HomeMy WebLinkAbout0870 }
f
t
Please apply these historical facts to Supreme Court Justice Alderman's
philosophy of constitutional intrepretation where he wrote the opinion
in Plante v. Smathers, 372 So.2d 933 (Fla. 1979), as follows:
"..,The spirit of the constitution is
as obligatory as the written word. Amos
- v. Matthews, 99 Fla. 1, 126 So. 308 (1930).
The objective to be accomplished and the
evils-to be remedied by the constitutional
provision must be constantly kept in view,
and the provision must be interpreted to
accomplish rather than to defeat them.
State ex rel. Dade County v. Dickinson, 230
So.2d 130 (F1a.1970). A constitutional pro-
vision is to be construed in such a manner
as to make it meaningful. A construction
that nullified a specific clause will not be
given unless absolutely required by the con-
text. Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846 (Fla.
1960-) .
(6,7) We may glean light for discerning
the people
intent from historical prece-
dent, from the resent acts, from common
sense, an rom an examination of the pur-
- Bose the rovision was intended to accom-
~is an t e evi s sought to be prevented.
In re A visory Opinion to t e Governor, 6
So.2d 25 (Fla.1973). Furthermore, we may
look to the explanatory materials available
to the people as a predicate for the deci-
sion as persuasive of their intent. Williams
v. Smith,.360 So.2d 417 (F1a.1978); In re ~
Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 343
So.2d 17 (F1a.1977). Further, an interpreta-
tion of a constitutional provision which will -
lead to an absurd result will not be adopted
when the provision is fairly subject to an-
other construction which will accomplish
the manifest intent and purpose of the peo-
ple . City of I~iiami v. Romfh, 66 Fla. 280,
63 So. 440 (1913)." (Emphasis supplied)
-and you will now be surrounded with the proper legal environment for
an intelligent discussion of the applicable constitutional, statutory
and case law of this litigation.
In Modern Constitutional Law, The States and the Federal
Government, Volume II, Chester J. Antieau, Professor of Constitutional
Law and Local Government Law, Georgetown University Law Center, pp 4,
states: -
"The Thirteen Original States were in
existence before the United States and were
thus antecedent sovereigns. As such they
- were possessed of all powers of sovereignty.
Texas, too, was an independent sovereign be-
fore becoming part of the United States.
In American constitutional law the states _
all possess those powers of sovereignty not
- given to the Federal Government exclusively
by the United States Constitution, nor pro-
t
-7- ~ 33a g~~