From Gayden v. State, 80 So.2d 501, 502 (Ala. 1955).
[The principle that no man shall be deprived of his liberty or property except by ‘the law of the land’ is said to be more ancient than written Constitutions, ‘and breathes so palpably of exact justice that it needs no formulation in the organic law.’ ] It is but an expression of the fundamental principle that inspired civilized man to form a government, the ultimate purpose of which is to protect the individual in working out his destiny, and finds expression in our Constitution in these words: ‘That in all criminal prosecutions the accused has a right to be heard by himself and counsel, or either; and he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law.’ Constitution of Alabama 1901, §§ 6, 13.
“The manifest purposes of the quoted constitutional provisions, where life, liberty, and property are affected, are to secure the citizen against the arbitrary action of those in authority, and to place him under the protection of the law. And that provision and the others of our Bill of Rights ‘are to be largely and liberally construed in favor of the citizen.’
“Largely and liberally construed in favor of the citizen.” What do you suppose would happen if any of the people seeking judicial office in this election were to publicly affirm that language?