Contributions as Probate Judge of Elmore County
INVESTITURE REMARKS
[Remarks of John E. Enslen at his investiture as Probate Judge of Elmore County at the Millbrook Civic Center, Millbrook, Alabama on January 10, 2013.]
[After thanking Judge Stubbs and presenting a gift of framed photos from most recent syrup making day.]
I need to disclose that I will not be giving away a pint of homemade cane syrup to each of you. Making syrup is not a talent of mine, but I might find a way to cook you a pancake.
Judge Stubbs and his staff have been extremely accommodating to me during our transition. I hope you will join me at his retirement event at 2:00 p.m. this coming Saturday at the Wetumpka Civic Center.
I want to add another person to the list of people we have recognized today—my sweet mother who is 84 years old. Every year on Mother’s Day, I reflect on this profound understatement: “If it were not for my mother, I probably wouldn’t even be here.”
Mama recently asked me, “Why are you taking your oath of office in Millbrook?” I told her that one of the boxes in Millbrook gave me a higher percentage of votes than my own home box. She came right back with “That’s because they know you better in your home box.”
I would be ungrateful if I did not also mention the legacy of quality public service that was left to me by my father Judge Edward Enslen, who served as probate judge and chairman of the county commission for 24 years and 12 years before that as Tax Assessor. The older I get the more I look like my daddy, and I never did waste my money on a DNA test. I was even accused of putting his photo on my campaign billboards.
As I campaigned door-to-door out in the county, occasionally an older lady would come to the front door. I would say something like “My name is John Enslen and I’m running for Probate Judge.” The lady would look up at me with her squinting eyes and say, “I voted for you the last time,” to which I would immediately respond: “I sho’ do ‘preciate it, and I hope you will vote for me again.”
I would be terribly ungrateful if I did not recognize my wife Dianne. Since the time we met 46 years ago, she has been both my most loyal cheerleader and my most discerning critic. Dianne has been there to lift me up when I was too far down and to knock me back down when I was too far up. She has born the heavier load in the nurturing and rearing and educating of our six children and the spoiling of our 19 grandchildren. She is a remarkable and incomparable blessing in my life. The kindness she shows to others is a continuous example to me. She holds the only key to my heart, and my only home is wherever she is.
Dianne is also a superb campaigner who never meets a stranger. Speaking of campaigning, unexpected things can happen to you when you are campaigning. I had a captive audience of about seven or eight voters who were standing in a tag line in the lobby of the old courthouse. I had begun to give them my little spiel on why I should be their next probate judge when one of them interrupted me in a strong voice saying, “Now I know who you are. My wife helped you get through rehab.”
Everyone looked at me like I was a drug addict and then totally ignored me by turning and staring straight ahead in the tag line.
I came to find out that the man’s wife had helped me get through physical therapy rehab following my shoulder surgery.
Well, I’m looking forward to assuming the duties of the office. I was driving home a couple of weeks ago and saw some cars parked outside of the domino room at Quail Walk Country Club. I need to tell y’all what these mature men, well, mature age wise—what they do in the domino room at the country club. Are you ready for this? They play dominos.
There is usually a little two-dollar bet on who will win the game. Technically speaking, that would be illegal gambling, even though there is more skill involved in playing dominoes than there is in playing the stock market. It’s cheap entertainment and the money is only a symbol of the more important pride factor.
I parked my truck, busted into the domino room, and announced to certain people, whose names I best not mention, that I was practicing for my first raid after taking office. One of the more astute in the group said, “You don’t have any criminal jurisdiction,” to which I replied, “You are absolutely correct, but I have original jurisdiction for rounding up the mentally impaired.”
With regard to the more pleasant duties of the office, where else does one have the privilege of selling you a marriage license, performing your marriage, and then approving an adoption?
Now I want to get more serious with you. I just took a sacred oath. Why is such an oath required in our system of government? Article VI of our United States Constitution states: “[A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution….”
Please note that I did not swear my allegiance to a man. I did not swear my allegiance to a political party. I did not swear my allegiance to the advancement of a particular social or business agenda. I made a solemn covenant to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama.
If we truly believe in the rule of law, then these laws which frame our constitutions are the very laws that most deserve our unwavering support and defense. I like the phrase “the rule of constitutional law.” Many among us hold the view that citizens should not passively submit to a lesser law which is in plain and direct conflict with the clear and unambiguous provisions of our United States Constitution. I have no problem with that, but unfortunately, there is precious little in the law, which comes from a process of compromise, that is entirely simple and plain and clear and unambiguous.
Where the intended meaning is uncertain, the role of interpretation becomes preeminent. May I share with you a wise statement from Thomas Jefferson in regard to the interpretation of our federal constitution? Said he:
“On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” In other words, it means what it meant to the framers.
Our federal constitution is indeed a living document by design, but it is a living document because our constitutional forefathers provided the proper means for breathing new life into the constitution as future needs might arise. That proper means is the amendment process, rarely talked about. An amendment was used to limit a president to two terms in 1951; to eliminate poll taxes in 1964; to give 18-year-olds the right to vote in 1971; and to prohibit congressmen from raising their current-term compensation in 1992. I wonder if “we the people” are failing to recognize the power that can be asserted through the amendment process?
Two-thirds of the legislatures of the states, that’s 34 states of today, can call for a constitutional convention and propose changes in the constitution to be voted upon. Three fourths of the legislatures of the states, that’s 38 state legislatures of today, can adopt any proposed changes, including changes that re-enthrone the original intent of the framers or place new limits on the power of government to control or over-burden the lives of American citizens.
Through this amendment process, there could be a new constitutional requirement to balance the federal budget, or for that matter to have a budget, or to limit the terms of congressmen and senators, or to transfer part of the jurisdiction that has been assumed by the federal government back to the states. Perhaps our own Alabama legislature could take a lead role in promoting amongst our sister states just such a constitutional convention.
For many decades following the adoption of our federal constitution, there were enough knowledgeable citizens who were sufficiently jealous of their constitutional rights that the government’s natural propensities to intrude, encroach, and over-reach were inhibited and thwarted. But hard facts, like a poor economy, make bad law, and in 1937 during the depths of the Great Depression, following 161 years of American independence and self-reliance, the flood gates of federal social engineering began to open. The judiciary failed to halt a presidentially-urged legislative disconnect between the federal power to tax and the federal power to spend.
Shortly thereafter, the “Commerce Clause” began to be so illogically expanded as to allow the federal government to manipulate and control free market forces at the origins of production. Ironically, the very same conduct which was formerly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, without there being any change in the wording of the constitution. The only thing that had changed was the political and demographic landscape. The plain meaning of simple words will never prevent a strained interpretation by an appointed judiciary determined to support a pre-determined outcome.
Then in 1973, the Supreme Court modified the constitution by creating a new constitutional right called the “right of privacy” which allows a prospective mother to abort the life of a human embryo in her womb. Federalism was again injected into a matter that was previously reserved entirely to the states under the 10th amendment.
I am not saying that any of the particular rulings I have mentioned are not the law of the land. To the contrary, they are the law of the land and I am sworn to uphold them as long as they are the current law of the land. But there are a few things that I am saying.
I am saying that those dramatic changes in the law did not go through the voter-involved amendment process that the constitution sets forth for creating or eliminating constitutional rights or powers; making major amendments to the constitution through judicial interpretation is not an amendment procedure that finds historical support amongst the original framers of the constitution.
I am saying that 5-4 decisions on grave constitutional matters evidence an amazing lack of general consensus for monumental change, and the most reasoned opinions may well turn out to be the dissenting opinions. I am saying that national decisions, as opposed to state-by-state decisions, have a greater tendency to polarize the nation.
I am saying that extra-constitutional activity can easily occur when the legislative branch abdicates its law-making responsibility by conveying to bureaucracies of the executive branch the power to make rules and regulations with the force of law, and the results of that practice can be more difficult to reverse than an extra-constitutional executive order. It is the legal equivalent to the death of a thousand cuts. Or, perhaps I should say a thousand pages.
I am saying that our long history of increasing federalism has virtually eliminated the high priority that the framers originally placed on the 10th amendment. We sometimes see state officials promoting to their citizens the positions of the federal government, instead of protecting the positions of their citizens from the federal government. Lest we forget, the states created the federal government and not vice versa.
And finally, I am saying that you and I aid and abet constitutional deterioration when we instruct our representatives to “bring home the bacon” instead of to guard and protect our constitutional liberties.
In conclusion, our system relies most heavily on our courts to be the final firewall for the guarantees contained in our constitution. By the time a matter comes before a court, both the legislative and the executive branches have already done their dirty work. If it becomes the new normal for our courts to fail in their responsibility to uphold the constitution and its associated freedoms, then we are doomed to live under the same type of government that preceded, and created the need for, our inspired federal constitution.
I close on this positive note. Notwithstanding genuine threats to our liberties, we have life in a land which, with all of its problems, is a good and marvelous place. But it will be profoundly better when those who create, administer, and ultimately make judgment on our laws have a greater respect for genuine American history and a greater appreciation, yes, even a special reverence for our beloved United States Constitution, purchased by the flowing red blood of our patriotic ancestors.
May we of today have their faith in the unlimited power of prayer, and may our confidence wax strong that when our Savior returns in triumph and glory, the stars and stripes will yet be waving over this unique beacon of freedom we call The United States of America.
Thank you for your kind attention and as a reward I have for each of you, as you depart, a pocket size copy of our United States Constitution which I hope you will read and ponder from time to time.
These proceedings will now conclude with two patriotic musical renditions by the River Region Woodwind Quintet, followed by a benediction offered by my friend Reverend Craig Carter.