Ball v. Branch
| Decision Date | 04 February 1944 |
| Citation | 154 Fla. 57,16 So.2d 524 |
| Parties | BALL et al. v. BRANCH. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; L. L. Parks judge.
John M Allison and Fred T. Saussy, both of Tampa, for appellants.
Jas. D Bruton, Jr., of Plant City, for appellee.
Pursuant to Chapter 21820, Acts of 1943, F.S.A. § 62.09-1 et seq., appellee as complainant filed his bill of complaint herein seeking a declaratory decree adjudicating the constitutional validity of Chapter 22323, Sp.Acts of 1943. It is contended that the latter act should be decreed to be unconstitutional and void for various reasons, the primary one being that it provides for an advisory board to assist in its administration which is not required to be elected by the people or appointed by the Governor as required by Section 27, Article Three of the Constitution.
The design of Chapter 22323, Sp.Acts of 1943, was to combine and coordinate the public health services of Hillsborough County and the City of Tampa under the name of the Hillsborough County Health Unit, to authorize the City of Tampa to transfer all its equipment to the County Health Unit and to provide for the appointment of an advisory board to assist the county health unit in the administration of its duties.
The advisory board to assist the consolidated county health unit in the administration of its duties is composed of the Mayor of Tampa, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and one member each selected by the Hillsborough County Medical Association, the Hillsborough County Dental Society, the County Board of Public Instruction, the County Council of the Hillsborough County Parent Teacher Association, and one member to be appointed by the civic organizations known as 'The Round Table' in the City of Tampa. The members of the advisory board serve without compensation for designated terms which are renewable by the organizations designating them or by virtue of the law designating them.
The primary contention is that the authorization of the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County to appoint a county health officer on recommendation of the advisory board and that the advisory board shall advise and assist in the preparation of a budget for the health unit clothes it (advisory board) with governmental powers which require that it be elected by the people or appointed by the Governor as required by Section 27, Article Three of the Constitution.
This court is committed to the doctrine that one who challenges the constitutional validity of a legislative act must overcome, (1) the presumption that it is valid, (2) that all doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, (3) that if there is any reasonable theory upon which its validity can be upheld it is the duty of the courts to resolve that theory in favor of its validity, and (4) if confronted by two theories of interpretation one of which results in striking it down while the other results in upholding it, it is the duty of the court to adopt the latter interpretation if consistent with reason. Courts are never permitted to strike down an act of the Legislature because it fails to square with their individual social or economic theories or what they deem to be sound public policy.
If as judges we were permitted to strike down acts of the Legislature because of these grounds, then constitutional validity may be made to turn on the state of my liver or digestion when confronted with the statute, or since there are various processes of reasoning among us constitutional validity may, as said by Sir John Selden as as to equity, depend on the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot. We are not permitted to speculate on whether an act is wise or rational. As the present Chief Justice of the United States is reported to have said in speaking of a certain piece of New Deal legislation, the constitutional validity of which was challenged before him 'It's perfectly constitutional and it's perfectly foolish'. So constitutional validity must burn on the application of well settled rules of interpretation and not on the philosophy or predilection of judges as to what the law ought to be. Such is our theory of constitutional government. It frequently blunders through and may not bring about superlative justice but it is the safest refuge yet found to save...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Dade County Fair Housing and Employment Appeals Bd. v. Sunrise Village Mobile Home Park, Inc.
...it fails to square with their individual social or economic theories or what they deem to be sound public policy. Ball v. Branch, 154 Fla. 57, 59, 16 So.2d 524, 525 (1944); accord, e.g., Hamilton v. State, 366 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla.1978) ("[t]he Legislature has a great deal of discretion in dete......
-
Claire's Boutiques, Inc. v. Locastro ex rel. Locastro
...Further, court decisions should not turn on "the philosophy or predilection of judges as to what the law ought to be." Ball v. Branch, 16 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 1944). If the legislature wanted to foreclose the use of indemnification agreements by parents when contracting with third parties ......
-
Barnes v. B.K. Credit Service, Inc.
...it fails to square with their individual social or economic theories or what they deem to be sound public policy." Ball v. Branch, 154 Fla. 57, 16 So.2d 524, 525 (1944). Further, it must ever be kept in mind that the legislature possesses broad discretion in determining what measures are ne......
-
Claire's Boutiques Inc. v. Locastro
...Further, court decisions should not turn on "the philosophy or predilection of judges as to what the law ought to be." Ball v. Branch, 16 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 1944). If the legislature wanted to foreclose the use of indemnification agreements by parents when contracting with third parties ......