Opinion ID: 1921013
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An orderly approach to a resolution of the issues before us necessitates a prefatory understanding of some relevant guiding principles.

Text: It is well settled regularly enacted statutes are accorded a strong presumption of constitutionality. See State v. Vick, 205 N.W.2d 727, 729 (Iowa 1973); In re Henderson, 199 N.W.2d 111, 121 (Iowa 1972); Brown Enterprises, Inc. v. Fulton, 192 N. W.2d 773, 776 (Iowa 1971). Then too, where the constitutionality of a statute is merely doubtful, this court will not interfere. See State v. Vick, supra ; Brown Enterprises, Inc. v. Fulton, supra ; Farrell v. State Board of Regents, 179 N.W.2d 533, 538 (Iowa 1970). And legislative enactments will not be held unconstitutional unless they are shown to clearly, palpably and without doubt infringe upon constitutional rights. See State v. Vick, supra ; State v. Abodeely, 179 N.W.2d 347, 354 (Iowa 1970), app. dism'd, cert. denied, 402 U.S. 936, 91 S.Ct. 1617, 29 L.Ed.2d 104 (1971); Lee Enterprises, Inc. v. Iowa State Tax Com'n, 162 N.W.2d 730, 737 (Iowa 1968). Finally, a party attacking any statutory enactment must negate every reasonable basis of support for such statute. See State v. Vick, supra ; Iron Workers Local No. 67 v. Hart, 191 N.W.2d 758, 773 (Iowa 1971); State v. McNeal, 167 N.W.2d 674, 677 (Iowa 1969).