The first words of the Alaska Constitution are identical to those at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution: "We the people." These three words arguably are the most important in both documents, because they signify that everything that follows - the totality of the constitution - belongs to the people. The ownership stake we have in our state constitution is not a mere abstract notion, because the original document and 25 amendments added since statehood have all been ratified by Alaskans. Nothing can be added or taken away without the consent of the people.

A review of successful amendments illustrates that the power to change the constitution is crucial to the success of self-government. The Permanent Fund (1976) was created through an amendment, as was the Constitutional Budget Reserve (1990). Other amendments have protected the rights of crime victims (1994), reaffirmed the right to keep and bear arms (1994), defended the institution of marriage (1998) and limited Legislative sessions to 121 days (1984). None of these changes would have occurred if the people's power to amend had been obstructed.

Unfortunately, a recent Alaska Supreme Court decision - Bess v. Ulmer (1998) - undermines the ability to change our constitution, and therefore poses a threat to self-government. Before the Bess decision, the amendment process was straightforward. First, the amendment had to win a two-thirds majority of the people's elected representatives in each body of the Legislature, meaning 14 of 20 votes in the Senate, and 27 of 40 votes in the House. Second, the amendment had to be ratified by a majority of voters in a general election.

In the Bess decision, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of preventing Alaskans from voting on an amendment that had lawfully passed the Legislature. The amendment was SJR 3, which stated that convicts in Alaska prisons are entitled only to those rights and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Incredibly, the court claimed that SJR 3 - a simple amendment with only one sentence - was a wholesale "revision" of the constitution. Arguing that revisions of the constitution can be approved only by a constitutional convention and not by the Legislature, the Court stripped SJR 3 off the ballot and denied Alaskans our right to vote on the question.

However, the court's power grab did not stop with the prisoners' rights measure. In the same decision, the justices claimed a newfound right to "edit" the language of another amendment, SJR 42, which confirmed our legal definition of marriage. SJR 42 originally contained two sentences. The court decided the second sentence was unnecessary and deleted it.

The Bess decision represents the high-water mark of arrogance from the non-elected lawyers on the Supreme Court. A dangerous precedent has been created that will likely result in every proposed amendment being challenged in court before the Alaskan people are even allowed to vote. For example, if the logic of Bess is applied consistently, the court would not permit a vote on a subsistence priority amendment. It would declare it a "revision" which could be proposed only by a constitutional convention.

On February 24 the Alaska Senate responded by passing SJR 27, a constitutional amendment that seeks to restore the balance among the three branches of government. SJR 27 was introduced by Senator Dave Donley (R-Anchorage) and is cosponsored by ten other senators. It will prevent judges from changing the language of proposed amendments between the time of Legislative passage and voter ratification. It also clarifies that the Legislature may propose revisions as well as amendments to the constitution. This flexibility is necessary since the Court has now created a precedent for declaring even one-sentence amendments to be "revisions."

Critics of SJR 27 invariably describe the measure as an attempt to undermine the authority of the judiciary. Yet the courts have no power beyond what the constitution grants, and the constitution emanates from the people. This concept was understood well by John Marshall (1755-1835), the former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Marshall was a pioneering advocate for a strong judiciary. Yet unlike many Alaska judges, he appreciated that the constitution belongs to the people. SJR 27 defends a simple proposition eloquently stated by Justice Marshall in one of his landmark decisions, Cohens v. Virginia (1821): "The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will."