
thank you for you for your detailed response. i heard about this case in September 2009 while being driven to the airport. although i am not a lawyer i got it . i remember turning to my daughter and saying “this is the end. the United States of America for all intents and purposes no longer exists.”
There is hope, bubbles. There is always hope. And then there are those republican politicians who go so far over the line that they end up getting b&tch slapped back into the unemployment line.
“I am instantly negative about the project because of the secrecy, threats, and tactics used to foist it off on us. It might be a perfectly good project…..too bad!!” – Marilyn
Yep, yep and yep.
What has happened is that there are too many middlemen involved and they think that their “relationship contribution” to any project has value above and beyond what any contractor, laborer or vendor does.
With all the kickbacks and bribes to people that have never owned a pair of work boots or picked up a hammer – there is very little left for the people that do the real work.
I would argue that anyone would be hard pressed to find a single publicly funded construction project in the State of Alaska that didn’t involve bribes, kickbacks or quid pro quo’s by public officials or pompous executives.
Sadly, being kind of a youngster (although lifelong Alaskan) I’m told that there is nothing new to this story. This is the 1970′s all over again when the TransAlaska Pipeline was being built. Alaska is a “rush” economy, whether it be gold, oil, timber or minerals mining. Its time we grew up and started looking to each other – regardless of political ideology – to create a mature and sustainable economy. Otherwise all the smart folks will leave – if they haven’t already.
Ah yes, if only there were better choices out there.
Kookesh is a little too pally with R-Rep. Bill Thomas.
Both wielding their power through pork to cronies and a bit out of touch with the people of their districts.
Great article. This is CORRUPTION pure and simple. It makes you wonder what Sealaska is doing behind closed doors if this is what they are doing in open public forums!
If anyone else is outraged, please write letters to the editor… especially in papers in the states of members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. All those members are being told by Sealaska that their corporation is Alaskan natives who know better than anyone how to live sustainably within the Forest. The reality is that the CEO and people in charge of the logging are White and don’t care about long-term forest health….they just want to clear-cut it. Those Senators are getting a simple message of “give the land back to the Natives” and don’t know anything about this sort of CORRUPTION that is the reality of Sealaska.
(told you so)
I hope his constituents decide this sounds like reason for a recall and/or maybe another FBI investigation into corruption in Alaska politics.
“I don’t want to speak for the good people of Craig, but I would imagine that the residents like their island, and they are justifiably concerned about what will happen if it’s clear cut. Let’s face it, there are plenty of ugly places without trees in the world but there is almost no old growth forest left. Prince of Wales Island is pretty special. Clear cutting kind of ruins that.”
It would be my hunch that the good people of Craig are more concerned about Sealaska taking timber from federal land that would make it unavailable for competitive bidding from local loggers as well a processing in the local mill in Klawock. Sealaska would likely bring in its own crews and then export the wood without value added milling. POW island has already been extensively clearcut. Just sayin’
@28 Judi:
“Just wondering..now that corp have been deemed people and thus protected under our constitution.,..can he, and others, openly represent the corps interests – as one of the “people” from his district?”
———–
Yeah, I was wondering the same ….
Soooo coincidental that it came so close to the SCOTUS ruling. Are they testing the waters, seeing just how far they will be able to go? —— ??? (“OK, the supremes have given us the go-ahead, so now we have to pick up that ball and see how far we can run it ………” ??????)
#9 sauerkraut: good post.
I’m a member of Sierra Club and just sent them an email about this.
“Those Senators are getting a simple message of “give the land back to the Natives” and don’t know anything about this sort of CORRUPTION that is the reality of Sealaska.”
Those Senators know exactly who is benefiting from any of their legislation – they aren’t innocently advocating for the betterment of Native People’s – they are delivering the goods ordered by their campaign donors.
Both Native and white crooks make this possible. It is simply a lie that any legislation that occurs in D.C. was and is always intended to benefit the Native population of Alaska as a whole.
There is a reason the likes of Chenega have partnered with Blackwater – the people who get rich on these arrangements could care less about Alaska or its Native peoples.
What Ted Stevens, Bolivian Cocaine and Halliburton have in Common
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/19/halliburton/index.html
… the answer = an Alaska Native Corporation, only the Native shareholders don’t even have the same rights as a shareholder of ANY other company in the United States.