Court Opinion

ID: 9680103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:19:45.647591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:25.424154
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, concurring. I fully cone ur in the majority opinion. I take the dissenting opinion to be based upon a misreading of Article 2 of our constitution. In my opinion the very language of § 29 is certainly an implied, if not express, limitation upon the powers of the General Assembly in the matter of the alteration or reform of our government, in the manner attempted by Act 16 of 1975. I can find no legal precedent anywhere, even in those states whose constitutions have no provision such as our § 29, holding valid the procedures outlined by this act where: 1. There has been no call of a convention or ratification of the call. 2. None of the “delegates” were elected by the people. 3. There is a legislative limitation on the extent to which “revision” is to be considered by the “convention.” 4. The work product of the “convention” is to be submitted at a special election. I doubt if there is any historical precedent. To me it is clear that this attempt to call a “limited constitutional convention” would clearly remove the delegates from their status as agents of the people for the purpose of acting in their stead in the exercise of their inherent, sovereign power, as we defined it in Harvey v. Ridgeway, 248 Ark. 35, 450 S.W. 2d 281. The legislature can only exercise powers not expressly or by fair implication forbidden to it by the constitution of Arkansas or of the United States. Butler v. Board of Directors of Fourche Drainage District, 99 Ark. 100, 137 S.W. 251; Webb v. State, 176 Ark. 722, 3 S.W. 2d 1000. To me there is more than a fair implication that the creation of this “limited constitutional convention” is an encroachment on the inherent right of the people which is excepted out of the general power of the government. There should be no question about the non-severability of the act. It creates the “Arkansas Constitutional Convention of 1975.” See § 2. Without any provision relating to composition and procedures set out in §§ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10, it is not the “Arkansas Constitutional Convention of 1975.” I do not see how it can seriously be argued that the General Assembly would have passed the act without any of its sections having been included, especially § 4. I don’t see how §' 11 has any bearing on the question. Where elimination of an unconstitutional clause gives an act considerably broader scope than was intended by the legislature, it is not severable. Arkansas Commerce Commission v. Arkansas Ozarks Railway Co., 235 Ark. 89, 357 S.W. 2d 295. An Act is not severable when its provisions arc so interwoven and interconnected that it reflects the intent of the legislature to enact it as a whole. Wenderoth v. City of Fort Smith, 251 Ark. 342, 472 S.W. 2d 74. See also, Neal v. Still, 248 Ark. 1132, 455 S.W. 2d 921. Clearly, Act 16 would have a much broader scope without § 4. It is just as clear that all its sections are so interwoven and interconnected that it reflects the intention of the legislature to enact it as a whole. The time frame in which this case has been presented and the urgency of the decision render further elaboration impossible. I would point out that it is clear to me that we are faced with a situation where advocates of the people seek to prevent an illegal exaction in the expenditure of public funds in carrying out an unauthorized act and not a situation where there has been ratification of an unauthorized act. It is only in that perspective that we have any right to view the matter. I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Brown joins in this opinion. J. Fred Jones, Justice. I agree with the majority opinion that Act 16 of 1975 is unconstitutional and has no salvage value through severability. I base my conclusion and reasoning on one point only. It is my view that Section 4 of Act 16, quite true to its title, limits the authority of the convention delegates and, in actuality, directs the readoption of many provisions of the present Constitution without change. Section 4 of the Act attempts to prohibit change in these provisions when once the delegates are in convention assembled. The people may restrict the Legislature to the extent they deem proper and desire as indeed they have done in most every section of Article 5 of the present Constitution pertaining to the Legislative Department. But the Legislature can never rise above the source of all political power and restrict the people in the exercise of the power and rights they have reserved to themselves. As I interpret Section 4 of Act 16, it contains just such restriction.