Opinion ID: 2059987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: question 2: basic issue

Text: The real question here is not whether the concept of no-fault is constitutionally viable but whether the Legislature followed the constitutional procedures art 4, § 25 requires in the legislative process. The question asked under Const 1963, art 3, § 8 follows: DOES THE `MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT BY REFERENCE OF ANY OTHER MICHIGAN STATUTORY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF TORTS BY REASON OF SECTION 3135' VIOLATE THE FOLLOWING MICHIGAN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION: `NO LAW SHALL BE REVISED, ALTERED OR AMENDED BY REFERENCE TO ITS TITLE ONLY. THE SECTION OR SECTIONS OF THE ACT ALTERED OR AMENDED SHALL BE REENACTED AND PUBLISHED AT LENGTH.' CONST 1963, ART 4, SEC 25. When art 4, § 25 is applied to § 3135 of the no-fault act no amount of legal talking around the subject can hide four plain facts: 1. The no-fault act plainly is meant to modify existing law  in fact its very title says so. 2. When the no-fault act uses the term to modify and what it does pursuant thereto is plainly what art 4, § 25 is talking about when it refers to revised, altered or amended. 3. Art 4, § 25 plainly says the Legislature cannot modify, or, to use the constitutional words, revise, alter or amend existing law without reenactment and republication. 4. Since the Legislature did not reenact and republish these sections or acts the no-fault act purports to amend and since the no-fault act purported to revise, alter or amend existing law, the no-fault act plainly was not enacted properly pursuant to the procedures required by art 4, § 25. Let us examine this more in detail.