Opinion ID: 2208716
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In Graham v. Worthington, supra, 146 N.W.2d, loc. cit. 631, we repeated and reaffirmed certain well established principles.

Text: the legislature may enact any law desired provided it is not clearly prohibited by some provision of the Federal or State Constitution.    The judicial branch of the government has no power to determine whether legislative Acts are wise or unwise, nor has it the power to declare an Act void unless it is plainly and without doubt repugnant to some provision of the Constitution. There is no presumption against constitutional validity of a statute. Every reasonable presumption must be called to support the Act. A challenging party must overcome these presumptions and negative every reasonable basis which will sustain the statute.    If the constitutionality of an Act is merely doubtful or fairly debatable, the courts will not interfere. When two constructions are possible, the one will be adopted which does not lead to consequences making the act unconstitutional. (loc. cit. 633 of 146 N.W.2d) In the light of our many pronouncements relative to statutory construction we conclude that the statute under which defendant was charged meets constitutional requirements. VI. The ruling of the trial court on defendant's demurrer was a final judgment and was appealable as such. For the reasons indicated in preceding divisions we conclude that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the information. The ruling is reversed but under the statute the case may not be remanded. The costs will be taxed to appellant. State v. Talerico, supra, loc. cit. 227 Iowa 1324, 290 N.W. 660. Reversed.