Opinion ID: 1680628
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fundamental Principles of State Constitutional Jurisprudence

Text: This Court has long proclaimed that courts have the power to declare laws unconstitutional only as a matter of imperative and unavoidable necessity, State ex rel. Crim v. Juvenal, 118 Fla. 487, 159 So. 663, 664 (1935), and are bound `to resolve all doubts as to the validity of [a] statute in favor of its constitutionality, provided the statute may be given a fair construction that is consistent with the federal and state constitutions as well as with the legislative intent.' Caple v. Tuttle's Design-Build, Inc., 753 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla.2000) (quoting State v. Stalder, 630 So.2d 1072, 1076 (Fla.1994)). Indeed, [w]hen a legislative enactment is challenged the court should be liberal in its interpretation; every doubt should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the law, and the law should not be held invalid unless clearly unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 19 So.2d 876, 882 (1944). This judicial deference to duly enacted legislation is derived from three first principles of state constitutional jurisprudence. First, the people are the ultimate sovereign. Rivera-Cruz v. Gray, 104 So.2d 501, 506 (Fla.1958) (Terrell, C.J., concurring) (recognizing that [t]he Constitution is the people's document.... As said by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted June 12, 1776:... `all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; [therefore,] [m]agistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them'). Second, unlike the federal constitution, our state constitution is a limitation upon the power of government rather than a grant of that power. Chiles v. Phelps, 714 So.2d 453, 458 (Fla.1998) (citing Savage v. Board of Public Instruction, 101 Fla. 1362, 133 So. 341, 344 (1931), for the proposition that [t]he Constitution of this state is not a grant of power to the Legislature, but a limitation only upon legislative power, and unless legislation be clearly contrary to some express or necessarily implied prohibition found in the Constitution, the courts are without authority to declare legislative [a]cts invalid). This means that the Legislature has general legislative or policy-making power over such issues as the education of Florida's children except as those powers are specifically limited by the constitution. Id. (recognizing that [t]he legislature's power is inherent, though it may be limited by the constitution); see also State ex rel. Green v. Pearson, 153 Fla. 314, 14 So.2d 565, 567 (1943) (It is a familiarly accepted doctrine of constitutional law that the power of the Legislature is inherent.... The legislative branch looks to the Constitution not for sources of power but for limitations upon power.). Third, because general legislative or policy-making power is vested in the legislature, the power of judicial review over legislative enactments is strictly limited. Specifically, when a legislative enactment is challenged under the state constitution, courts are without authority to invalidate the enactment unless it is clearly contrary to an express or necessarily implied prohibition within the constitution. Chapman v. Reddick, 41 Fla. 120, 25 So. 673, 677 (1899) ([U]nless legislation duly passed be clearly contrary to some express or implied prohibition contained [in the constitution], the courts have no authority to pronounce it invalid.). Because of these three first principles, statutes like the OSP come to courts with a strong presumption of constitutionality. State v. Jefferson, 758 So.2d 661, 664 (Fla. 2000) ([w]henever possible, statutes should be construed in such a manner so as to avoid an unconstitutional result); see also State ex rel. Shevin v. Metz Const. Co., Inc., 285 So.2d 598, 600 (Fla.1973) (It is elementary that a statute is clothed with a presumption of constitutional validity). And, as we will see from the text of article IX, section 1, when read in light of these fundamental principles, the OSP does not violate any express or necessarily implied provision of article IX, section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution.