Opinion ID: 1426892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ถ 5 as a matter of fundamental law, the fiscal policy of this state is determined by the legislative department of government. unless a statute is fraught with constitutional infirmities beyond a reasonable doubt, the court is bound to accept an interpretation which avoids declaring the statute unconstitutional.

Text: ถ 6 The authority of the Legislature indubitably extends to all rightful subjects of legislation pursuant to the Okla. Const. art. 5, ง 36. [8] The framers of the Constitution, however, gave even more explicit recognition of the Legislature's authority with respect to roads and transportation. Pursuant to the Okla. Const., art. 16, ง 1, the Legislature, not the voters, is given the express power to provide for building and maintaining public roads. This provision states: The Legislature is directed to establish a Department of Highways, and shall have the power to create improvement districts and provide for building and maintaining public roads, and may provide for the utilization of convict and punitive labor thereon. ถ 7 The Okla. Const. art. 21, ง 1 [9] authorizes the Legislature to establish and to provide support by the State for such other institutions as the public good may require as may be prescribed by law. The term prescribed by law denotes legislative enactments โ statutes promulgated by the governing legislative body. [10] Just as the Legislature prescribed review of the trust agreement by this Court [11] in Matter of the Petition of University Hospitals Auth., 1997 OK 162, 953 P.2d 314, the Legislature, by law, has established the Capitol Improvement Authority. It has given the Capitol Improvement Authority the power to sell bonds paid by annual appropriations โ provided by the Oklahoma Legislature to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. [12] ถ 8 The protestants must carry a very heavy burden indeed, if the bonds are to be invalidated because every presumption must be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of a statute. The protestants have failed to do so. If there are two possible interpretations โ one of which would hold the statute unconstitutional, the construction must be applied which renders it constitutional. [13] Unless a statute is shown to be fraught with constitutional infirmities beyond a reasonable doubt, [14] this Court is bound to accept an interpretation that avoids constitutional doubt as to the validity of the provision. [15] ถ 9 Except where it encounters a specific constitutional prohibition, the Legislature has the right and the responsibility to declare the fiscal policy of Oklahoma. This Court has no authority to consider the desirability, wisdom, or practicability of fiscal legislation. [16] It is not this Court's prerogative to question the sagacity of the expressed policy. Whether an act is wise or unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory or whether it is the best means to achieve the desired result are matters for legislative determination. This Court, may not, based on its perception of how the State should conduct its business dealings, direct legislative decision making. [17] In construing constitutional debt-limitation provisions, it is the judiciary's duty to guard against indebtedness, not against modern methods of financing. [18] It is not unconstitutional to accomplish a desired result, lawful in itself, by innovative, legal measures. [19] Because these bonds are self-liquidating and because they can be marketed without creating a debt or obligating, in a legal sense, either the state or future legislatures, art. 10, งง 23, [20] 24 [21] and 25 [22] are simply inapplicable. [23]