Florida Con Law
Rosenthal & Martinez-Esteve
Spring 2016
Chapter 1 An Introduction to Studying the Florida Constitution
Introduction
Although the governmental power of the US flows either directly or impliedly from its Constitution, the governmental power of a state does not flow from its constitution
The source of a state’s governmental power is inherent, and the state’s constitution is essentially a limitation on that inherent power
The social contract
Social contract – man surrendered some of his freedom in order to gain the protection of society; it is from this “contract” that government derives its inherent power to govern
States have inherent power
Divided into three areas:
1. The power to organize to achieve its purposes
Create branches of government
Define the duties and responsibilities of those branches
Create subdivisions of state authority
2. The power to raise the money necessary to achieve its purposes, and
Tax
Bonds
3. The powers necessary to provide a relatively safe and orderly environment within its territory
Police power – the sovereign right of the state to enact laws for the protection of lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare
Basis of most state laws
State constitutions are limits on the inherent power of the state
State constitutions generally:
Define the boundaries of the state
Set forth a bill of rights
Organize the government
Contain provisions relating to administration and law
Provide for amendment by the people
Direct the orderly transition to the new state (sometimes called a schedule)
Governmental power in the American System
Fed = delegated or enumerated powers
State = inherent powers
State constitutions are amended only by votes
The only exception to this is if a provision in the state constitution is declared unconstitutional
The modern view of the state’s inherent power
The state is inherently sovereign at all times and in every capacity.It is the organized embodiment of the sovereign power of the whole people.By reason of this sovereignty it possesses all powers, but only such powers as are within the limitations of the state Constitution and without the prohibitions of the federal Constitution.It can do no act except in the exercise of this sovereign power and within these constitutional limitations.
The concept of the state constitution
The state Constitution as a limitation on inherent state governmental power
Provisions can reaffirm existing inherent power
Peters v. Meeks (1964)
Just because a power isn’t specifically stated in a state constitution does not mean that the government does not indeed have that power. The states have inherent, plenary power, meaning that a statement of power in the state constitution is a reaffirmation, nothing more.
Provisions can limit inherent powers by implication
Weinberger v. Board of Public Instruction of St. Johns County (1927)
We look to the State Constitution, not to determine what the legislature may do, but to determine what it may NOT do.If an act of the legislature is not forbidden by the state or federal constitutions, it MUST be held valid.Where the Constitution expressly provides the manner of doing a thing, it impliedly forbids it from being done in any other way.
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius – one thing is the exclusion of another
Constitutional language that looks like a grant of power
Example: “The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a legislature of the State of FL, consisting of a Senate… and a House of Representatives…”
While this language looks like a grant of power, in reality it is a limitation on inherent governmental powers in that it requires: (1) a republican form of government; and (2) a bicameral FL Legislature.
Rule of interpretation When the Constitution prescribes the manner of doing an act, the manner prescribed is exclusive, and it is beyond the power of the Legislature to enact a statute that would defeat the purpose of the constitutional provision.
Provisions can allocate inherent power
Whiley v. Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011)
Separation of powers doctrine
No branch may encroach upon the powers of another branch
No branch may delegate to another branch its constitutionally assigned powers
Self-executing and non-self-executing provisions
A self-executing provision is a provision that lays down a sufficient rule by means of which the right or purpose which it gives or is intended to accomplish may be determined, enjoyed, or protected without the aid of legislative enactment
Florida Hospital Waterman v. Buster (2008)
The fact that a right may be supplemented by legislation does not of itself prevent the provision from being self-executing
Will of the people is paramount in determining what is acceptable
Aids in interpreting the Constitution
Constitutions are construed using the same general canons as statutes
Constitutional provisions should be interpreted with the intent of its drafters and electorate in mind
Statutes come to the Court clothed with a presumption of constitutionality
When a statute is declared unconstitutional, it is as if it had never existed
If you had to pay a fine or go to jail, and the statute is declared unconstitutional, you don’t have to pay the fine and you get out of jail
Start with the plain language and intent of the drafters
If the language
rs of another, and
2. That no branch may delegate to another branch its constitutionally assigned powers
Branches of government
Executive
Responsible for the administration of the state through a “supreme executive,” cabinet and executive departments
Has some quasi-legislative functions
Veto
Has some quasi-judicial functions
Administrative hearings
Civil service hearings
Legislature
Responsible for the creation and amendment of the laws of the state
Delegates functions such as rulemakings to other branches
Judicial
Least dangerous/powerful branch
Limited interpretations of laws
Sometimes issues advisory opinions
Creates its own rules of procedure
Reviews the work of other branches
Encroachment by one branch of government on the powers of another branch
Encroachment – Judicial on Legislature
Courts should not question or create legitimate policy reasons for acting
Courts should not rewrite common law
Doctrine of necessaries – under the doctrine, a husband was liable to a third party for any necessaries that the third party provided to his wife. Because the duty of support was uniquely the husband’s obligation, and because coverture restricted the wife’s access to the economic realm, the doctrine did not impose a similar liability upon married women.
Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics v. Smith (1986)
The court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing appellant hospital’s complaint against appellee wife for payment of medical bills incurred by her husband and certified a conflict of decisions. In the absence of clear constitutional or statutory authority reflecting a change in the common law doctrine of necessaries, the court did not possess the authority to disregard controlling precedent.
Here, the doctrine of necessaries was the law.
Connor v. SW FL Regional Medical Center (1996)
The court quashed the order of reversal in respondent hospital’s favor because the doctrine of necessities was no longer viable; therefore, petitioner wife was not liable for the charges arising from her husband’s care.
