The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-25
THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.
Synopsis of the Dissenting Opinion
in the Iowa Amendment Case.
Judge Beck Holds that All Political Power
Inheres in the People-COurts Not
Greater Than the Voters.


I adhere to the conclusions announced in
my former dissenting opinion. My re-exam-
ination of the doctrine involved in the case
and the powerful light shed upon it by the
reargument has strengthened my conviction
that the judgment of the district court
should be reversed.
The Judge then briefly stated certain po
litical principles pertaining to the form OF
government of our State which he classed as
, follows:
First-Supreme political power inheres in
the people.
Second-All political power is inherent in
the people.
Third-The enumeration of the rights in
the constitution shall not be construed to
impair or deny the others retained by the
people.
Fourth-The constitution of the State is
not Limitation upon or surrender OF the
absolute power of the people.
He then took up the political view of the
case, and went over the ground relating to
jurisdiction, as follows: The question of the
existence of the government is not for the
determination of courts. 1t Is not Judicial
question That existence is q fact made
known not by a judicial decision, but in the.
manifestation of governmental authority
That the constitution does exist is shown by
the existence Of a government upon which it
alone rests. But how shall we discover the
contents and provisions of the constitution,
conceding its existence at the archives OF the
State where it was kept? That is, the const-
ton that was adopted and promulgated by
the representatives OF the sovereign people
Behind that instrument the court cannot go.
The existence of the government is mani
tested by the display of its authority. Our
laws and institutions rest upon the constitu-
ton, the supreme law of the land. This con-
stitution is supreme because it was promul-
gated by the representatives OF the
people, who are sovereign, and not because
the courts upheld it. Its existence
does not depend on the decisions of the judi
ciary of the State. Its existence as the SUI
preme law cannot be questioned by any au-
thority in the State. Questions pertaining to
the existence of the constitution must be de-
termined by that authority of the State
which is charged with the duty and power of
shaping its policy, and preserving and aug
menting its strength, and which is charged
by the sovereign people with the task of
framing a constitution for their approval
and promulgatng it when approved. This
authority pertains to and is extended by
what is often called the political departments
of the government Courts are clothed with
no such authority. They cannot, therefore,
determine questions pertaining to the valid
ity and existence of the constitution. Such
determinations must be alone made by rep
resentatives of the people who exercise DO
Htlcal departments OF the government This
conclusion appears to be supported by rea-
son, and is in accord with the principles OF
our government. The judicial department
of the government has nothing to do with
shaping the policy or forming the institu-
tons of State, or with protecting it or aug
menting Its strength. 1t cannot, therefore,
determine the validity of any question strik-
ing at the validity and binding force of the
constitution, under which all political func-
tions which pertain to these matters must be
exercised. The constitution shapes the form
of government and prescribes limitations
upon legislative authority. Under it the po-
Htioal institutions of State are established
and its policy, Foreshadowed by the con-
stitution which lays the foundation and
erects the framework of the government
which must be completed by legislation in
accord with the measures established and
plans contemplated by that instrument it
follows that the validity of the existence of a
constitutional provision involves the political
question of what recognition of the consti-
tuition will give it life, and constitute in law
such recognition. 1t must be made by au-
thority emanating from the department of
the government charged with such duty 1t
has been fully determined that the constitu-
ton is the supreme law of the land. 1t is
made under the authority of an executive
which is the only political department of
state, and when once launched into the life
OF supreme law its life can be deteriorated
by no power save that which created it, the
sovereign will of the people. No department
of the government, then, can question its
existence. 1t is subject to change only by
the exercise of the sovereign will of the
people. These doctrines will, think, meet
with no denial. The different doctrines and
rules do not apply to amendments of the
constitution. The same sovereign authority,
the people, who made the constitution, made
the amendment. The only difference is that
different instrumentalities were used; the
constitution was framed by a convention
and adopted by the people, and the amend
ment was framed by the General Assembly
and submitted to q vote of the people. Under
the provision of a statute and in accordance
with the constitution, it was declared; and
it was adopted by vote of the people, and
it shall become a part of the constitution.
1t is not denied that the amendment
was adopted, promulgated and declared
to be part of the constitution and
statutes. 1t then became a part de facto
of the constitution. No department i'll the
State can declare it invalid, for it has become
part of the constitution by the recognition of
the political department of the State. One
argument nave used is based upon the fact
that the whole of the original constitution
was adopted at the same election, but il is
not applicable TO the amendment. The argu-
ment is that the whole constitution would
be equally affected by causes of invalidity.
1t is true there might have been irregulari-
ties in the proceedings prior to the vote upon
the amendment that did not occur in adopt
Ing the original constitution, but this fact
and the inGppiicability of the argument
based thereon to the question raised by the
amendment can have no effect to detract
from the force of the conclusion have an
nounced. 1t may be urged that in disregard
ment the courts do not defeat part of the
constitution from which their authority is
derived, and the argument based upon their
conclusion that in overturning the constitu-
ton the courts defeat their authority to adj
Indicate is therefore not applicable
If the court may defeat it they may defeat
all amendments where the same irregulari-
ties exist They therefore could defeat
an amendment affecting their own jurs-
dction. There is no limit to the num-
Der OF amendments which may be pre-
pared and adonted in the manner