The Rule of Law is Non-Partisan

BAR BUSINESS

The 2024–2025 San Antonio Bar Association Board of Directors endorses the March 6 letter to the editor by our esteemed past presidents, who reaffirmed the enduring importance of the rule of law and the vital role of the judiciary in our constitutional democracy. We share their conviction that the judicial branch is an equal and co-equal branch of government, alongside the legislative and executive, as established by the Constitution. Any attempt to intimidate or undermine judges, especially through personal attacks on them or their families, is not only dangerous, it is unpatriotic. Such rhetoric threatens the independence of the judiciary and the democratic principle.

As members of the Texas legal profession, we affirm our commitment to a higher standard of conduct and public service, as reflected in the Texas Lawyer’s Creed, which mandates that we uphold dignity, integrity, and respect for the legal system. The Creed is a solemn reminder that lawyers are stewards of justice and that professionalism demands more than mere compliance. It demands leadership in defending the rule of law.

Likewise, the Articles of Incorporation of the San Antonio Bar Association call on us to protect and advance the professional interests of our members and to promote the advancement of justice. In standing by the letter authored by our past presidents, we fulfill that duty and affirm our enduring dedication to the Constitution and the core values that define the American legal tradition.

Respecting Rule of Law is Democracy

By Charlie Gonzalez and Wallace B. Jefferson

San Antonio Express-News, 3–6–2 (republished with permission from the San Antonio Express-News).

We are former presidents of the San Antonio Bar Association. We are Republicans and Democrats who have been public servants in Congress and the judiciary, and we have engaged in private practice for decades. We agree that, while each U.S. president has the right to pursue policy objectives, the courts are the proper place to settle disputes about these goals.

Presidents of both parties abide those rulings and rescind laws the courts have invalidated. This honors the Constitution’s directive that presidents “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Honoring laws is the cornerstone of our constitutional form of government. We have the oldest written Constitution in the world. It has endured because the people, and its branches of government, agree that the laws must be enforced equally. Because human beings will never achieve perfection, the Founders gave the means to restrain unbridled power.

The Constitution of the United States created three branches of government: the legislative, the executive and the judicial.

Although equal, each branch plays a different role, defined in articles and amendments to the Constitution and amplified by judgments from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Our Founders wanted a system that ensures no one branch exercises unconstrained control.

Public servants swear oaths to place the Constitution above personal interests, political party loyalties or other interests.

A question arises with each new administration, with every era and all wars, foreign and domestic: Are our public servants living up to that oath? And just as important, who decides whether they are? Can Congress declare its own laws constitutional? Can the president, claiming an electoral mandate, ignore Congress or the courts? What if Congress or the president disagree with a court’s ruling?

The Constitution answers these questions. In 1787, the Framers may not have predicted every future struggle, but they agreed on who would have the final say. The Constitution says: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or shall be made, under their Authority.”

It then declares: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

In the landmark Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court confirmed in 1803 its power of judicial review, declaring: “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Resistance to this idea has surfaced throughout our history.

In 1833, President Andrew Jackson suggested that presidents and the Congress could judge constitutionality for themselves. In 1972, President Richard Nixon’s lawyers claimed he did not have to follow a congressional subpoena based on “executive privilege.” But Special Counsel Leon Jaworski warned that our entire constitutional system would be in danger if a president could simply declare what the Constitution means without oversight from the courts. That remains true today.

We must not substitute raw power for liberty and justice. We must reaffirm our faith in these principles of democracy. And we must keep that faith across all administrations of either party, for the rest of time.

Charlie Gonzalez, a Democrat, is a former judge and U.S. representative. He served Texas’ 20th Congressional District from 1999-2013. Wallace B. Jefferson, a Republican, is a partner at Alexander, Dubose & Jefferson. Prior to joining the firm in October 2013, he was chief justice of the Supreme Court of Texas.

Joining the authors, San Antonio Bar past presidents, the Hon. Charlie Gonzalez (1989–1990) and the Hon. Wallace Jefferson (1998–1999) are the following San Antonio Bar past presidents:

Robert Allen (1993–1994)

Hon. Karen Angelini (2004–2005)

Bobby Barrera (2016–2017)

Arthur Bayern (1980–1981)

Michael J. Black (2000–2001)

Joseph Casseb (1996–1997)

Steve Chiscano (2023–2024)

Henry W. Christopher, Jr. (1974–1975)

Tom Crosley (2019–2020)

Mary Belan Doggett (2005–2006)

Sue Hall (1990–1991)

James Hall (2001–2002)

Lamont Jefferson (2006–2007)

Tom Keyser (2014–2015)

Hon. Dan Naranjo (1984–1985)

Hon. Larry Noll (1992–1993)

Dan Pozza (1995–1996)

Hon. Karen Pozza (2003–2004)

Fidel Rodriguez, Jr. (1994–1995)

Carl Robin Teague (2009–2010)

Marty Truss (2015–2016)

Hon. Beth Watkins (2017–2018)

Since 1987, Every Texas attorney must take an oath before licensure.

Texas Oath of Attorney

Government Code §82.037

I, _______________ , do solemnly swear that I will support the constitutions of the United States and Texas; that I will honestly demean myself in the practice of the law; that I will discharge my duties to my clients to the best of my ability; and that I will conduct myself with integrity and civility when dealing with and communicating with the court and all parties.So help me God. (optional)

Texas Lawyer’s Creed

The Texas Lawyer’s Creed was adopted in 1989 by the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as a mandate for professionalism and a guide to ethical conduct.