Court Opinion

ID: 9825334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:40:15.59116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:43.119893
License: Public Domain

I concur in the foregoing opinion of Mr. Justice BROWN but wish to add a. few lines.
The doctrine of Johnson v. Craft, supra, is that the constitutional prescriptions of section 284 are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It was so considered in the recent opinion of the Justices No. 94 in answer to an inquiry of the Governor where in speaking of section 284 it was emphasized that in amending the constitution the provision there under consideration was mandatory, and when the legislature undertook to act uqder it it was not performing a legislative function in its “law-making capacity,” but as an entity.
Hence section 53 of the constitution, in my opinion, is not subject to the construction placed on it in the opinion of the majority, supra, the Florida case therein cited to the contrary notwithstanding.
So we have a plain mandate that “proposed amendments shall be read in the house in which they originate on three several days,” etc. Giving this provision the strict construction it must be accorded, it cannot be said that referring such proposals to a committee where it might — in all likelihood will — die is a proper compliance with the provision.
This interpretation is fortified and made clearer by a reference to Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution of 1875, of which said section 284 is a rewrite, wherein it was provided, “the general assembly may, whenever two-thirds of each house shall deem it necessary, propose amendments to this constitution, which, having been read on three several days in each house, shall be duly published,” etc. [Emphasis supplied.]
Thus in the 1875 Constitution we have a different verbiage (italicized) as regards the three readings, and the 1901 Constitution changed the meaning to require that the proposed amendments “shall be read ” thus emphasizing the position here entertained. When the mandate is that a proposed amendment shall be read on three several days, I think it means what it says.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT T. SIMPSON
Associate Justice.