Court Opinion

ID: 9578955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:49:57.719424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:42.228492
License: Public Domain

Bussey, Justice
(dissenting) :
The separation of powers clause of the Constitution requires us to uphold the constitutionality of the particular act unless its unconstitutionality clearly appears beyond all reasonable doubt. The majority opinion recognizes, but, I respectfully submit, totally fails to apply this cardinal rule of constitutional construction. With all due respect to my brethren, it seems to me that the Court more and more tends to give only lip service to this rule. In the instant case I am not at all convinced that the act is violative of Article 10, section 6 of the Constitution. At the very worst it is only arguably so, and most certainly it is not unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since I am deeply concerned about what I regard as a tendency to give only lip service to the cardinal rule of constitutional construction and to invade the provinces of the other branches of government, I take the liberty of restating here my views as set forth in the dissenting opinion in Gunter v. Blanton, 259 S. C. 436, 192 S. E. (2d) 473, as follows:
“The power vested in the judiciary to declare an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional and void is, indeed, a most delicate one to be exercised with the greatest of caution by the courts lest the judiciary itself encroach upon the legislative domain in violation of the separation of powers clause of the Constitution, which the General Assembly is here charged with violating. It is well settled that doubt as to the constitutionality of a particular act has to be resolved in favor of validity and it is only where an act is clearly unconstitu*316tional, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the judiciary may invalidate it. McElveen v. Stokes, 240 S. C. 1, 124 S. E. (2d) 592; Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S. C. 290, 195 S. E. 539; State ex rel. Edwards v. Query, 207 S. C. 500, 37 S. E. (2d) 241; State ex rel. Edwards v. Osborne, 195 S. C. 295, 11 S. E. (2d) 260.
“It is timely and appropriate, I think, to quote from the opinion of Chancellor Waties in the leading case of Byrne’s Adm’rs v. Stewart’s Adm’rs, (1812) (SC) 3 Desaus. 466:
‘It is the peculiar and characteristic excellence of the free governments of America, that the legislative power is not supreme; but that it is limited and controlled by written constitutions, to which the Judges, who are sworn to defend them, are authorized to give a transcendent operation over all laws that may be made in derogation of them. This judicial check affords a security here for civil liberty, which belongs to no other governments in the world; and if the Judges will everywhere faithfully exercise it, the liberties of the American nation may be rendered perpetual. But while I assert this power in the Court, and insist on the great value of it to the community, I am not insensible of the high deference which is due to the legislative authority. It is supreme in all cases in which is not restrained by the constitution; and as it is the duty of the legislators as well as of the Judges to consult this and conform their acts to it, so it ought to be presumed that all their acts are conformable to it, unless the contrary is manifest. This confidence in the wisdom and integrity of the legislature, is necessary to ensure a due obedience to its authority; for if this is frequently questioned, it must tend to diminish that reverence for the laws which is essential to the public safety and happiness. / am not, therefore, disposed to examine with scrupulous exactness the validity of a law. It would be unwise to do so on another account. The interference of the judicial power with legislative acts, if frequent or on dubious grounds, might occasion so great a jealousy of this power, and so general *317a prejudice against it, as to lead to measures which might end in the total overthrow of the independence of the judiciary, and with it this best preservative of the constitution. The validity of a law ought not then, to be questioned, unless it is so obviously repugnant to the constitution, that when pointed out by the Judges, all men of sense and reflection in the community may perceive the repugnancy. By such a cautious exercise of this judicial check, no jealousy of it will be excited, the public confidence in it may be promoted, and its salutary effects be justly and fully appreciated’. (Emphasis added.)
“The Byrne case has been cited numerous times by this Court as well as courts of other jurisdictions, and most of the foregoing quotation was quoted with approval and applied in Massey v. Glenn, 106 S. C. 53, 90 S. E. 321, an en banc decision in 1916.
“The foregoing salutary principles should constantly guard us, the judiciary, against encroaching upon the legislative domain in violation of the separation of powers clause of the Constitution.”