Opinion ID: 2615125
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: subject of the amendment

Text: Brewers claim that the purpose and effect of the amendatory language of House Bill 278 were concealed from the Legislature, the administration and those affected by the law. Therefore, Brewers argue that House Bill 278 failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of N.M. Const. art. 4, Sections 16 and 18. We disagree. Section 16 provides in pertinent part: The subject of every bill shall be clearly expressed in its title    but if any subject is embraced in any act which is not expressed in its title, only so much of the act as is not so expressed shall be void     Section 18 provides in pertinent part: No law shall be revised or amended, or the provisions thereof extended by reference to its title only; but each section thereof as revised, amended or extended shall be set out in full