Attorney saddened by court decision

Dear Editor:
As an attorney who has practiced law in Maryville for over 30 years, I was saddened, if not surprised, by the inexcusable conduct of Judge W. Dale Young as described in your newspaper. I was surprised, however, by the attempt to defend Judge Young penned by a local attorney. Both Judge Young, and his obsequious defender, reveal a lack of basic legal knowledge.
There seems to be some confusion among the public regarding whether or not someone seeking a protective order (or any other kind of civil relief) must be a legal resident of this country to be heard in our courts. The answer, as any first year law student should know, is a resounding “no”; the courthouse door is open to all: citizen, resident and alien alike.
This answer does not flow from some recent, “bleeding heart” legislation passed by legislators in Washington or Nashville. It may be found in a document one might suppose both Young and his defenders would have some scant familiarity with: the Constitution of the United States of America. You will find the following language in the Fifth Amendment to that document: “no person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” The same language appears in the Fourteenth Amendment: “...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Constitution was adopted in 1787; the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.
We live in anxious times. Voices of fear whisper we must curtail certain rights to properly defend ourselves from dark foreign menace. Politicians are even now pandering to those seeking easy answers (“lock ‘em up,” “throw ‘em out”). In such times it is crucial to the survival of our way of life - personal freedom backed by equal protection of the law - that judges and lawyers stand up and apply the law even when that law is unpopular with their neighbors; and they must defend the Constitution of the United States (which they took an oath to support) even when its requirement of due process seems “quaint” or dangerous to many in their community.
The stark and simple truth is this: if poor Anna Calixto can be denied the protection of the law today, if her rights may be denied because of her skin color, or her accent, or because she cannot prove she is “legal” under federal immigration law, then no one may be certain of legal protection tomorrow. Without the vigilance of its guardians - lawyers and judges among them - the Constitution will cease to be anything more than an ancient piece of paper.
I leave it to the reader to decide which would be worse: if Judge Young remains so ignorant of basic law after so long a tenure on the bench, or if he is willing to knowingly discard the dictates of our Constitution out of bias, or prejudice or fear?
Sincerely,
Charles M. Clifford
Attorney at law
631 William Blount Drive
Maryville, TN 37801