PRESENTS AWARD - Stephen Tyler, president of the 23rd Circuit Bar Association, presented the 2006 Liberty Bell Award to Tawas Area High School teacher Jeanne Hamilton. - Photo by John Morris

23rd Circuit Bar Association names Liberty Bell recipient
by John Morris

EAST TAWAS - A 32-year teacher who serves as an advisor to the nationally-acclaimed Tawas PRIDE team has been named the 2006 recipient of the 23rd Circuit Bar Association's Liberty Bell Award.

Jeanne Hamilton was presented with the award Friday at the Tawas Bay Holiday Inn Resort Friday's during the bar association's annual National Law Week luncheon. Hamilton said she is shocked and honored to receive the Liberty Bell Award.
The award is presented annually by the 23rd Circuit Bar Association to a local citizen to acknowledge outstanding community service.

A 1974 graduate of Michigan State University with a degree in education, Hamilton has taught home economics, marketing and health, among others, at the high school level in the Hale and Tawas Area school systems. She also has volunteered as an advisor to the student council, Natural Helpers, numerous graduating classes and most recently with the Tawas PRIDE group.

The Tawas PRIDE team began in 1999 and has spread its drug-, violence- and alcohol-free lifestyle message across thee United States. Through dances, inspirational speeches and skits, PRIDE students reach children on a peer-to-peer level in hopes of reducing under-age drinking, drug use and violence-based crimes.

Hamilton began her efforts with PRIDE by volunteering as a advisor and continued in the leadership role by chaperoning the group to the 2003 PRIDE International meeting in Brazil. In 2001, she was awarded the international award for PRIDE Advisor of the Year and also was instrumental in the Tawas team accomplishment of the 2005 International PRIDE Team of the Year.

Hamilton has been married to Iosco Family Judge John D. Hamilton for 28 years, They have two daughters, Jennifer and Julienne.

Keynote speaker for the luncheon was retired 26th Circuit Judge Joseph P. Swallow. Swallow spoke on constitutional issues and separation of powers.

Swallow served as judge in the 26th Circuit Court from 1977 to 2005. He also was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives serving the 105th District from 1965-72 and prior to that he served as Alpena County prosecutor.

Swallow spoke of the meaning of Law Day which was established in the 1950s by President Dwight Eisenhower to counteract the Soviet Union's celebration of May Day.

"During that time, very hostile lines were drawn between the two superpowers," he said. "Each championed its own system of government and vied with the other for world domination."

Swallow said the Soviet Union demonstrated its ability to dominate by parading through Red Square in Moscow with a seemingly endless stream of soldiers and the most modern version of huge tanks and cannons.

Swallow served as judge in the 26th Circuit Court from 1977 to 2005. He also was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives serving the 105th District from 1965-72 and prior to that he served as Alpena County prosecutor.

Swallow spoke of the meaning of Law Day which was established in the 1950s by President Dwight Eisenhower to counteract the Soviet Union's celebration of May Day.

"During that time, very hostile lines were drawn between the two superpowers," he said. "Each championed its own system of government and vied with the other for world domination."

Swallow said the Soviet Union demonstrated its ability to dominate by parading through Red Square in Moscow with a seemingly endless stream of soldiers and the most modern version of huge tanks and cannons.

"The political message was dominance by power through might," Swallow said.

"Law Day is designated to demonstrate a different kind of power: People Power. The power of people speaking through the Rule of Law. By and through the Constitution, the people dictate how they are to be governed under law, place limits upon government and establish the mechanism by how the Rule of Law is to be enforced."

Swallow also spoke on Terri Schiavo case. He applauded the federal judiciary for "remaining true to the Constitutional principles and not caving in to partisan pressures."

"Irrespective of one's position on the sanctity of life, the charge by politicians that the federal judges were out of control should be seen as pure demagoguery," Swallow said. "In fact, the state judges meticulously followed the law of Florida in deciding that this poor unfortunate lady, who had been comatose for 15 years, would under the circumstances have wished life support systems to be withdrawn.

"To the contrary it would appear, it was the Congress of the United States which was out of control, when after the fact and contrary to Constitutional principle, they passed a law to reverse a decision of the Florida courts. In my view, such demagoguery by politicians is despicable and only works to destroy people's faith in government."

Lastly, Swallow discussed one example he said is locally orientated and personal - trial court consolidation. Swallow said it's his belief that the consolidation of trial courts in Michigan is unconstitutional.

Swallow said prior to 1963, the state's trial judiciary was divided into a circuit court orientated to issues of civil law and felony crimes at the regional level, a probate court in each county orientated to social issues at the local level and the Justice of the Peace Court which addressed misdemeanors and minor civil claims.

He said the 1963 state Constitution was modified only to allow the legislature the option of merging the Justice of the Peace Court with the Probate Court, or by two-thirds vote to replace the Justice Court with a different entity. The legislature responded by creating the District Courts.

He said Michigan's interest in court unification can be first document in a 1990 Supreme Court generated study "Courts in the 21st Century."

He said the final report recommended unification, but at the time was highly criticized as being led by professional facilitators to reach a pre-ordained result. Swallow said similar reports and recommendations followed as the state legislature was lobbied by the Supreme Court and the executive office to favor court consolidation.

"In response to these efforts, in July of 1996, Public Act 388 was adopted," he said.

He said among other things, the act provided that the juvenile jurisdiction of the Probate Court should be removed to the circuit court. "This was done despite Constitutional direction, that the Probate Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases of juvenile delinquents and dependants except as otherwise provided by law," Swallow said.

"Some of us believe that the tag line as otherwise provided by law was intended to legitimatize the waiver provision for incorrigible juveniles to Circuit Court so that in special circumstances a juvenile may be tried as an adult. But never was it intended to completely denude the Probate Court of its original jurisdiction."

He said some folks in Lansing must have been concerned too as Public Act 388 was designed not to be effective until 1998.

Swallowed said in 2002, with all three branches of state government under control of the same political party, the legislature passed Public Acts 678 and 682 providing for a unified Trial Court. However, he said absent sufficient votes for immediate effect, the bills, by operation of the Constitution, would not become law until 2003.

"As a chief judge of a trial court, I questioned how we could legally implement bills which under the Constitution have not yet become law and also raised constitutional questions," Swallow said.

The bills went into effect in April 2003.

"Any fair look at what the Constitution mandates and what the legislature has done in my view is standing the Constitutional structure on Michigan Trial Courts completely on its head," he said. "In my own opinion, it is part of a partisan scheme to create administrative control at the state level over the trail judiciary, particularly focusing on the assignment process.

"In other words, particularly in a politically sensitive case, a bureaucrat subject to partisan authority can select from a large reservoir of judges (so) that a judge of their choice will hear the case rather than the local judge who has been elected by the people to hear the case."