Court Opinion

ID: 9579378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:54:36.499438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:28.994504
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
I concur in Parts III and IV of my colleagues’ opinion.
As to Parts I and II, I agree with my colleagues that the bonds authorized by 1976 PA 297 are special obligation bonds, and that therefore the state would not, on account of their issuance,1 become a "party to” or "financially interested in” a work of internal improvement.2
*713It has not been made to appear and there is reason to doubt, based on the responses of counsel during the argument in this Court and the subsequently enacted appropriation acts, whether the state is or will become otherwise financially involved in the transportation programs of 1976 PA 295.
Unless and until the Legislature actually provides other funding or state credits, provisions of 1976 PA 295 regarding other financing are entirely anticipatory3 and do not constitute an enactment on which we may give an advisory opinion.4
I would defer reaching the question of whether the transportation programs of 1976 PA 295 constitute "public” internal improvements until the state is actually about to become so otherwise involved and we are apprised of the manner and extent of its involvement.5
Williams, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 See, Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of 1973 PA 1 and 2, 390 Mich 166, 176-177; 211 NW2d 28 (1973); Schureman v State Highway Commission, 377 Mich 609; 141 NW2d 62 (1966); State Highway Commissioner v Detroit Controller, 331 Mich 337; 49 NW2d 318 (1951).

 “The state shall not be a party to, nor be financially interested in, any work of internal improvement, nor engage in carrying on any *713such work, except for public internal improvements provided by law.” Const 1963, art 3, § 6.

 See Board of Education of Oakland Schools v Superintendent of Public Instruction, 392 Mich 613; 221 NW2d 345 (1974).

 See Const 1963, art 3, § 8:
"Either house of the legislature or the governor may request the opinion of the supreme court on important questions of law upon solemn occasions as to the constitutionality of legislation after it has been enacted into law but before its eifective date.” (Emphasis supplied.)
See Request for Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227, 395 Mich 148; 235 NW2d 321 (1975).

 My colleagues equate “public” with public purpose while the address to the people provides:
"The new, abbreviated wording makes it clear that the state 'may not be a party to’ nor 'financially interested’ in internal improvements other than those of a public nature and by authorization of law.” Const 1963, art 3, § 6, Convention comment.