Opinion ID: 1532443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Laws Interpreted Under Judicial Power

Text: House Bill No. 31 is unconstitutional in other respects as well. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the essential balance created by the separation of governmental authority in the existing state constitutions and the proposed United States Constitution was a simple one. The Legislature would be possessed of the power to `prescrib[e] the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated,' but the power of `[t]he interpretation of the laws' would be `the proper and peculiar province of the courts.' [55] Accordingly, two hundred years ago, in Marbury v. Madison , the United States Supreme Court held: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.... This is of the very essence of judicial duty. [56] House Bill No. 31 states that the General Assembly asserts its right and prerogative to be the ultimate arbiter of the intent, meaning, and construction of its laws and to vigorously defend them. House Bill No. 31 also establishes specific standards for judicial officers to apply when interpreting or construing Delaware law. Those provisions in House Bill No. 31 attempt to confer upon the General Assembly fundamental judicial powers. Consequently, those provisions in sections 5402 and 5403 of House Bill No. 31 also violate Article IV of the Delaware Constitution.