Opinion ID: 1452513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: three impediments prevent the proposed measure from ever becoming law

Text: The measure in contestwhich presses for congressional action that would convoke a constitutional convention for the purpose of imposing congressional office term limits cannot become part of the State's law because (a) it is facially unfit for incorporation into the corpus of her constitution as enforceable state law, (b) it is incapable of being implemented by state legislation that would be binding on individual state lawmakers and (c) this court would be powerless to clothe the measure with binding force by crafting vitalizing jurisprudence. The Art. 5 provisions of this State's fundamental law are not self-executing. [36] They require legislative implementation. [37] The legislature cannot enlarge the people's reserved power; it can only vitalize it by acts that will  take effect and be in force.  [38] The breath of the power reserved by the initiative is to be drawn by tracking the language of the state constitution. [39] If the proposed measure were adopted, it could not become law as part of the State's constitution. It is neither intended to be state law nor does its text appear to demonstrate the properties that would make it self-executing and facially capable of being carried into effect. The measure's declaration of public policy could never be comprised within the framework of any viable state legislation. The process of changing by initiative petition either the State's statutory law or her constitution is a form of lawmaking. Any change in this State's constitution, to be effected by the initiative process, must hence qualify as law. The proposed measure would allow to be incorporated into this State's constitution a provision which, if adopted, would be neither justiciable nor enforceable directly or through the command of this State's constitutional jurisprudence. State constitutional case law, like federal fundamental-law jurisprudence, [40] is a process akin to lawmaking. It may take effect either retrospectively or prospectively very much like legislative enactments. This court would be powerless either (a) to give this initiative the force of law by crafting constitutional jurisprudence that could make the measure's terms binding on any of this State's officialdom or (b) to require the legislature to obey the policy that is sought to be adopted. If approved, this initiative could have no effect as law in any form. [41] In short, the measure in contest usurps for the people power that is broader than that which stands reserved to them by the state's constitution. V