Opinion ID: 1096593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in holding the passage of house bill 987 was a valid exercise of the legislature's constitutional authority.

Text: ¶ 16. The Municipalities next argue H.B. 987 violates the separation of powers doctrine by instructing the judiciary on the interpretation of statutes. [7] The Municipalities contend H.B. 987 is an attempt to enact a measure declaring what the law was before the measure was passed which they state is an improper exercise of legislative power and an improper invasion of judicial power. The rule is well settled that the judicial power cannot be taken away by legislative action. Nor may the legislature regulate the judicial discretion or judgment that is vested in the courts. Any legislation that hampers judicial action or interferes with the discharge of judicial functions is unconstitutional.... The legislation has no power to direct the judiciary in the interpretation of existing statutes. 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 286, at 209-10 (1998) (footnotes omitted). The Municipalities also state the abatement provision of Section 3 of H.B. 987 is an encroachment upon judicial authority. The MSTC, on the other hand, argues that H.B. 987 is a law which passes constitutional muster and does not usurp the power of the judiciary. ¶ 17. Although we find the majority of the case law cited by the Municipalities predates our Constitution, the crux of their argument is that the Constitution has granted the duty of construing past laws to the courts. [I]t is not for the legislature to construe laws for the past. That duty is by the constitution devolved upon the courts. The legislature may determine what the law shall be, but the courts must say what the law has been. McCulloch v. Stone, 64 Miss. 378, 395, 8 So. 236, 239 (1886). The Municipalities argue that this Court has held numerous statutes unconstitutional in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. See Presley v. Miss. State Highway Comm'n, 608 So.2d 1288 (Miss.1992); Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss.1975); Loftin v. George County Bd. of Educ., 183 So.2d 621 (Miss.1966). The Municipalities also state that this Court has declared legislative attempts to encroach upon the power of the executive branch to be unconstitutional. See Alexander v. State ex rel. Allain, 441 So.2d 1329 (Miss.1983). ¶ 18. The Municipalities additionally argue that Miss.Code Ann. §§ 27-65-75 and 27-3-57 confer existing rights arising from prior transactions to the Municipalities. Those alleged existing rights are at issue in the present litigation which was commenced prior to the passage of H.B. 987. The Municipalities also contend Section 3 of H.B. 987, which declares, [a]ny suit brought by a municipality to recover additional payments under § 27-65-75, Mississippi Code of 1972, in excess of the amounts authorized in this act is hereby abated[,] is another egregious attempt at legislative encroachment upon judicial authority. The Municipalities cite several cases where this Court has held it unconstitutional for the Legislature to pass a statute declaring an action abated. In Miller v. Hay, 143 Miss. 471, 109 So. 16 (1926) ( Miller II ), this Court held unconstitutional as a usurpation of judicial power, a statute in which the Legislature declared a suit brought by the state revenue agent for the use and benefit of Washington County against certain parties was abated. The Municipalities find the following language from Miller II persuasive: The separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the state and their allotment to separate and distinct departments is so fundamental under our system of government that it cannot be violated even by an ordinance of a constitutional convention. A fortiori it cannot be violated by one of the departments to which one of the powers has been committed. The power vested in the Legislature by these sections of the Constitution, and the only power which it can exercise, is the legislative power, so that the question for decision is simply this, Is the power which the Legislature sought to exercise by the enactment of the statute here in question legislative? Whether or not a suit in equity or an action at law shall abate, that is, whether all proceedings therein shall be suspended, unless and until the cause for the suspension be removed, as well as whether a suit or action that has been abated shall be revived, are judicial questions to be determined by the court in which the suit or action is pending, and are so universally held to be such that it would be supererogatory to cite authority therefor. The declaration in this statute that the suit therein referred to be and the same is hereby abated, and the permission therein given the board of supervisors to revive it, are an attempt on the part of the Legislature to interfere in a pending judicial controversy by the exercise of a power which the Constitution vests solely in the courts, and are therefore void. 109 So. at 17. Through a legislative enactment, the Legislature was attempting to take away the right of the revenue agent to bring a suit and place that right with the Board of Supervisors. 109 So. at 17-18. The Constitution states the power to abate a suit and revive it in the name of another lies solely in the judiciary. 109 So. at 18. See also Miss. Const. art. 6, § 144. Additionally, in Miller II, this Court held: If it be conceded that the Legislature has the power to withdraw from the revenue agent the right to prosecute a particular suit, in which connection see Miller, Revenue Agent, v. Globe-Rutgers Fire Insurance Co., 143 Miss. 489, 108 So. 180 (1926), it has not the right to accomplish that object by exercising a power which the Constitution vests solely in another department of the government, and the means by which to further prosecute a particular suit is here sought to be withdrawn from the revenue agent, under this construction of the statute, to wit, the abatement of the suit and its revival in the name of another, are committed by the Constitution to the judicial, and not to the legislative, department of the government. Granted that an object sought to be accomplished by one of the departments of the government is within the power allotted to it, the means by which it seeks to accomplish that object must also be within the power allotted to it. In other words, a constitutional object must be accomplished by constitutional means. 109 So. at 17-18 (emphasis added). ¶ 19. Miller II was decided in June 1926 and was cited three months later in Miller v. Johnston, 144 Miss. 201, 109 So. 715 (1926) ( Miller III ). [8] This Court again held the Legislature was without power to abate pending suits filed by the former state revenue agent. 109 So. at 720. In Miller III, the Legislature again was attempting to abate a suit and revive it in the name of someone else. The Court found it was the duty of the state revenue agent to investigate each pending suit which was filed by his predecessor. 109 So. at 720. If the agent's investigation found the suit to be just, the agent was under a duty to revive the predecessor's suit. 109 So. at 720. The statute passed by the Legislature sought to take away the power of the revenue agent to bring these suits and provide that power to the attorney general. 109 So. at 719. The Court in Miller III followed the ruling in Miller II and found this statute to be unconstitutional. 109 So. at 720. However, these facts do not exist in the case sub judice. The Legislature is not attempting to take away the power of one only to revive that power in an altogether different agent. The Legislature is instead abating a suit brought by municipalities to recover additional payments under § 27-65-75 without reviving the right to bring the same suit in another agent. [9] ¶ 20. We find it interesting that the Municipalities fail to cite a case which was decided only fifty (50) days before Miller II. In Miller v. Globe-Rutgers Fire Ins., Co., 143 Miss. 489, 108 So. 180 (1926) ( Miller I ), this Court held a statute which abated pending suits constitutional. The validity of the second statute is challenged by the revenue agent on the ground that it violates sections 1, 2, and 100 of the state Constitution. [10] The first two of these sections deal with the distribution of powers among the three departments of state government, and the argument is that the effect of the statute here under consideration is to abate pending suits, and therefore the Legislature, by so providing, has usurped power which properly belongs to the judicial department. Section 100 of the Constitution prohibits the Legislature from remitting, releasing, postponing, or diminishing the obligation or liability of any person, association, or corporation held by the state and its political subdivisions, and the argument is that this statute not only postpones, but in effect releases the obligation of the appellees to pay the state the penalties alleged to be due by them to the state for their alleged violation of the state's Anti-Trust Laws. While the effect of this statute is to abate pending suits brought by the revenue agent under the anti-trust statutes, the abatement thereof results, not from any attempt on the part of the Legislature to exercise judicial power, but because of the exercise by the Legislature of its purely legislative power of designating the duties to be discharged by a state officer. See section 103 of the state Constitution.    The statute is valid, and, since it withdraws from the revenue agent power to further prosecute this suit, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. 108 So. at 181 (emphasis added). ¶ 21. At first blush, it would appear that in Miller II and Miller III, when compared to the decision in Miller I, are in conflict. However, a meticulous comparison of these three cases reveals that these they are not in any way inconsistent. The first indication of this is that the majority opinions in Miller I and Miller II, which were handed down only fifty (50) days apart in 1926, are authored by the same justice (Chief Justice Smith). Additionally, there can be no mistaking the fact that Chief Justice Smith and the Miller II Court were well aware of their decision only 50 days earlier in Miller I because Miller II makes specific reference to Miller I. What then is the difference between Miller I as compared to Miller II and Miller III, to cause the Miller I Court to conclude that the legislature's passage of a law which had the effect of abating pending suits was not a legislative usurpation of the constitutional authority granted to the judiciary, while the Miller II and Miller III Courts concluded that the legislature's passage of a law which had the effect of abating pending suits was a legislative usurpation of the constitutional authority granted to the judiciary? The critical difference is this. In Miller II and Miller III, the Legislature attempted to usurp its powers vested by the Constitution by abating litigation brought by a revenue agent and reviving the same litigation in the name of another. This power to abate a suit yet revive it in the name of another lies solely in the judiciary. On the other hand, just like the case sub judice, Miller I solely withdraws the power to prosecute a suit without reviving the suit in the name of another. ¶ 22. Continuing with this comparison of the Miller decisions, in Miller II, the state revenue agent, W.J. Miller, had initiated a suit in Washington County to recover certain contractual debts. While the suit was pending, the Legislature enacted a statute which provided: Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Mississippi, that the suit pending on the docket of the chancery court of Washington county (sic), Mississippi, styled W.J. Miller, state revenue agent for the use and benefit of Washington county (sic), Mississippi, against J.C. Hay and others, be and the same is hereby abated; but such suit may be revived by the board of supervisors of Washington county (sic), Mississippi, in which event all contracts made by the state revenue agent in regard to such litigation shall be complied with and carried out by the said board of supervisors. 1926 Miss. Laws, ch. 290, cited at 109 So. at 17. In specifically referring to its then 50-day old decision in Miller I, the Miller II Court clearly distinguished Miller I by stating [i]f it be conceded that the Legislature has the power to withdraw from the revenue agent the right to prosecute a particular suit, the Legislature did not have the right to abate the lawsuit and revive it in the name of another. ¶ 23. In Miller III, the plaintiff/appellee, Thomas H. Johnston (Johnston) was an attorney for Stokes V. Robertson (Robertson), the predecessor of state revenue agent, W.J. Miller (Miller), and Johnston had been employed by Robertson, in his capacity as then-revenue agent, to file suits to collect outstanding privilege taxes and income taxes due the state. Johnston's lawsuit in Miller III was to collect attorneys fees based on an agreement between Johnston and Robertson. During this litigation, the Legislature enacted a law which would take from the revenue agent the right to bring these type suits and instead confer that right upon the state Attorney General. In following its decision in Miller II, the Miller III Court held the statute to be unconstitutional, but in so doing, the Miller III Court specifically referred and distinguished its decision in Miller III: In the case before [the court], the Legislature has not undertaken to remove the power existing in the revenue agent to prosecute suits of the character involved here, and it is clearly different from the case of Miller v. Globe-Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 143 Miss. 489, 108 So. 180 (1926); Johnston v. Reeves, 112 Miss. 227, 72 So. 925, in which cases the power of the revenue agent to bring particular suits was taken from him by statute. 109 So. at 720. ¶ 24. In sum, Miller I is obviously still good law and was in no way overruled or compromised by Miller II and Miller III, both of which specifically mention and distinguish Miller I, which is factually consistent with the case before us today. In both Miller II and Miller III, the Legislature passed laws which not only abated the pending litigation, but also revived the suits in the name of another (one in the name of the Washington County board of supervisors, and the other in the name of the state Attorney General). However, just as in Miller I, today's litigation was abated by legislative enactment which did not revive the litigation in the name of another. ¶ 25. We simply do not agree with the Municipalities' argument that H.B. 987 is an attempt by the Legislature to usurp the powers of the judiciary. We do, however, agree with the MSTC's argument that H.B. 987 is a valid, constitutional general law. Legislative actions are presumed constitutional. Burrell v. Miss. State Tax Comm'n, 536 So.2d 848, 858 (Miss.1988); Miss. Power Co. v. Goudy, 459 So.2d 257, 263 (Miss.1984). The MSTC correctly argues that under Mississippi case law, H.B. 987 should be given the full effect of its clear purpose which is to exclude direct pay, interest and penalties and out-of-state or 083 collections from the municipalities' distributions. The MSTC states the Legislature clearly intended to keep in effect the known exclusion of these special and unusual categories of revenue by the MSTC from municipal distribution. Indeed, the MSTC has employed this method for over thirty years. ¶ 26. The MSTC argues the Legislature clearly intended H.B. 987 to apply retroactively, as well as prospectively, by the language in Section 1, for all periods prior to the effective date of this act. The MSTC cites several cases where this Court has upheld and affirmed the retroactive application of legislation. In a long line of cases, this Court has followed the rule that, in the interpretation of statutes, they will be construed to have a prospective operation only, unless a contrary intention is manifested by the clearest and most positive expression. Hooker v. Hooker, 18 Miss. (Smedes & M) 599 (1848); Brown v. Wilcox, 22 Miss. (14 Smedes & M) 127 (1850); Richards v. City Lumber Co., 101 Miss. 678, 57 So. 977 (1912); Power v. Calvert Mortgage Co., 112 Miss. 319, 73 So. 51 (1916); State ex rel. Knox v. Union Tank Car Co., 151 Miss. 797, 119 So. 310 (1928); Bell v. Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co., 158 Miss. 486, 130 So. 486 (1930); Mississippi Central Railroad Co. v. City of Hattiesburg, 163 Miss. 311, 141 So. 897 (1932); City of Lumberton v. Schrader, 176 Miss. 272, 168 So. 77 (1936); Jefferson Standard Life v. Dorsey, 178 Miss. 852, 173 So. 669 (1937); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 191 Miss. 103, 199 So. 278 (1940); McCullen v. State ex rel. Alexander, 217 Miss. 256, 63 So.2d 856 (1953); Klaas v. Continental Southern Lines, 225 Miss. 94, 82 So.2d 705 (1955); Horne v. State Building Commission, 233 Miss. 810, 103 So.2d 373 (1958). This established rule of construction has been phrased in other ways by the above cases: A statute will not be given retroactive effect unless it is manifest from the language that the legislature intended it to so operate. It will not be construed as retroactive unless the words admit of no other construction or meaning, and there is a plain declaration in the act that it is. In short, these cases illustrate a well-settled attitude of statutory interpretation: A preference that it be prospective only, and a requirement that there should be a clearly expressed intent in the act to make it retrospective. Mladinich v. Kohn, 186 So.2d 481, 483 (Miss.1966) (citations omitted). In Burrell v. Miss. State Tax Comm'n, 536 So.2d 848, 859-60 (Miss.1988) and State ex rel. Pittman v. Ladner, 512 So.2d 1271, 1277 (Miss.1987), this Court allowed the retroactive application of statutes, amendments and rules. ¶ 27. In Burrell, taxpayers brought an action seeking to declare a statutory and constitutional amendment null and void. The taxpayers argued House Bill 388 could not be retroactively validated because laws only operate prospectively. 536 So.2d at 859. This Court disagreed with the taxpayers' argument finding legislative enactment of House Bill No. 388 was so integrally related to the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 41, so that the latter, once ratified, ought be taken as breathing legal life into the former. 536 So.2d at 860. ¶ 28. In Ladner, school board members who allegedly violated a statutory three competitive bid rule then in effect were sued by the Attorney General and the State Auditor. 512 So.2d at 1272-73. At the time the school board officials awarded the contract, the law required at least three bids be received for all work done on rebuilding and repairing the school. Id. On January 1, 1981, after the lawsuit was initiated, the Legislature repealed the three bid requirement. Id. The school board members argued the law should apply retroactively, despite the fact that the previously law prohibited their actions. Id. This Court agreed and held the State had no enforceable rights under the now repealed rule. Id. In Ladner, we quoted the Independent Linen rule, [11] which states: [T]he effect of a repealing statute is to abrogate the repealed statute as completely as if it had never been passed, and that a statute modifying a previous statute has the same effect as though the statute had all the while previously existed in the same language as that contained in the modified statute, unless the repealing or modifying statute contains a saving clause. The result of this rule is that every right or remedy created solely by the repealed or modified statute disappears or falls with the repealed or modified statute, unless carried to final judgment before the repeal or modification,save that no such repeal or modification shall be permitted to impair the obligation of a contract or to abrogate a vested right. 512 So.2d at 1275 (citations omitted). ¶ 29. The MSTC argues no right had vested in the municipalities prior to the enactment of H.B. 987. In Ladner, this Court explained a vested right as a right that must be a contract right, a property right, or a right arising from a transaction in the nature of a contract which has become perfected to the degree that it is not dependent on the continued existence of the statute. 512 So.2d at 1275-76 (citation omitted). What is necessary to enable the State of Mississippi to proceed under a repealed statute is that the right the State seeks to assert be based upon some contract, property or other vested right, that the right have being as a right notwithstanding the statute's nonbeing. The Independent Linen rule no doubt turns heads when it suggests the nonexistence of that which we know existed in 1980, if for no other reason, because we have before us the printed pages which were available in that year. Of course, the three bid rule had existence. Prior to January 1, 1981, it was susceptible of judicial enforcement. What the Independent Linen rule means is this. The legislature of this state, as the principal exponent of the public policy of this state, has declared that the three bid requirement will no longer obtain in emergency public works circumstances. Because the statute has been changed, and because this Court is obliged to act consistent with a rational reading of the legislative declaration, we have as a matter of reason, precedent and choice determined that we should stay our hand from enforcement of that which has been repealed. Put more specifically, we accord a prior consideration to the public policy pronouncement of the state qua legislature, wholly interdicting the actions of the State qua its attorney general and its auditor. 512 So.2d at 1276. ¶ 30. The MSTC disagrees with the Municipalities' reliance on Miller II and Miller III. The MSTC contends those cases must be read in the context of Ladner and its progeny which affirm the Legislature's power to enact retroactive, abating legislation. The MSTC cites several cases where this Court has upheld and affirmed the retroactive application of legislation, even when the legislation would abate litigation pending prior to the legislation becoming adopted. See USPCI of Miss., Inc. v. State ex rel. McGowan, 688 So.2d 783, 786-87 (Miss.1997); City of Clarksdale v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 556 So.2d 1056, 1057-58 (Miss.1990). ¶ 31. In City of Clarksdale v. Miss. Power & Light Co ., the city filed a petition to condemn electrical facilities. Id. The trial judge dismissed the original suit because the amended statute stated that prior to a municipality exercising the power of eminent domain against a utility the certificate of public convenience and necessity held by the utility had to be cancelled by the [Public Service Commission] Id. Because the PSC had not acted on the utility's certificate of public convenience and necessity, the City's petition was dismissed. Id. This Court affirmed finding a clear legislative intent for the amended statute to apply to pending suits. Id. ¶ 32. In USPCI of Miss., Inc., a county resident filed a suit charging the governor did not follow proper procedures in connection with the proposed construction of a hazardous waste treatment facility. 688 So.2d at 785. While the suit was pending, the Legislature amended Miss.Code Ann. § 23-43-5 to specifically exclude the governor from these requirements. In USPCI, this Court held: When cases are in the bosom of this Court and there is involved a statute that is modified prior to a final decision of this Court, we take that modification into consideration. Bell v. Mitchell, 592 So.2d 528 (Miss.1991)(citing Parker v. Bailey, 437 So.2d 33 (Miss.1983)). This Court has also stated that an amendment to a statute should be treated as though it had been a part of the original statute. City of Clarksdale v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 556 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Miss.1990). As a result, the Governor's Office is not an agency within the meaning of the APL. [12] Further, the Governor did not have to comply with the requirements of the APL in adopting his proposed CAP [13] because it is not a rule within the meaning of the APL. 688 So.2d at 787. ¶ 33. The MSTC also argues that the Miller II and Miller III cases cited by the Municipalities do not apply to the case sub judice because the legislation which attempted to abate the state revenue agent's suits did not refer to the pre-existing statute authorizing the lawsuit. H.B. 987 specifically refers to Miss.Code Ann. § 27-65-75 and states that its application has been correct. ¶ 34. The Municipalities next argue that in an attempt to delegate legislative authority to the MSTC, H.B. 987 violates the non-delegation doctrine. The Municipalities state because H.B. 987 sets no rules or standards to guide the MSTC in their calculations regarding diversions due municipalities, the bill is an attempt to give the MSTC, a state administrative agency, unbridled authority in their calculations. Because of this arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion, the Municipalities argue H.B. 987 is unconstitutional. The traditional theory is that the legislature cannot delegate power to make law, but may delegate power to determine facts on which the law makes its own action depend. Clark v. State, 169 Miss. 369, 152 So. 820 (1934); Abbott v. State, 106 Miss. 340, 63 So. 667 (1913). Legislative power or functions may be delegated to an administrative agency only in the limited sense that the statute must set forth the legislative decision and must prescribe adequate standards or rules for the agency's guidance. It cannot be vested with an arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion. State v. Allstate Ins. Co., 231 Miss. 869, 882, 97 So.2d 372, 375 (1957). ¶ 35. The Municipalities argue H.B. 987 purports to give the MSTC broad discretion in determining what is and is not covered by municipal diversion. The Municipalities state the governing statutes declare each municipality is to receive a diversion of 18½% of sales taxes collected on all business activities, except for specified activities, conducted within the municipality. The Municipalities argue that a statute which confers such absolute and arbitrary discretion, without any guiding standard, should be declared unconstitutional by this Court. ¶ 36. This Court disagrees with the reasoning of the Municipalities and finds the argument of the MSTC more compelling. The MSTC asserts an administrative agency is afforded deference by the judiciary in the construction of its own rules and regulations and the statutes under which it operates. McDerment v. Miss. Real Estate Comm'n, 748 So.2d 114, 118 (Miss.1999)(citing Miss. State Tax Comm'n, v. Mask, 667 So.2d 1313, 1314 (Miss.1995)). Miss.Code Ann. § 27-65-93 [14] authorizes the Commissioner to promulgate rules and regulations deemed necessary to enforce the provisions of the statute. The MSTC argues discretion was granted and is expected by the legislation. ¶ 37. Finally, the Municipalities argue H.B. 987 constitutes an improper amendment to Miss.Code Ann. § 27-65-75. The Municipalities contend Sections 1 and 2 of H.B. 987 seek to amend the plain language of Miss.Code Ann. §§ 27-65-75 and 27-3-57 by ratifying, approving and confirming the method previously employed by the MSTC to calculate sales tax revenue to be diverted to municipalities and by stating this method is to be utilized in the future. Because H.B. 987 does not insert the purported statutory modifications at length, the Municipalities argue H.B. 987 is a violation of Art. 4, § 61, Miss. Const, 1890, which states [n]o law shall be revived or amended by reference to its title only, but the section or sections, as amended or revived, shall be inserted at length. ¶ 38. The Municipalities assert because there is no definition of the method employed by the MSTC to calculate the payments, no one can be certain what method has been employed or if the MSTC is complying with the requirements of law. The Municipalities argue the calculations made by the MSTC cannot be subjected to fair legislative scrutiny when they are ratified by reference en masse. Additionally, the Municipalities argue that because H.B. 987 violates the Constitution, the bill cannot lawfully govern calculations made by the MSTC after the effective date of the measure. ¶ 39. The MSTC asserts the Municipalities' argument that the statute was amended by reference fails because the Legislature, by its own language in H.B. 987, did not amend Miss.Code Ann. § 27-65-75, but instead simply affirmed the statute and the administration thereof. This Court has held a statute may be amended by implication. Lamar County Sch. Bd. v. Saul, 359 So.2d 350, 353 (Miss. 1978). Section 61 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 has no reference to amendment by implication when the amending statute is complete within itself. Id. (citing Hart v. Backstrom, 148 Miss. 13, 113 So. 898 (1927)). H.B. 987 is complete in itself. Municipalities will not be entitled to receive any additional money from collections made prior to the passage of H.B. 987, and the method of calculation will be the same as it has been since 1968. H.B. 987 also makes it clear that the discretion afforded to the MSTC is limited to the previous method of calculation, and any different calculation would be barred. ¶ 40. For those who might experience some consternation over whether today's decision somehow erodes the independence of the judicial branch of state government, it should be remembered that municipalities are but creatures of the state and they possess only such power as conferred upon them by statute. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-17-5(2) (Rev.2000). This includes the right of the Legislature to determine the amount of sales taxes which will be diverted to the municipalities of this State. This concept should hardly be a shock to anyone. Art. 4, § 88, Miss. Const., 1890 provides: The legislature shall pass general laws, under which local and private interest shall be provided for and protected, and under which cities and towns may be chartered and their charters amended, and under which corporations may be created, organized, and their acts of incorporation altered; and all such laws shall be subject to repeal or amendment. Miss.Code Ann. §§ 21-1-9 & 21-17-9 designate the various forms of government and provide for charter amendments and the governing authority's initiative, respectively. ¶ 41. Citing a long line of cases, this Court, in Peterson v. City of McComb City, 504 So.2d 208, 209 (Miss. 1987), reiterated the axiom that [i]n Mississippi, a municipality is a `creature' of the State, possessing only such power as may be granted by statute. See also Adams v. Kuykendall, 83 Miss. 571, 35 So. 830 (1904). It necessarily follows that of the three branches of state government, the legislative branch is the one possessing the constitutional and statutory authority to not only divert sales taxes to the various municipalities, but to also establish exemptions to the sales tax diversions. This was obviously done in 1968, and such action had evidently remained unchallenged until the present litigation. With matters involving the collection, expenditure and disbursement of the taxpayers' monies, we must afford great deference to that branch of state government vested with clear constitutional and statutory responsibilities. ¶ 42. Since 1968, the Legislature has repeatedly convened and approved state budgets and revenue bills. The MSTC argues, and we agree, that because the Legislature has not altered a continuously standing sales tax regulation, the Legislature intended the same finding as the MSTC's regulation. See Brady v. Getty Oil Co., 376 So.2d 186, 191 (Miss.1979). This Court has held the following: Under all constitutional governments recognizing three distinct and independent magistracies, the control of the purse strings of government is a legislative function. Indeed, it is the supreme legislative prerogative, indispensable to the independence and integrity of the Legislature, and not to be surrendered or abridged, save by the Constitution itself, without disturbing the balance of the system and endangering the liberties of the people. The right of the Legislature to control the public treasury, to determine the sources from which the public revenues shall be derived and the objects upon which they shall be expended, to dictate the time, the manner, and the means both of their collection and disbursement, is firmly and inexpugnably established in our political system. Colbert v. State, 86 Miss. 769, 39 So. 65, 66 (1905). ¶ 43. The power of judicial review includes the power to declare acts of the Mississippi Legislature to be unconstitutional. Estate of Smiley, 530 So.2d 18, 21 (Miss.1988). See Alexander v. State ex rel. Allain, 441 So.2d at 1347. Legislative acts are, however, cloaked with a presumption of constitutionality, and unconstitutionality must appear beyond reasonable doubt. Estate of Smiley, 530 So.2d at 21-22 (citing Mississippi Power Co. v. Goudy, 459 So.2d at 263; Anderson v. Fred Wagner & Roy Anderson, Jr., Inc., 402 So.2d 320, 321 (Miss.1981)). This Court has previously discussed the presumption of a statute's validity, holding: We adhere here to the rule that one who assails a legislative enactment must overcome the strong presumption of validity and such assailant must prove his conclusions affirmatively, and clearly establish it beyond a reasonable doubt. All doubts must be resolved in favor of validity of a statute. If possible, a court should construe statutes so as to render them constitutional rather than unconstitutional if the statute under attack does not clearly and apparently conflict with organic law after first resolving all doubts in favor of validity. Loden v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 279 So.2d 636, 640 (Miss.1973) (citations omitted). This Court has also held: We recognize that it is not for the courts to decide whether a law is needed and advisable in the general government of the people. That is solely a matter for the wisdom of the Legislature. But, it is our duty to construe the law and apply it to the case presented, and determine whether the Constitution of this State authorizes the legislation. Moore v. Grillis, 205 Miss. 865, 888, 39 So.2d 505, 509 (1949). ¶ 44. After all, as already pointed out, Miss.Code Ann. § 27-3-57 provides that all funds collected by the MSTC are public funds and shall be promptly deposited in the state treasury and shall be disbursed by the State Treasurer according to law. Yet, the Municipalities, through their pleadings, would have the trial court, and ultimately this Court, order the MSTC to disburse to all the municipalities of this State a recalculated amount of sales tax diversions which should have been made over the past thirty (30) years. As mentioned early on in this opinion, this suit is not just one seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, it also seeks sales tax money, and lots of it. As the MSTC correctly sets out in its brief, the remedy for the Municipalities is available through the Legislature via the political process. ¶ 45. The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. T.M. v. Noblitt, 650 So.2d 1340, 1345 (Miss.1995). We find the Municipalities will be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any set of facts in support of their claim as to the unconstitutionality of H.B. 987. Accordingly, we find H.B. 987 is a valid exercise of the Legislature's constitutional authority. Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 of H.B. 987, the pending litigation must be abated. ¶ 46. Having addressed the issues concerning standing and the constitutionality of H.B. 987, we deem it unnecessary to address the remaining assignments of error as asserted by the Municipalities.