Court Opinion

ID: 9853184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:44:03.931728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:42.358101
License: Public Domain

Lewis, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
The majority opinion reaches the conclusion that Act No. 179 of the 1981 Acts of the General Assembly does not offend Article III, Section 17, of the South Carolina Constitution. I disagree and, therefore, dissent.
Article III, Section 17, of the Constitution states:
*323Section 17. One subject.
Every Act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
In Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Company v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 233 S. C. 129, 103 S. E. (2d) 908, the court referred to the purpose of Article III, Section 17 as follows:
Its purpose is to prevent the General Assembly from being misled into the passage of bills containing provisions not indicated in their titles, and to apprise the people of the subject of proposed legislation and thus give them opportunity to be heard if they so desire. Accordingly, while it is to be construed with great liberality so as not to embarrass or obstruct needed legislation, liberality of construction should not be extended to such a point as to foster the abuses which its provisions are designed to prevent.
Specifically the majority finds that Section 15 of Act 179, establishing the South Carolina State Farm Development Authority is germane to the general subject of the entire Act, that subject purporting to be the issuance of bonds by various government entities.
The trial court and the majority of this Court overlook the basic issue of the sufficiency of the title of Act No. 179 under Article III, Section 17. The majority opinion provides the full . title of the Act as a footnote. The title covers two full pages in the printed Acts of 1981. The following is the sole language used in the title to launch this new government entity into the field of limitless government borrowing:
To amend the 1976 Code by adding to Title 46 Chapter 47, The South Carolina State Family Farm Development Authority Act.
Neither the title nor the subject of Act 179 gives any indication to legislators or the public of the broad powers to issue bonds by the Farm Development Authority. There is no way that the foregoing short provision in the title could have fairly apprised legislators or the general public that Act 179 con*324tained authority for a new agency to issue revenue bonds in an unlimited amount.
Whatever the merits of this undertaking, it can hardly be said that members of the legislature or the public are even dimly apprised of its nature by the title of the Act. The effect of the majority view is, in my opinion, to read out of the Constitution the very important restraints imposed by Article III, Section 17 of the Constitution.
I would reverse the order under appeal, holding that the Act is unconstitutional.
Gregory, J., concurs.