Opinion ID: 1113494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Analysis of La. Const. Art. XII, Sec. 5

Text: The language of constitutional provisions must be fairly construed to give effect to the indicated purpose, and  in the event of a conflict or inconsistency, provisions should be construed, if possible, to allow each provision to stand and be given effect,  Eiche v. Board of Elementary & Secondary Education, 582 So.2d 186, 189 (La.1991) (emphasis added),  and to render none nugatory.  Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 205 So.2d 389, 391 (La.1967) (emphasis added). See also, State ex rel. Guste v. Board of Commissioners, 456 So.2d 605, 609 (La.1984); Barnett v. Develle, 289 So.2d 129, 146 (La.1974). Forced heirship, as protected in 1921, is not the institution protected in the prohibiting clause of the 1974 Constitution. It was necessarily modified by the people's 1974 grant of power to the legislature to decide who should be forced heirs. As the majority itself notes, [t]he people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheaton (19 U.S.) 264, 389 (1821) (Emphasis added). It appears to me the people have exercised their rights and have revised the previously existing concept of forced heirship protected under the Louisiana Constitution, by the inclusion in 1974 of the empowering clause. Under the guise of defenders of the civil law the majority most significantly errs in completely ignoring the positive grant of authority to the legislature to define the class of forced heirs. [40] The majority has perhaps overlooked the fact that the people ratified all of Article XII, Sect. 5 with one pull of the lever. The two clauses are meant to be interpreted together. It could not be any clearer but that the people desired the definition of forced heirship protected under the prohibiting clause be necessarily limited by the empowering clause. The people did not vote on the meaning of the prohibiting clause first and only later look to granting the legislature what the majority styles residual powers as a mere afterthought. Rather, they intended the empowering clause to be considered part and parcel in determining the definition of forced heirship. Therefore, the people could not possibly have meant to enshrine in the 1974 prohibiting clause the institution as protected under the 1921 Constitution but clearly intended to temper it to the extent the legislature could exercise its powers under the empowering clause as long as some vestige of the historical notion of forced heirship remains. [41] Had the Framers desired strictly to preserve the 1921 notion of forced heirship, the empowering clause, which allows the legislature to determine forced heirs, would not have been included. The majority's erroneous interpretation of Article XII, Sect. 5 has turned a positive grant of authority contained in the empowering clause into meaningless, insignificant prattle by interpreting it as allowing the legislature to make only those changes which it was allowed to make under the 1921 Constitution prior to the inclusion of the empowering clause and nothing more. Had this been the intent and had the prohibiting clause under the 1974 Constitution been intended to protect the same notion as was protected under the 1921 Constitution, then it would have been completely unnecessary to add the empowering clause. It is extremely audacious to assume the people ratified the empowering clause with the intent it have no meaning. The majority opinion concludes the institution protected under the 1974 prohibiting clause is identical to that protected under the 1921 prohibiting clause and that the only legislative powers exercisable under the 1974 empowering clause are those which were already available under the 1921 prohibiting clause. If this were true, it would have been completely unnecessary for the Framers and the people to have included the empowering clause, as the legislature would already have had these limited powers under the 1974 prohibiting clause, which is virtually identical to its 1921 predecessor. It is nonsensical to conclude the Framers and the people would have engaged in such a fruitless task. If the legislature does not have the authority to determine that less than all descendants should be forced heirs, as found by the majority, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to give any meaning to the legislature's constitutional mandate to determine forced heirs. There are two possible actions the legislature could take under its mandate to determine forced heirs, either to expand the class of forced heirs or to eliminate forced heirship; however, neither of these is supported by the actions and understanding of the Framers or by the broad language used in the empowering clause. First, had the intent been nothing more than to allow for expansion of the class of forced heirs, such could have simply been mandated in a more limited grant of legislative authority. Furthermore, if one thing is certain, there is absolutely no indication in the records of the Constitutional Convention that the intent behind the inclusion of the grant of authority was to allow for an expansion of the class of forced heirs. Secondly, had the empowering clause been intended only to allow for elimination of ascendant forced heirship, the empowering clause could have been limited to one allowing the legislature to eliminate ascendant forced heirship only when defining forced heirs, or, the prohibiting clause could have expressly protected only descendant forced heirship from abolition. Indeed, a proposal to have the first sentence of Section 5 protect descendant forced heirship only was deleted by the proposal's sponsor, [42] thus reflecting the Framers' awareness of their option to limit the legislature's exercise of authority to elimination of ascendant forced heirship only. Rather than contain either of these possible limitations, however, the Section approved by the Framers and ratified by the citizens of the State of Louisiana literally grants the legislature the broad power to determine forced heirs. Therefore, because the provision, as written, does not tolerate any of these possible interpretations, they must be rejected. Thus, regardless of what the protected institution of forced heirship was under the 1921 Constitution, that constitutional institution was necessarily limited in 1974 as reflected by inclusion in the 1974 Constitution of a grant of authority to the legislature to decide who should be forced heirs. In light of this inclusion, I believe the majority errs in holding the prohibiting clause of the 1974 Constitution precludes the legislature from excluding certain descendants from the class of forced heirs. Simply stated, the notion of forced heirship as protected in the prohibiting clause cannot be defined to require that all descendants be forced heirs because the very next sentence gives the legislature the specific authority to decide who shall be a forced heir. This approach for interpreting conflicting constitutional clauses within one provision was used by this court in Earhart, supra, wherein we held the legislature had not unconstitutionally abolished forced heirship when it exercised its authority under the same constitutional provision to allow creation of certain trust estates. In explaining how the abolition clause and the trust clause related to one another, this court stated: We find contained in this same provision of the constitution, which forbids the abolishment of forced heirship, authority granted to the legislature to create trust estates for a period not exceeding ten years after the death of the donor. The framers of the constitution evidently contemplated that the creation of such trust estates was not the abolishing of forced heirship. To construe the provisions of this article otherwise would be tantamount to accusing them of folly. Earhart, 57 So.2d at 697 (emphasis added). [43] This holding is directly on point with this case, and the majority errs in summarily dismissing it. The majority misstates the Earhart holding by asserting this court held the trust fell within the exception to the Article IV, § 16 prohibition against abolishment of forced heirship which reserved to the legislature the power to authorize the creation of trust estates. As clearly shown by the above passage from Earhart, however, the court did not treat the legislative power to create trusts as an exception to the larger institution of forced heirship, but rather believed that because the constitution granted the legislature authority to provide for trusts, any exercise of that grant could not be an abolition of forced heirship. [44] Following our mandate to give both sentences of this Section substantive meaning, I believe the Earhart rationale should be applied herein. Applying an identical analysis to this case, [I] find contained in this same provision of the constitution, which forbids the abolishment of forced heirship, authority granted to the legislature to [determine forced heirs]. The framers of the constitution evidently contemplated that the [determination of forced heirs by the legislature] was not the abolishing of forced heirship. To construe the provisions of this article otherwise would be tantamount to accusing them of folly. Thus, the definition of the protected institution of forced heirship was limited by the constitutional Framers' insertion, and the popular vote in favor of, the empowering clause of Article XII, Section 5 giving authority to the legislature to determine forced heirs. Notwithstanding the majority's assertion to the contrary, this interpretation of the empowering clause does not render the prohibiting clause nugatory. The majority refuses to recognize the possibility of a middle ground, an interpretation which gives equal dignity to both clauses of Section 5 and which is consistent with the people's desire, (as reflected by the legislative changes to forced heirship), with the Framers' inclusion of the empowering clause, and with the popular vote which ratified it, to move away from the traditional civilian notion of forced heirship. This middle ground may be found by ascribing the following meaning to the prohibiting clause. Because the constitution grants the legislature the authority to determine forced heirs, any limitation directly based on that authority would be impermissible. Simply speaking, because the empowering clause explicitly grants the legislature the power to decide who should be forced heirs, the definition of the institution of forced heirship protected in the first sentence cannot be one requiring that all descendants be forced heirs. Rather, any restriction on this legislative power to be found in Section 5 must be derived from the abolition clause, which protects the institution of forced heirship from abolition. On an institutional level, the abolition clause protects the essence of forced heirship by prohibiting abolition of all of the elements which have traditionally comprised it. [45] That is, as long as the laws resulting from the legislature's exercise of its authority to determine forced heirs and the forced portion retain some of the historical essence of forced heirship, the institution has not been unconstitutionally abolished. [46] Historically, as even the opponents concede, the essence of forced heirship has, at varying times, included a component of support. [47] All parties to the instant litigation further agree that the amendments to La. Civ.Code art. 1493 effectuate a system of support. Because this support element of the historical essence of forced heirship has been retained, the institution of forced heirship has not been unconstitutionally abolished. Unlike the majority's interpretation of Section 5, which renders the empowering clause completely ineffectual, and which only pays lipservice to traditional rules of constitutional interpretation, the foregoing approach truly gives equal dignity to both clauses and concludes the Framers and the voting populace did more than merely participate in an exercise in futility with their inclusion of the empowering clause in 1974. While the majority styles itself defenders of the civil law I feel compelled by my duty to uphold the present Constitution of the State of Louisiana and must give equal dignity to the conflicting clauses of Article XII, Sect. 5. Any interpretation of forced heirship as protected in the prohibiting clause which would prohibit the legislature from determining forced heirs as it has done in the 1989 and 1990 amendments to La.Civ. Code art. 1493 simply fails to give equal substance and meaning to the people's constitutional grant of power to the legislature to determine forced heirs. Because I find no violation of Article XII, Section 5 in this case, I find it necessary to address whether the legislation violates La. Const. Art. I, Sec. 3, the equal protection clause.