Court Opinion

ID: 9687890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:52:40.615196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:32.660341
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion herein because I do not believe L.B. 1357 can be held constitutional without unduly straining the bounds of constitutional interpretation.
I would hold the acts challenged in this litigation constitute amendatory legislation which failed to comply with the constitutional requirements relating to the adoption of' amendments to statutes.
I would also hold the act is so imperfect and deficient in its terms as to render it impossible of execution and enforcement. As we said in Heywood v. Brainard (1967); 181 Neb. 294, 147 N. W. 2d 772: “It is a fundamental requirement of due process of law that a statute be reasonably clear and definite.”
Further, I do not believe that the majority opinion has satisfactorily answered the contention that the act is in violation of Article I, section 24. of the Constitution.