ISBN: 1235906434

Paperback, [EAN: 9781235906435], RareBooksClub.com, RareBooksClub.com, Book, [PU: RareBooksClub.com], RareBooksClub.com, This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purch… Plus…

Paperback, [EAN: 9781235906435], RareBooksClub.com, RareBooksClub.com, Book, [PU: RareBooksClub.com], RareBooksClub.com, This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1910 Excerpt: ...shall be the duty of the legislature to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people, in such manner... as may be deemed expedient." The supreme court of California held that the act of proposal was one of the legislature alone, independent of the governor, but that the provision for submitting an amendment required the governor's approval--that the legislature alone might propose, but could not alone submit its proposal to the people; the two steps are of course parts of one act--one is useless without the other--and the California court's position is absolutely indefensible; it would seem to be a judicial quibble invented for the purpose of defeating the submission of a proposal to which the court was opposed.5 A contrary position was taken by the court of appeals of Maryland in the case of Warfield v. Vandiver,80 although the dissenting judges argued in favor of the California doctrine. 55 Murphy Chair Co. v. Attorney-General, 148 Mich., 563 (1907). 5 State v. Dahl, 6 N. D., 81 (1896); Commonwealth v. Griest, 196 Pa. St., 396 (1900); In re Senate File No. 31, 25 Neb., 864 (1889); See also Koehler v. Hill, 60 Ia., 543, 558. 57 Warfield v. Vandiver, 101 Md., 78 (1905). "The same is true of amendments proposed to the federal constitution. See Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dallas, 378, and Jameson, Constitutional Conventions, 4th ed., 586-592. "Hatch v. Stoneman, 66 Cal., 632 (1885). Warfield v. Vandiver, 101 Md., 78 (1905). The same point was raised but dismissed in Commonwealth v. Griest, 196 Pa. St., 396, 413, 414, and in State ex rel. Morris v. Mason, 34 La. Ann., 590, 649-655. The Louisiana court clearly distinguishes between legislation, as such, and the proposal and submission of an amendment; where the provisions with refe..., 5035, World, 15812171, Civilization & Culture, 3825131, Expeditions & Discoveries, 4992, Jewish, 6343224011, Religious, 16244141, Slavery & Emancipation, 15812211, Women in History, 9, History, 1000, Subjects, 283155, Books<

ISBN: 9781235906435

RareBooksClub. Paperback. New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 104 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.2in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Pur… Plus…

RareBooksClub. Paperback. New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 104 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.2in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1910 Excerpt: . . . shall be the duty of the legislature to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people, in such manner. . . as may be deemed expedient. The supreme court of California held that the act of proposal was one of the legislature alone, independent of the governor, but that the provision for submitting an amendment required the governors approval--that the legislature alone might propose, but could not alone submit its proposal to the people; the two steps are of course parts of one act--one is useless without the other--and the California courts position is absolutely indefensible; it would seem to be a judicial quibble invented for the purpose of defeating the submission of a proposal to which the court was opposed. 5 A contrary position was taken by the court of appeals of Maryland in the case of Warfield v. Vandiver, 80 although the dissenting judges argued in favor of the California doctrine. 55 Murphy Chair Co. v. Attorney-General, 148 Mich. , 563 (1907). 5 State v. Dahl, 6 N. D. , 81 (1896); Commonwealth v. Griest, 196 Pa. St. , 396 (1900); In re Senate File No. 31, 25 Neb. , 864 (1889); See also Koehler v. Hill, 60 Ia. , 543, 558. 57 Warfield v. Vandiver, 101 Md. , 78 (1905). The same is true of amendments proposed to the federal constitution. See Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dallas, 378, and Jameson, Constitutional Conventions, 4th ed. , 586-592. Hatch v. Stoneman, 66 Cal. , 632 (1885). Warfield v. Vandiver, 101 Md. , 78 (1905). The same point was raised but dismissed in Commonwealth v. Griest, 196 Pa. St. , 396, 413, 414, and in State ex rel. Morris v. Mason, 34 La. Ann. , 590, 649-655. The Louisiana court clearly distinguishes between legislation, as such, and the proposal and submission of an amendment; where the provisions with refe. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN., RareBooksClub<