Court Opinion

ID: 9766076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:31:14.54499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:19.270194
License: Public Domain

Justice LAMB
dissenting.
I dissent and would hold that the removal provision codified as Section 503 of the Second Class Township Code, the Act of May 1, 1933, is not in conflict with Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because it is a continuance of authority granted by statutory provisions that antedate the 1873 Constitution, as we expressly discussed in In re Supervisors of Milford Township, 291 Pa. 46, 139 A. 623, 624 (1927), in upholding the constitutional validity of the immediate predecessor to the statute here challenged: Section 192 of the General Township Act of July 14, 1917. The only pertinent issue left undecided in Milford Township was whether the express repeal of prior laws by the 1917 Act required a different result — an issue on which the majority does not *681comment. Therefore, no reason appears to depart from the analysis of this issue in our prior decision.