Court Opinion

ID: 9528132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:37:28.496914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:31.847497
License: Public Domain

Edwards, J.
(concurring). For reasons ably stated in Mr. Justice Black’s opinion, I concur that section 16, PA 1957, No 4  represents a patent evasion of both the language and purpose of section 21, article 10, of the Constitution (1908). I feel, however, that the opinion places too much emphasis upon interpreting constitutional language as of the time of its adoption. “In the application of a constitution, * * * our contemplation cannot he only of what has been but of what may be.” Weems v. United States, 217 US 349, 373 (30 S Ct 544, 54 L ed 793, 19 Ann Cas 705).