In re In re Opinion of the Justices
| Decision Date | 20 August 1949 |
| Docket Number | 106. |
| Parties | In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Section V of Local Act No. 470, supra, in pertinent part is as follows:
'Section V. Citizens Supervisory Committee: The initial membership of the Citizens Supervisory Committee shall consist of the qualified electors in Mobile County, who upon the passage of this Act, are respectively the president or other chief executive officer by whatever name called, of the following respective organizations, groups, and institutions now existing in Mobile County and commonly known as; (1) Chamber of Commerce of the City of Mobile, (2) Mobile County Bar Association,
(3) Mobile County Medical Association, (4) Junior Chamber of Commerce of Mobile, (5) Central Trades Council, (6) Mobile County Farmers Association, (7) Rotary Club of Mobile, (8) Kiwanis Club of Mobile, (9) Lions Club of Mobile, (10) Exchange Club of Mobile, (11) Mobile Chapter of Alabama Federation of Women's Clubs, (12) Forum Club of Mobile (13) Pilot Club, (14) Business and Professional Womens Club together with the person who is the Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama, which includes Mobile County or the largest part thereof. If there be more than one organization or group commonly known by any of the names above mentioned, then the one hereby intended is the one of greatest age. * * *'
It therefore, appears that under said Act that the Legislature has delegated to a Citizens Supervisory Committee the important duties of supervising the finances of the Personnel Department of Mobile County, and selecting the members of the Personnel Board. Also, under the provisions of Section V, the Citizens Supervisory Committee is to be composed of the president or other chief executive officer of certain expressly designated organizations, groups and institutions of Mobile County, to the exclusion of many of the other civic clubs and other such organizations, such as, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Optimists' Club, Mobile Historical Society, among several others.
The foregoing being considered, I respectfully request your opinion on the following constitutional questions:
(1). Is the Mobile County Civil Service Act, and particularly Section V of said Act violative of Section 22 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 in that the Legislature has made an exclusive grant of special privileges?
(2). Is said Act and particularly Section V thereof, violative of Section 44 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 in that the Legislature has therein made an unconstitutional delegation of its powers to the Citizens Supervisory Committee?
(3). Does said Act violate the equal protection and due process clause, namely, Article 14, of the Constitution of the United States?
In considering these questions, I respectfully invite your attention to:
Yeilding v. State, 232 Ala. 292, 167 So. 580; Ashmore et al. v Greater Greenville Sewer District, decided by the Supreme Court of South Carolina on August 28, 1947, and reported in , 44 S.E.2d 88; ; the Kentucky case of Elrod et al. v. Willis et al., decided June 20, 1947 and reported in 203 Southwestern Reporter, , 203 S.W.2d 18.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) James E. Folsom Governor
Hon James E. Folsom
Governor of the State of Alabama
Montgomery, Alabama
Dear Sir:
We acknowledge receipt of your inquiry of August 11th respecting certain constitutional questions in connection with local act No. 470 as set forth in Local Acts of Alabama, p. 300.
As pointed out by you the legislature has delegated to the Citizens Supervisory Committee the duties of supervising the finances of the Personnel Department of Mobile County and of selecting the members of the Personnel Board. The act provides that the members of the Citizens Supervisory Committee shall serve without compensation. It is certainly not the purpose of the act to confer a pecuniary benefit on the members of the Citizens Supervisory Committee. On the contrary the evident purpose of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Opinion of the Justices
...1061 (Ala.1980). "This Court has used various phrases in applying the principles stated. It stated in re: Opinion of the Justices No. 106, 252 Ala. 559, 561, 42 So.2d 56, 58 (1949): " '[A]n inherent power of the legislature ... must not be arbitrary or unreasonable. However, the legislature......
-
Lanza v. Wagner
...be selected or chosen. The great weight of authority throughout the country supports this conclusion. (See, e. g., Matter of Opinion of the Justices, 252 Ala. 559, 42 So.2d 56; Matter of Bulger, 45 Cal. 553; Ex parte Gerino, 143 Cal. 412, 77 P. 166, 66 L.R.A. 249; Overshiner v. State, 156 I......
-
Chandler v. Hospital Authority of City of Huntsville
...generally affected by the act, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference.' In Re: Opinion of the Justices, 252 Ala. 559, 561, 42 So.2d 56 (1949). "Sellers v. Edwards, 289 Ala. 2, 265 So.2d 438, 439 "A statutory discrimination between classes is held to be ......
-
Bagby Elevator & Elec. Co., Inc. v. McBride
...generally affected by the act, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference. In Re: Opinion of the Justices, 252 Ala. 559, 561, 42 So.2d 56 (1949).' Alabama's statute is similar to statutes passed in over thirty other states, all designed to limit liability i......