Opinion ID: 1724796
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Self-Executing Question

Text: The previous courts felt that the constitutional provision could not be self-executing since the same legislature which adopted it also provided ancillary legislation. La.R.S. 17:421-74 (Act 196 of 1940). This enactment sets forth certain general principles for the administration of the University by the Board of Supervisors. This legislation, incidentally, is not inconsistent with exclusive interal administration of the university's affairs by the Board. The characterization of a constitutional provision as self-executing or not is generally only a conclusion as to whether the constitutional intent is to provide a presently effective rule, by means of which the right given may be enjoyed and protected and the duties imposed may be enforced without supplementary legislation. 1 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, pp. 165-172 (8th Ed., 1927; Carrington, ed.); 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§ 48-60; 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law, Sections 93-100. However, as the cited sources note, a constitutional provision may be only partially self-executing and, further, the self-executing character of a constitutional provision does not necessarily preclude supplementary legislation for the better protection of the right secured and in furtherance of the purposes and of the enforcement of the provisions of the constitutional enactment. These sources also indicate that, if the purposes of the constitutional enactment will be frustrated unless immediately effective without legislation, it may be regarded as self-executing. The ultimate question, actually, is one of constitutional intent: Whether the enactment is intended to provide a rule to go into immediate effect at the time of adoption. We do not read State ex rel. Holcombe v. City of Lake Charles, 175 La. 803, 144 So. 502 (1932), relied upon by the plaintiff, nor Coguenham v. Avoca Drainage District, 130 La. 323, 57 So. 989 (1912), relied upon by the court of appeal, as holding contrary to, or inconsistent with, the views above expressed. In both instances, implementing regulatory state legislation was held valid as not inconsistent with a grant by the constitution of authority to a local governmental unit. In each instance, the constitutional intent was held not to be to exclude the legislative implementation in question. In the present case, we hold that the intent of Article XII, Section 7 was, upon ratification of the constitutional amendment, to grant to the university's Board of Supervisors exclusive administrative authority over operation of the university. This constitutional grant was intended to be immediately effective upon ratification, without any necessity for implementing legislation with regard to the exclusiveness of such administrative power.