In re Opinion of the Justices
Decision Date | 31 October 1921 |
Citation | 239 Mass. 603,133 N.E. 452 |
Parties | In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Answers to questions propounded to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court by order of the Senate.
Under Const. pt. 2, c. 1, s 2, art. 7, authorizing the Senate to choose its own president and appoint its own officers, and Amendmant, art. 64, providing for the biennial election of Senators, the Senate may fix the terms of its officers for periods not exceeding its own official life, and may limit their term to one year, or provide that it shall be coextensive with the period for which the Senate was elected.
Under Const. Amend. art. 64, providing for the biennial election of Senators, the provision of section 3 thereof that the General Court shall assemble every year does not break the continuity of the Senate as a legislative body, but simply assures two sessions of one legislative body.
Under a vote of the Senate, electing a president and other officers without prescribing their term, such officers hold office during the pleasure of Senate, but, unless contrary action is taken by the Senate, they serve during the life of the Senate as a legislative body.
To the Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of massachusetts:
The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court having considered the questions in the order of May 27, 1921, copy whereof is hereto annexed, respectfully submit these answers:
[1] The Senate is required by chapter 1, § 2, art. 7 of the Constitution to ‘choose its own president, appoint its own officers, and determine its own rules of proceedings.’ Neither this nor any other provision of the Constitution by express words fixes the term for the president or for any of the other officers of the Senate. From the adopting of the Constitution until the year 1920, Senators were elected annually for a term expiring on the day preceding the first Wednesday of the second January after the annual state election at which they were chosen. Chapter 1, § 2, arts. 1-3. Amendments, arts. 10, 15. It follows from these provisions that the officers of the Senate could not serve as a constitutional right for longer than the constitutional life of the Senate itself. The clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States by old usage is said to continue in a new Congress. It was almost inevitable that the membership of the Senate would be altered more or less with every annual election. Each member, whether elected for the first time or re-elected, sat by virtue of a fresh election. The official life of the Senate as a legislative body was thus limited to a single year.
[2] The ratification and adoption of article 64 of the Amendments changed this. Biennial elections are thereby substituted for annual elections. The term of office of each Senator is two years in place of one year as theretofore. The official life of the Senate as a legislative body is thereby lengthened to two years instead of being limited to the one year previously established. The provision in section 3, art. 64 of the Amendments that ‘the general court shall assemble every year,’ does not break the continuity of the Senate as a legislative body. It simply assures two sessions of one legislative body. In this particular the two branches of the General Court now resemble the House of Representatives of the Congress of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Robinson v. Fluent
... ... its investigatory function into the interim and until the ... next session of the legislature is foreclosed by our opinion ... in State ex rel. Hamblen v. Yelle, Wash., 185 P.2d ... 723, in which we held that by statute a legislative committee ... may ... newly created body, its life not continuous with that of the ... house that went Before it. Opinion of the Justices to the ... Senate, 239 Mass. 603, 133 N.E. 452; cf. Matter of ... Hague, 105 N.J.Eq. 134, 147 A. 220. This is probably the ... ...
-
Verry v. Trenbeath
...term for which each was elected. Similar results have been obtained elsewhere. In re Davis, 58 Kan. 368, 49 P. 160; In re Opinion of Justices, 239 Mass. 603, 133 N.E. 452. There is nothing in our Constitution which limits legislative expenditures during the interim between sessions. Expendi......
-
State ex rel. Overhulse v. Appling
...10, 251 P.2d at page 127. A similar view has been taken elsewhere. In re Davis, 1897, 58 Kan. 368, 49 P. 160; In re Opinion of the Justices, 1921, 239 Mass. 603, 133 N.E. 452. Although State ex rel. Stadter v. Patterson, supra, did not involve the question of the legislative assembly's powe......
-
Duggan v. City of Taunton
...Other cases, involving somewhat analogous situations, rest on varying constitutional or statutory provisions. See Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 603, 605--606, 133 N.E. 452; Dickinson v. Mayor & Aldermen & Bd. of Fire Commrs. of Jersey City, 68 N.J.L. 99, 102, 52 A. 278. Cf. Kaplan v. S......