 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Melof v. James5/28/1999
this amendment could be enacted, the amendment could be voted on in that election with little or no extra expense to the State. I believe that this amendment would be ratified overwhelmingly."
In response to Justice Johnstone's Dissent, I adopt Justice Hugo L. Black's convincing analysis concerning the application of the doctrine of stare decisis to constitutional interpretation that was recently referred to in Justice Lyons's special concurrence in Ex parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, 718 So.2d 33 (Ala. 1998). Justice Lyons wrote:
"Justice Hugo L. Black believed strongly that stare decisis had no role in matters of constitutional error. In defending the Supreme Court's duty to strike down even long-standing misconstructions of the Constitution, he stated:
"'That decision [striking down a century-old rule as unconstitutional] rested upon the sound principle that the rule of stare decisis cannot confer powers upon the courts which the inexorable command of the Constitution says they shall not have. State obedience to an unconstitutional assumption of power by the judicial branch of government, and inaction by the Congress, cannot amend the Constitution by creating and establishing a new "feature of our constitutional system." No provision of the Constitution authorizes its amendment in this manner.'" Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434, 454-55, 59 S.Ct. 325, 83 L.Ed. 272 (1939) (Black, J., Dissenting)." 718 So.2d at 42-43 n. 10 (Lyons, J., Concurring specially). SEE, Justice (concurring specially).
I write specially to address the plaintiffs' claim that Alabama's taxation of their retirement benefits violates a right to equal protection of the law under the Constitution of Alabama of 1901.
Prior decisions of this Court have recognized the possibility of an implied equal-protection guarantee in the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. In McLendon v. State, 179 Ala. 54, 60 So. 392 (1912), this Court addressed the question whether a statute that imposed an occupation tax on certain professions, but exempted Confederate veterans practicing those professions, violated, among others, §§ 1, 6, and 22 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, and whether it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 179 Ala. at 56-57, 60 So. at 392-93. This Court held that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but that it did not violate any of the provisions of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, noting that Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution of Alabama of 1875, which might have prohibited the exemption, had been dropped from the 1901 constitution. 179 Ala. at 58-59, 60 So. at 393. Despite the omission of former § 2, this Court recognized a general limitation on the power of the Legislature to engage in unreasonable discrimination in the imposition of taxes:
"'Whilst there is no provision of the Constitution [of Alabama], commanding in terms equality and uniformity, the principle should underlie and regulate the provisions of every law imposing public burdens and charges. ... The requirement is complied with, when the tax is levied equally and uniformly on all subjects of the same class and kind.'" McLendon, 179 Ala. at 57-58, 60 So. at 393 (quoting Western Union Tel. Co. v. State Board of Assessment, 80 Ala. 273, 280 (1885)). Later, in Bessemer Theatres v. City of Bessemer, 261 Ala. 632, 75 So. 2d 651 (1954), a case involving a state-equal-protection challenge to a city ordinance that imposed a license tax on operators of motion picture theaters, this Court, citing McLendon, stated,
"Reliance is had upon the equal protection cl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|