No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Public Law in the State Courts in 1927–1928
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Extract
Special Session—Power to Propose Constitutional Amendments Not Included in Governor's Call. In 1926 a special session of the Pennsylvania legislature proposed an amendment to the state constitution in the form of a new section, although the subject-matter of this amendment was not referred to in the governor's proclamation calling the session. In a taxpayer's action to prevent the submission to the people of this proposal it was alleged that the proceeding was in violation of Art. 3, Sec. 25, of the constitution of Pennsylvania, which provides: “When the General Assembly shall be convened in special session, there shall be no legislation upon subjects other than those designated in the proclamation of the governor calling such session.” In Sweeney v. King the state supreme court held that a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment is not “legislation” within the meaning of this clause. In reaching this conclusion it relied heavily upon its earlier decision in Commonwealth v. Griest in which it had held that a constitutional amendment is not “legislation” which must be submitted to the chief executive for his approval, a doctrine well established both in state and federal courts. An opposite result on the principal question was reached by the supreme court of California in People v. Curry. Here the restriction upon a called session of the legislature was held to preclude the proposal of a constitutional amendment. The purpose of the restriction was declared to be to regulate the duration of the session and keep down expenses, and this purpose, it was held, ought not to be defeated by a strained or highly technical interpretation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1928
References
1 137 Atl. 178, March, 1927.
2 196 Pa. 396, 46 Atl. 505, 1900.
3 130 Cal. 82, 62 Pac. 516, 1900.
4 Vol. xix, p. 574.
5 People ex. rel. Robin v. Hayes, 143 N. Y. Suppl. 325 (1913); appeal denied by court of appeals, 106 N. E. 1041.
6 Ferguson v. Maddox, 263 S. W. 888, 1924.
7 In re Opinion of Justices, 137 Atl. 50, March, 1927.
8 Act of Feb. 26, 1926. 44 Stat. at L. 699
9 258 Pac. 291, August, 1927.
10 Art. 2, Sec. 4.
11 159 N. E. 564, December, 1927.
12 158 N. E. 171, March, 1927.
13 Barker v. City of Akron, 121 N. E. 646, 1918.
14 Daly v. Beery, 178 N. W. 104, 1920.
15 Vol. xv, p. 409.
16 137 S. E. 488, March, 1927.
17 216 N. W. 837, December, 1927.
18 157 N. E. 769, August, 1927.
19 216 N. W. 127, November, 1927.
20 136 Atl. 312, January, 1927.
21 258 Pac. 209, May, 1927.
22 185 Fed. 417, 1911.
23 170 U. S. 343.
24 216 N. W. 600, December, 1927.
25 7 Peters 243.
26 223 U. S. 118.
27 155 N. E. 737, February, 1927.
28 156 N. Y. 541, 51 N. E. 288, 1898.
29 214 N. W. 18, April, 1927.
30 255 Pac. 610, May, 1927.
31 262 U. S. 390. See comment in this Review, vol. xviii, p. 69Google Scholar.
32 268 U. S. 510. See comment in this Review, vol. xx, p. 98Google Scholar.
33 139 Atl. 122, June, 1927.
34 271 Pa. 428, 117 Atl. 440, 1921.
35 139 S. E. 559, September, 1927.
36 289 S. W. 1067, December, 1926.
37 245 U. S. 60.
38 271 U. S. 323. See comment in this Review, vol. xxi, p. 80Google Scholar.
39 295 S. W. 591, June, 1927.
40 104 So. 105. 1925.
41 275 U. S. 78.
42 114 So. 332, October, 1927.
43 291 S. W. 978, March, 1927.
44 These cases were discussed in this Review, vol. xix, p. 60Google Scholar.
45 157 N. E. 651, July, 1927.
46 136 Atl. 26; same case 138 Atl. 777, October, 1927.
47 215 N. W. 446, October, 1927.
48 136 Atl. 213, January, 1927.
49 215 N. W. 487, October, 1927.
50 257 Pac. 366, June, 1927.
51 291 S. W. 89, February, 1927.
52 253 Pac. 1, February, 1927.
53 293 S. W. 757, May, 1927.
54 139 Tenn. 484, 202 S. W. 76, 1918.
55 Vol. xii, p. 475.
56 214 N. W. 369, June, 1927.
57 127 U. S. 678.
58 171 U. S. 1.
59 171 U. S. 30.
60 215 N. W. 840, October, 1927.
61 Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635.
62 136 Atl. 41, January, 1927.
63 257 Pac. 243, June, 1927.
64 293 S. W. 14, April, 1927.
65 257 Pac. 959, July, 1927.
66 158 N. E. 703, October, 1927.
67 257 Pac. 1007, May, 1927.
68 See Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, commented on in this Review, vol. xxii, p. 94Google Scholar.
69 195 U. S. 223.
70 156 N. E. 778, April, 1927.
71 291 S. W. 871, February, 1927.
72 273 U. S. 119.
73 159 N. E. 121, July, 1926.
74 143 U. S. 110.
75 7 Peters 243.
76 155 N. E. 628, February, 1927.
77 269 U. S. 385, commented on in this Review, vol. xxi, p. 86Google Scholar.
78 159 N. E. 495, January, 1928.
79 259 Pac. 17, September, 1927.
80 214 N. W. 316, June, 1927.
81 259 Pac. 201, September, 1927.
82 136 Atl. 664, March, 1927.
83 155 N. E. 465, February, 1927.
84 139 Atl. 747, December, 1927.
85 155 N. E. 781, December, 1926.
86 262 Pac. 907, December, 1927