Opinion ID: 1851021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Transition from Old to New Constitution

Text: 1. REPETITION OF IDENTICAL PROVISION IN NEW AND OLD CONSTITUTIONS If the new constitution contains a provision identical to the corresponding provision in the old, judicial interpretations of the old constitution retain their validity as interpretations of the new, since the framers or the voters are presumed to have known the old interpretations and to have intended to preserve them by repeating the same constitutional language. 2. SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTICAL PROVISION IN NEW AND OLD CONSTITUTIONS If the new constitution contains a provision similar but not identical to the corresponding provision in the old, the question arises whether the framers or voters intended a mere change in literary style (in which event the cases decided under the old constitution continue to govern) or a change of meaning (in which event the old cases are superseded). In Hayek v. Lee County [231 So.2d 214 (Fla.1970) ], the issue was whether article III, section 11(a)(1) of the 1968 constitution, on laws pertaining to ... jurisdiction... of [court] officers, should receive the same interpretation as had been given to the corresponding provision of the 1885 constitution about laws regulating the jurisdiction ... of officers. The court examined the minutes of the Constitutional Revision Commission and determined, on rehearing, that the change was merely one of style and that the framers intended to preserve the meaning developed by the old cases. L. Harold Levinson, Florida Constitutional Law, 28 U.Miami L.R. 551, 557 (1973). In Hayek, this Court candidly declared: Subsequent to the rendition of the original decision in this cause, November 5, 1969, from which we now recede, we have examined minutely the record of the proceedings of the Constitutional Revision Commission appointed to draft the Constitution which was adopted by the people in the General Election of 1968 and became effective January 7, 1969, and many documents relating thereto which have been collected and are now preserved in the Supreme Court Library. The revelations of these various documents and a more thorough study and comparison of the language used in each constitution convince us there was no intention to change in any way the purposes to be served by such provisions. Had the majority in Creighton followed the rule of analysis set out by this Court in Hayek and examined the constitutional, revision proceedings of 1972, it would have discovered the obvious: that there was never an intent to remove the right of appeal from article V. In fact, as the chair of the legislative committee responsible for the revisions declared at the time, the drafters of the amendments intended just the oppositeto preserve a citizen's recognized constitutional right to appeal under article V. [7]