Opinion ID: 1760811
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The 1963 Michigan Constitution.

Text: Article 5, § 29, speaks of civil rights guaranteed    by this constitution [emphasis supplied]. The last sentence of article 1, § 4  the freedom of worship and religious belief section  reads: The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief. The second sentence of article 8, § 2, which deals with elementary and secondary schools, reads: Every school district shall provide for the education of its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin. Article 11, § 5, which provides for State civil service, contains this sentence in the 5th paragraph: No appointments, promotions, demotions or removals in the classified service shall be made for religious, racial or partisan considerations. None of the above provisions defines a civil right and only article 1, § 4, uses the words civil    rights. While the provisions are not unimportant in their particular context, it is obvious that their primary purpose is not to guarantee civil rights to be secured by the civil rights commission but, rather, to reaffirm freedom of religion or to interdict discrimination by government itself in a specific governmental activity. The debates of the Constitutional Convention and the Address to the People conclusively establish that the civil rights guaranteed in this Constitution which are to be secured procedurally by the civil rights commission as provided in article 5, § 29, are the substantive civil rights of article 1, § 2, which reads: No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. The committee on declaration of rights, suffrage and elections, submitted proposal 26 which subsequently became article 1, § 2, to the Constitutional Convention. Roger C. Cramton, in his article The Powers of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, 63 Mich L Rev 5, 9 (Nov 1964), summarized that submission as follows: The committee report accompanying committee proposal 26 referred to the `impressive and moving testimony' of Delegate John Hannah, a member of the committee who was also chairman of the United States commission on civil rights, and of other individuals who appeared before the committee. The committee felt that an anti-discrimination declaration was necessary `to protect Negroes and other minorities against discrimination in housing, employment, education and the like.' `Civil rights' were not defined in detail; rather, the legislature was to define their scope, limits, and sanctions. The report, however, did indicate areas of principal concern: `As Mr. Hannah stated in his paper to the committee, Civil rights as used herein means guarantees to protect against discrimination and segregation because of race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin.    The principal but not exclusive, areas of concern are equal opportunities in employment, education, housing, and public accommodations.' Proposal 26 (article 1, § 2) was submitted to the convention on February 1, 1962. It was approved after lengthy discussion. A minority proposal to spell out civil rights in employment, housing, public accommodations, education was rejected, it being maintained that the broad phraseology of the section was sufficient. Article 5, § 29, was not considered until a later date, final adoption occurring on August 1, 1962. Again an effort was made to spell out specific civil rights in that section. The effort was defeated largely because it was maintained that such rights had been provided for in article 1, § 2. The constitutional debates on these provisions are lengthy. Many differences on the subject existed among the delegates and were expressed by them. Individual delegates fought hard for a statement of their own convictions in the single corporate expressions of the convention which finally were adopted. The Address to the People contains the following explanation of article 1, § 2: This is a new section. It protects against discrimination because of religion, race, color or national origin in the enjoyment of civil and political rights and grants equal protection of the laws to all persons. The convention record notes that `the principal, but not exclusive, areas of concern are equal opportunities in employment, education, housing and public accommodations.' The legislature is directed to implement this section by appropriate legislation and the proposed constitution establishes a civil rights commission in the article on the executive branch. (Emphasis supplied.) 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention of 1961, p 3363. But it is the Constitution, not the debates, that was finally submitted to the people. While the debates may assist in an interpretation of the Constitution, neither they nor even the Address to the People is controlling. Nowhere does the Constitution of 1963 set forth a specific civil right in private housing. Only an overriding classification is stated  No person shall    be denied the enjoyment of his civil    rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature is mandated to implement the section by appropriate legislation, i.e., to define and delineate a person's civil rights. The words are left undefined in the Constitution. The enjoyment of civil rights is guaranteed and the civil rights commission is instructed to secure that guarantee. Although the 1963 Constitution is now in its fifth year, the Michigan legislature has not defined the meaning of the words civil rights as pertaining to housing. In the context of the facts of this case and the special question before us it is necessary that we consider the constitutional guarantee of civil rights as it pertains to private housing. Since such civil rights merge with the common-law meaning of the same, we defer that consideration to a discussion of the common law.