Judges: WHITFIELD, J. —
Attorneys: Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, H. E. Carter, Assistant Attorney General, C. D. Blackwell and A. L. Rankin, for Relator;
Jos. S. White, for Respondents;
W. H. Poe, as Amicus Curiae.
Filed: Nov. 15, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The Attorney General filed in this Court an information in the nature of quo warranto alleging that Chapter 15938, Acts of 1933, entitled "An Act to create a county budget commission in counties of Florida having a population of not less than 43,000 and not more than 53,000 by the last preceding State or Federal census," is unconstitutional and void on stated grounds, and praying that the respondents constituting the County Budget Commission of Palm Beach County, Florida, be required to answer b
Summary: The Attorney General filed in this Court an information in the nature of quo warranto alleging that Chapter 15938, Acts of 1933, entitled "An Act to create a county budget commission in counties of Florida having a population of not less than 43,000 and not more than 53,000 by the last preceding State or Federal census," is unconstitutional and void on stated grounds, and praying that the respondents constituting the County Budget Commission of Palm Beach County, Florida, be required to answer by..
More
While I have some considerable doubt as to the validity of the Palm Beach County Budget Commission Act involved in this case, the rule of constitutional law is that, in case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favor of upholding the validity of the legislative Act. Courts have no power per se to declare Acts of the Legislature invalid merely because they may be considered unreasonable, absurd, unworkable, unpopular or nonsensical in their operation. On the contrary a State statute must be upheld unless it is shown beyond every reasonable doubt
to be contrary to some express, or necessarily implied constitutional provision, and that to enforce it results in some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue that is made to rest upon the challenged Act. Williams v. Riley, 280 U.S. 78, 74 L. Ed. 175,50 Sup. Ct. Rep. 63.
I therefore give the benefit of the doubt to the Act in question, and concur in Justice WHITFIELD'S opinion holding that it has not been sufficiently shown to be unconstitutional upon the grounds presented in the attack upon it in this case.
