"The style of all bills shall be, 'Be it enacted by the people of the state of Nebraska,' and no law shall be enacted except by bill," says the constitution. The enacting clause is the vital part of law. Without it the law has no force. It must be in exactly the words prescribed by the constitution and should precede everything which is made and declared to be law. No bill has ever been prepared and actually passed in this state lacking this simple requirement thereby rendering it invalid, as far as our search and investigation have disclosed. Some of our sister states have not been so
|
122 |
|
fortunate with respect to the enacting clauses of their legislative bills. In Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, North Carolina, Minnesota, Nevada and Washington bills without enacting clauses have been prepared and actually passed and their supreme courts have held that the constitutional provisions, similar to our own, providing what "the style of all bills shall be," is mandatory and a statute without any enacting clause is void.
It is essential that every law should show on its face the authority by which it is adopted and promulgated, and that it should clearly appear that it is intended that it should take effect as law. Some authorities on parliamentary law and some courts have gone so far as to say that a statute without an enacting clause is void, although there was no constitutional provision requiring it. Strict conformity with the constitution ought to be an axiom in the science of government.
All written laws in all times and in all countries, whether in the form of decrees issued by absolute monarchs, or statutes enacted by king and council, or by a representative body, have, as a rule, expressed upon their face the authority by which they were promulgated or enacted. The almost unbroken custom of centuries has been to preface laws with a statement in some form declaring the enacting authority. Enacting clauses are not mere matters of form, relics of antiquity which serve no useful purpose. The constitutions of nearly all of our states require that all laws must have an enacting clause and prescribe its form. Enacting clauses are useful and important; it is desirable that laws shall bear upon their face the authority by which they are enacted so that the people who are to obey them need not search legislative and other records to ascertain their authority. It was not beneath the dignity of the framers of the constitution, or unworthy of such an instrument, to prescribe a uniform style for such enacting clauses. The framers of
|
|
123 |
our constitution, and the people adopting it, advised by the usages of the past, and the wisdom and legal learning of the men who had framed constitutions for so many other states, regarded an enacting clause in a law as useful, necessary and proper, and they therefore anchored in the constitution a requirement that every law should have an enacting clause, and prescribed the form thereof.
The words of the constitution, the style (that is, the mode of expressing or declaring) of all laws of this state shall be, "Be it enacted by the people of the state of Nebraska," imply that all laws must be so expressed or declared to the end that they may express upon their face the authority by which they were enacted; and, if they do not so declare, they are not laws of this state.
In Maryland, Missouri and Mississippi the constitutional provision, similar to our own, requiring an enacting clause for all bills, has been held to be directory only, because it relates to a matter of form, not of substance and was intended simply to secure uniformity in the style of all laws. In Mississippi where the enacting clause of a statute read, "Be it resolved, etc.," instead of, "Be it enacted," it was held a substantial compliance with the provision of the constitution which was practically like our own. The Mississippi case, however, does not hold that a statute without an enacting clause is valid, for the gist of the decision was: "There are no exclusive words in the constitution negativing the use of any other language and we think the intention will be best effectuated by holding the clause to be directory only. It is necessary that every law should show on its face the authority by which it is adopted and promulgated and that it should clearly appear that it is intended that it should take effect as a law. These con-
|
124 |
|
ditions being fulfilled all that is absolutely necessary is expressed. The word 'resolved' is as potent to declare the legislative will as the word 'enacted'." This view that the constitutional provision requiring an enacting clause is directory only does not find support by the weight of judicial authority.
Courts are united in defining the
enacting clause as the short introductory phrase which establishes
the instrument as law, that it is an essential part of the law and
that an enactment without it is void and inoperative. Whether a
violation from the form specified will invalidate the enacted bill
or whether a substantial compliance with the form specified is
sufficient, is of little moment to the legislator or draftsman.
Whether the form of an enacting clause is mandatory in the sense
that a slight variation would invalidate the act or not, it is the
duty of the legislator and the bill-drafter to see that the
constitutional charge is followed exactly.
No question is raised in court oftener, or more persistently than that involving the validity of title to laws. Scores of laws have been declared unconstitutional or have been seriously endangered, and literally hundreds now stand on the statute books ready to fall if a case involving their sufficiency arises, because of a failure to provide a proper title as required by Article III, Section 14, of the constitution of the state of Nebraska which reads, "No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the same shall be clearly expressed in the title."
In a long line of decisions the supreme court of Nebraska holds that the title of an act is an essential part of it, that a bill shall not only have a title! but also that the same shall clearly express the subject of the legislation. In Nebraska this command of the constitution re-
|
|
125 |
lating to the title of original acts is mandatory. In Nebraska, with great frequency, failure to heed this mandate of the constitution with respect to title of statutes has made void the solemnly declared will of the legislature. The 'title' in the opinion of our supreme court is an index. Its purpose is to attract attention to the contents of the bill. Without this constitutional provision it would be comparatively easy for a 'sheep' title to cover a 'wolf' bill. The reason behind the requirement of only one subject is that each bill then stands or falls on its own merits. "Riders" foreign to the main bill are barred. What happens without this requirement is illustrated by the 1903 immigration act of congress, which, after specifying the terms and conditions under which aliens might be admitted to this country provides that no intoxicating liquor shall be sold in the Capitol Building at Washington, D. C.
In his Constitutional Limitations (6th Ed) Judge Cooley gives the following reasons why the provisions as to title and subject are necessary:
"First, to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation; Second, to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the titles gave no intimation and which might, therefore, be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and Third, to fairly apprise the people through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise, as they shall so desire."
The purpose of these requirements as seen by the supreme court of Nebraska is set forth in two opinions rendered shortly after the adoption of the constitution of 1875. In case of White vs. City of Lincoln, 5 Nebr. 505, Judge Maxwell in giving the opinion of the court,
|
126 |
|
said: "The object of this constitutional provision is to prevent surreptitious legislation by incorporating into bills obnoxious provisions, which have no connection with the general object of the bill and of which the title gives no indication." The same year Judge Gantt in The State, ex rel., Jones vs. Lancaster County, 6 Nebr. 474, said: "It is, however, not the intent of the constitution that each subject of legislation shall be divided into separate acts as far as the subject is capable of division, but that the subject matter of each part or section of the law must be germane to the primary object of the bill which is denominated by the constitution as the subject of the act." To indicate in the title the subject of the proposed legislation is sufficient. A complete abstract of the bill is not necessary. Contrary to a large number of decisions in other states the supreme court of Nebraska will not declare a law unconstitutional merely because the title is broader than the body of the act. Because a title is very general does not seem to be an objection. In Gatling vs. Lane, 17 Nebr. 80, the supreme court held valid the following title: "An act to amend the Code of Civil Procedure." In Rosenbloom vs. State, 64 Nebr., 342, an act entitled: "An act to provide a system of revenue," was held to cover the entire subject of taxation and to comprehend whatever means of machinery the legislature may provide to enforce the payment of taxes.
It is a well known fact that this clause of the constitution was adopted to prevent the practice of certain evils among which were included the passage of laws under false and delusive titles, whereby members of the legislature might be deceived into the support of them and the combining together, in one act, of two or more subjects, having no relation to each other, by which means members might be constrained to support meas-
|
|
127 |
ures obnoxious to them in order to procure such legistion (sic) as they wished.
Every act must have a title which must designate a single subject, or indicate some particular plan of legislation as a head under which particular provisions of the act may reasonably be looked for. The title need not be an epitome of the act, and it need not particularize by specifying each detail or feature of the act or contain an index thereto or an abstract thereof. The general subject is all that properly belongs to the title of an act, and the title's exclusive office is to apprise those who vote upon the act as to what that subject is; the details and means by which it is proposed to make the law effective in accomplishing its purpose must be looked for, not in the title, but in the body of the bill. It is essential to a good title that the subject of the act be expressed in exact terms; it is sufficient if the subject is fairly deducible from the language employed.
As a general rule, titles should not express ends, objects or purposes to be accomplished, but rather the means by which ends, objects and purposes are to be attained. The word "subject" is used to indicate the chief thing about which legislation is enacted. "Subject" as used in the prohibition against more than one subject in a statute, has no mathematically precise meaning nor can it be defined exactly. The prohibition against duplicity of subjects is directed, rather, against the joining into one measure of incongruous and unrelated matters. Whether there is a logical connection and relation between the matters treated is the test as to the unity of subject rather than the extent and scope of the act. The word "subject" as used in the constitution signifies the matter or thing forming the groundwork. It may contain many parts which grow out of it and are germane to it, and which, if traced back, will
|
128 |
|
lead the mind to it as the generic head. Any matter or thing which may reasonably be said to be subservient to the general object or purpose will be germane and may be properly included in the law. The word "germane" has been frequently employed by the courts in discussing the connection or relationship of provisions to a subject. Literally "germane" means "akin," "closely allied." It is only applicable to persons who are united to each other by the common tie of blood or marriage. When applied to inanimate things it is, of course, used in a metaphorical sense, but still the idea of a common tie is always present. Thus when properly applied to a legislative provision, the common tie is found in the tendency of the provision to promote the object and purpose of the act to which it belongs. Any provision not having this tendency which introduces new subject matter into the act is clearly obnoxious to the constitutional provisions in question. It is an error to suppose that two things are, in a legal sense, germane to each other merely because there is a resemblance between them, or because they have some characteristic common to them both. It is only the subject and not the matters properly connected therewith which must be expressed in the title.
It does not follow that because the title of a statute enumerates many particulars, there are, therefore, many subjects. If there is but one subject, the act is valid, although that subject may be composed of many parts and all of them enumerated in the title. If the subject of an act is composed of two or more essential elements, the expression of one of such elements in the title will not suffice, for the absence of the other elements would be as misleading and might be as pernicious as the evils sought to be obstructed by the constitution.
|
|
129 |
Every effort to express details in the title of an act only tends to limit the subject, for when the title of an act is so special or limited as to include one particular only of some general subject upon which legislation may be had, the body of the act must be limited to the particular or special subject expressed in the title, and to matters properly connected therewith, and the act cannot deal with other particulars of such general subject.
F When details are placed in the title of an act along with the general subject they will be treated as surplusage unless a clear intention is shown to limit the separation of the act to such details. However, an act is not valid because the title is more comprehensive than the purview of the act. Such phrases as, "providing for its enforcement," "providing penalties," "repealing all laws in conflict therewith," and "matters properly connected therewith," are unnecessary. These matters are all connected with the general subject and need not be mentioned. It is useless to add, "and for other purposes," to the title because there can be no other purposes than the one general subject in the title. To mention that it is for other purposes invites the criticism that more than one subject is included in the bill.
The table of contents title has serious objections, as has heretofore been pointed out. Titles should be made as short as possible. It saves time, makes the purpose of the act better understood, and is less likely to cause complications when future legislatures attempt to amend the act. The title should be reasonable, definite and specific. "An act concerning the education of children" is a good title if the act purposes an extensive statute on the subject. The same title would be good for any specific phase of education, but it would be manifestly too broad, and, moreover, it would be misleading to have more than one
|
130 |
|
act entitled, "An act concerning the education of children."
The members of the Nebraska
legislature and others to whom is committed the important task of
drafting the bills to be introduced, might well undertake in the
first place to dispel the error that general titles are not safe,
and in the second place to agree upon the adoption of brief titles
and thus not only make legislation less liable to attack and
defeat, but also to remove the prevailing practice which is
cumbersome, inconvenient and unnecessary. Let short, comprehensive
titles be the rule in drafting all bills for the Laws of Nebraska
for 1933. If the titles to our bills are crisp and succinct, our
legislative acts for this session of the legislature will be
presented to the state -at large in concise and perspicuous form.
Titles to all bills must be expressive of the subject and purposes
of the act since the new constitution provides that bills and
concurrent resolutions need only be read by the title when
introduced.
Article III, Section 14, of the Nebraska constitution provides:
"And no law shall be amended unless the new act contain the section or sections as amended, and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed."
The bulk of present-day legislation is directed toward the removal of defects and the making of improvements in existing statutory law. Only occasionally is a new field opened for legislation, and a measure enacted which is unrelated to other statutes. It is important not only that a provision be well constructed to accomplish the immediate ends desired, but also that it take its appropriate place in the system of which it is a part, and that it leave the whole legislation relating to the particular
|
|
131 |
subject in the best possible form. Statutes which are amendatory either in form or substance present some distinct problems both constitutionally and from the standpoint of draftsmanship.
The great object to be attained in drafting titles of amending acts is that the title of the amendatory act shall be definite and certain as to the law amended. In some states the courts have held that the bill-drafter shall set out in the title of the amending acts the title of the acts sought to be amended. The Nebraska supreme court, however, has placed a more liberal construction on the constitutional requirements with respect to titles of amending acts. Definiteness and certainty as to the statute amended may be accomplished in Nebraska by designating the section in the compiled statutes. For example, a title to an amending act which is as follows:
"An act to amend Section 33-138, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, 1929," is sufficient. Section 33-138, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, above mentioned, prescribes the fees notaries public may charge and collect. Although the subject matter was arranged, and the chapters and sections of the compiled statutes were numbered by the compilers and not by the legislature, yet it is sufficiently definite to show what was intended. The title of an act amending Section 33-138, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, 1929, could also be correctly designated by referring to Section 33-138 by its title, giving its title and date of approval. The date of approval of an act, however, is no part of the title and the act may be amended without referring to the date of its approval. A title of an act amending two or more sections of an act which are designated is not objectionable. In Nebraska the supreme court construes the constitution to mean that the titles of amendatory acts as well as complete and independent acts must be such as to give reasonable notice to members of
|
132 |
|
the legislature and others interested in the general subject upon which it is proposed to legislate.
A section of a statute cannot be amended without setting forth and publishing at full length the whole section as amended, however long it may be or into however many clauses it may be divided. It is unconstitutional to amend a section of an act by adding to it or changing any part without setting forth the full section as amended. An example of a mistake of this kind is as follows:
"Section 1. That Section 33-138, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, 1929, is hereby amended by adding thereto the following."
This bill should read:
"Section 1. That Section 33-138, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, 1929, is hereby amended to read as follows."
Then the old section as amended should be set forth in full.
LEGISLATURE OF NEBRASKA
Forty-seventh Session
HOUSE ROLL NO. 49
A Bill
FOR AN ACT to amend 26-220, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, 1929, relating to county government and officers; to provide that in counties under township organization road overseers shall be elected; and to repeal original 26-220 aforesaid.
Introduced by Representative Fred Daddow of Sherman County.
|
|
133 |
second time
January 17, 1931.
Referred to committee on Privileges and Elections.
Sent to printer January 17, 1931.
[Words to be eliminated are set in bold face type in brackets.] New words to be added are set in italics.
Be It Enacted By The People Of The State of Nebraska:
Section 1. That 26-220, Compiled
Statutes of
2 Nebraska, 1929, be amended to read as follows:
3 26-220. At the first town meeting held as pro-
4 vided in this article, the qualified electors of
each
5 town shall elect by ballot from their own number,
6 one town treasurer, one constable, three judges
of
7 election, and two clerks of election all of whom
8 shall duly qualify as provided by law and hold
their
9 offices until their successors shall be duly
elected
10 and qualified. The bonds of the officers mentioned
11 in this section shall be approved by the town board.
12 An overseer of roads for each road district within
13 the township shall be [appointed by the
township
14 board] elected at the annual town
meeting by the
15 qualified voters of said road district. He shall
hold
16 his office for a period of one year and until his suc-
17 cessor is [appointed] elected and
qualified. He shall
18 be under the direction of the township highway
19 superintendent and his accounts shall be paid only
20 after approval by the township highway superinten-
21 dent.
Sec. 2. That said original 26-220, Compiled 2 Statutes of Nebraska, 1929, is hereby repealed.
In addition to setting forth the whole new section as amended to be within the constitutional requirements the amendatory act must contain a repeal of the old section amended. An intention to repeal all laws in
|
134 |
|
consistent with a proposed measure of legislation is necessarily implied and need not be expressed in the title of the legislative bill.
Amendatory legislation which is foreign to the subject of the original act, and which cannot be embraced within the old title is forbidden. If the amendatory act could have been made a part of the original act at the time such original act was passed, the amendatory act is valid; otherwise not. That is to say, whatever might have been enacted under the title of the former, but nothing beyond it, can be included in the amendatory act. A provision in an amendatory act repealing an act not connected with the subject of the amendment is void. An act of the legislature amendatory of or supplemental to an unconstitutional statute is itself unconstitutional and void.
If an act assumes to be an independent act and not amendatory, but is not complete in itself and clearly has an amendatory effect upon some former statute to which it does not refer, it comes within the constitutional inhibition and is void. Complete acts, although they modify or destroy the effect of previous legislation are valid without referring to the statute affected. An act complete in itself repeals by implication existing laws that are in conflict or are repugnant thereto. An act is not unconstitutional because it incidentally modifies, changes or destroys the effect of an existing statute.
Where a section of an existing law is amended it ceases to exist and the section as amended supersedes the original section. Hence a section which has once been amended cannot again be the subject of amendment, but the section as amended must be amended. In each instance where an amending act is required, the act to be amended should be carefully examined with
|
|
135 |
the view of determining whether or not it has been previously
amended.
Repeals by implication are not
favored. Where the legislature has passed two statutes upon the
same subject the latter covering the entire matter embraced in the
first and also additional provisions, the latter act supersedes
the first and repeals the first by implication. If the later
statute does not cover the entire field of the first and fails to
embrace within its terms a material portion of the first, it will
not repeal so much of the first as is not included within its
scope, but the two statutes will be construed together so far as
the first still stands.
One of the most frequent stumbling blocks of legislation is the provision of the constitution which prohibits the passage of local or special laws in certain cases. This provision was wisely put into the constitution, because experience had shown that local and special bills were the chief sources of corrupt trades and deals. Not all local and special laws are forbidden. Those which are prohibited are enumerated in Sections 18 and 19, Article III, of the constitution which reads:
"Sec. 18. The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following cases, that is to say:
For granting divorces.
Changing the names of persons or
places.
Laying out, opening, altering and
working roads or highways.
Vacating roads, town plats, streets,
alleys, and public grounds.
Locating or changing county
seats.
Regulating county and township
offices.
Regulating the practice of courts of
justice.
|
136 |
|
Regulating the jurisdiction and
duties of justices of the peace, police magistrates and
constables.
Providing for changes of venue in
civil and criminal cases.
Incorporating cities, towns and
villages, or changing or amending the charter of any town, city or
village.
Providing for the election of
officers in townships, incorporated towns or cities.
Summoning or empaneling grand or
petit juries.
Providing for the bonding of cities,
towns, precincts, school districts or other municipalities.
Providing for the management of
public schools.
Regulating the interest on
money.
The opening and conducting of any
election, or designating the place of! voting.
The sale or mortgage of real estate
belonging to minors or others under disability.
The protection of game or fish.
Chartering or licensing ferries, or
toll bridges, remitting fines, penalties or forfeitures, creating,
increasing and decreasing fees, percentages or allowances of
public officers, during the term for which said officers are
elected or appointed.
Changing of law of descent.
Granting to any corporation,
association, or individual the right to lay down railroad tracks,
or amending existing charters for such purposes.
Granting to any corporation,
association, or individual any special or exclusive privileges,
immunity, or franchise whatever. In all other cases where a
general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be
enacted.
Sec. 19. The legislature shall
never grant any extra compensation to any public officer, agent,
or servant after the services have been rendered nor to any
contractor after the contract has been entered into, nor
|
|
137 |
shall the compensation of any public officer, including any
officer whose compensation is fixed by the legislature subsequent
to the adoption hereof be increased or diminished during his term
of office."
Where special laws are not forbidden
by the constitution, they may be enacted. The legislature alone is
authorized to determine whether a law on any given subject, not
enumerated in Sections 18 and 19 of Article III of the
constitution, can be made applicable to the whole state, and the
decision of the legislature on that question is not subject to
review or reversal by the courts. A law which is general in its
provisions, which applies generally to a particular class of
cases, and which is opened to all citizens of the state to avail
themselves of its benefits, is not a special or local law within
the meaning of the constitutional provisions, nor does the
constitution require that the operation of the laws throughout the
state shall be uniform in any other sense than that their
operation shall be the same in all parts of the state, under the
same circumstances. The fact that, in many cases, local laws are
necessary, because general ones cannot properly and justly be made
applicable, is generally implied in Sections 18 and 19 Article III
of the constitution, even though such laws, if of uniform
operation throughout the! state would be elsewhere mischievous,
useless and burdensome.
In view of the manifest importance of the sections of the constitution relating to local and special acts, every person interested in any bill which may seem to have a local or special purpose should carefully consider its provisions.
In cases where special or local laws are prohibited, classification may be resorted to. Thus cities are divided for all purposes into several classes and some laws are made to apply to one class only. The selection of a
|
138 |
|
standard of classification is exclusively a legislative power, the exercise of which is not subject to control by the courts. Any classification which is resorted to must be natural and reasonable and not arbitrary, and must be founded on real and substantial differences, in the local situation and necessities of the class of cities and towns to which it applies. Where such a class excludes from its operation cities and towns differing in no material particular from those included in a class, the statute cannot be upheld. Cities and towns may be classified upon the basis of differences in population and laws applicable to a single class may be regarded as general in their character and not local and special. Mere convenience to local communities, the financial necessities of particular cities, and the conflicting views of citizens on the subject of the necessity of some public enterprise are not sufficient. Arbitrary selection cannot be justified by calling it classification. The marks of distinction on which the classification is founded must be such as, in the nature of things, will, in some reasonable degree, at least, account for or justify the restriction of the legislation.
The legislature has no authority to grant to any citizen or class of citizens any privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not belong to all citizens. Not only must the classification treat all brought under its influence alike, under the same conditions, but it must embrace all within the class to which it is naturally related. There are many examples of both reasonable and arbitrary classifications. Laws applying to all cities of the state having a certain population, where there is but one such city in the state, and which are so framed as to operate on all other cities as rapidly as they acquire such population, are general and constitutional. Acts relative to public schools in cities having more than forty thous-
|
|
139 |
and (40,000) and less than one hundred thousand (100,000) inhabitants and acts relating to the selecting, drawing, summoning, competency and qualifications of grand and petit jurors in counties having a population of one hundred thousand (100,000) or more, respectively have been upheld. On the other hand, it would be absurd to attempt to make a law relating to schools applying to cities having a population of not less than five thousand six hundred and forty (5,640) and not more than five thousand six hundred forty-five (5,645), as shown by the preceding United States census. The city might as well be named in the act as the law in all likelihood could never apply to any other. A classification based upon a difference in population of one thousand (1,000) has likewise been declared unconstitutional and void in Indiana.
When classification on the basis
of population is resorted to, it should be according to the last
preceding United States census. To classify according to the
census of 1910, or any particular census would make the act
special because no other cities could ever come within the class
even though they should increase or decrease by a later census so
as to have approximately the same population. Classifications may
be made to depend upon an authorized census by public
authorities.
Section 27, Article III, provides that "No act shall take effect until three (3) calendar months after the adjournment of the session at which it passed, unless in case of emergency (to be expressed in the preamble or body of the act) the legislature shall, by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house otherwise direct." The declaration of emergency contemplated in the constitution cannot be taken by implication but it must be expressly declared in substantial conformity to the re-
|
140 |
|
quirement of the constitution. It is unnecessary to put the
words 'declaring an emergency' into the title of an act. The
constitution requires that the emergency be declared in the
preamble or the body of the act. It can be in either, but need not
be in both. An act containing an emergency clause takes effect
immediately when signed by the governor or after the expiration of
the time given by the constitution for the governor to consider
and veto it. Those acts containing no emergency clauses take
effect three (3) calendar months after the adjournment of the
legislative session. It is not sufficient to declare an act in
force from a future day specified which is prior to the date of
taking effect of the statutes of which such act forms a part. The
emergency must be expressed in the precise constitutional form
prescribed. An act which contains no emergency clause cannot be
put into effect by a subsequent statute declaring that it shall go
into force from and after its passage. The emergency must be
declared or expressed in the preamble or body of the act itself,
and cannot be incorporated, with effect in any other statute. The
Nebraska supreme court has held that an act which merely provides,
"this act shall take effect on and after its passage and
approval," does not "express an emergency" under the requirement
of Section 27, Article III, of the constitution and does not take
effect until three (3) calendar months after the adjournment of
the legislative session.
Section 12, Article III, provides that "Any bill may originate in either house of the legislature, except bills appropriating money, which shall originate only in the house of representatives and all bills passed by one house may be amended by the other." This provision is apt to be a stumbling block through carelessness. Frequently a
|
|
141 |
bill for raising revenue is introduced in both houses and cases
have occurred in which the senate bill has been adopted by the
house because it was exactly similar to the house bill and was
further advanced on the calendar. This, of course, renders the act
void, for the record shows that the bill for raising revenue
originated in the senate. The same provision in the United States
constitution has been construed to apply to bills levying taxes
and not to those incidentally creating revenue.
It is not necessary to mention
the penalty for the violation of the provisions of an act in the
title. The expression, "providing penalties" being clearly a
detail which may as well be admitted as inserted, and the failure
to mention penalties in the title does not invalidate the act
because penalties are provided in the body of the statute. It is
not necessary that a statute should in express words declare an
act to be unlawful; it is enough if it prohibits the act under a
penalty.
A preamble is a preliminary
statement explanatory of the reason for the passage of an act.
Early legislatures in Nebraska and elsewhere used it rather
extensively, but it has now fallen into disregard. It is not an
essential part of an act but it is by no means forbidden. The fact
that an enacting clause is preceded by a preamble does not
invalidate the act.
Courts are judicially cognizant of the meaning of abbreviations ordinarily employed, and such familiar abbreviations as A. M. and P. M., denoting the usual method of computing time are sufficient, if properly employed in the working of an act. The abbreviation 'etc.'
|
142 |
|
in the title of an act adds nothing to its scope and effect and
serves no purpose.
The matter of punctuation in statutes formerly was unimportant since the early rule of construction was, that statutes should be read without breaks or stops, and that whether words belonged to any particular branch of a sentence was to be determined from the consideration of the entire act. But inasmuch as our present constitution provides that after the reading by title of every bill and concurrent resolution when introduced that a printed copy thereof shall be provided for the use of each member and that the bill and all amendments thereto shall be printed before the vote is taken upon its final passage, it is apparent that since all bills are printed with full punctuation before legislative action that a modification of the old rule wholly disregarding punctuation marks has been necessary. The punctuation of a bill or concurrent resolution, under our present constitution, after it has been adopted cannot be said to be the mere work of the engrosser or public printer. The punctuation is rather a part of the act as adopted by the legislature, and while it remains subordinate to the text it may be of material assistance in determining the legislative intent. Certainly it should not be disregarded unless upon an inspection of the whole act or section involved, it is apparent the punctuation operates to vary the true sense and meaning of the enactment.
As compared with the text, punctuation still remains relatively unimportant in the field of legislative bill drafting, but good draftsmanship will observe grammatical rules in this regard, not only to avoid introducing an ambiguity but also because correct punctuation is a valuable aid to fortify and make clear the legislative intent.
|
|
143 |
The constitution recognizes the joint resolution as a means for the expression of the legislative will by which some acts may be authoritatively performed. For instance, the constitution provides that joint resolutions of the nature of bills shall not be introduced after the expiration of twenty (20) legislative days, except by special message from the governor; the method by which concurrent resolutions shall be read, printed and entitled is provided in the constitution; neither house can, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three (3) days. The most common use of the joint resolution is in the adoption of rules and orders relative to the proceedings of the legislative body. Inasmuch, however, as a joint resolution is not a law and as all appropriations must be made by a formal act, no money can be appropriated for public purpose or a private claim by means of a joint resolution. The legislative procedure in enacting a joint resolution is comparatively simple. A joint resolution may be passed on one reading, and the vote on final passage must be taken by the yeas and nays. If it receives the votes of a majority of the members of both houses and is signed by the presiding officer it becomes effective at once. Nothing can be added to its force and validity by the signature of the governor, nor has he any power to defeat it by veto. The 1921 legislature in Nebraska passed a joint and concurrent resolution memorializing the congress of the United States to enact a law providing for a United States censorship board for motion picture films. This resolution was presented to the governor and was not signed by him, but it automatically became a law upon the expiration of five (5) days from the date of its presentation.
|
144 |
|
Each proposed measure has its own problems and special features. But there are general considerations applicable to bill-drafting which must constantly be borne in mind by the legislator or draftsman. The importance of these points warrants a brief mention. If the draftsman or legislator in constructing a legislative measure has worked with the following points in mind, his bill at least can become an effective law even though imperfect in form:
Is the object of the proposed measure within the power of the legislature to enact?
Do the methods by which the object is sought to be accomplished conform to the constitutional requirements?
What is the present state of the law on that subject?
Can the desired result be effected by an amendment to some existing act?
What existing laws will be affected by the proposed measure?
Is the proposed measure limited to one subject and purpose?
Does the title adequately express that subject?
If the bill is amendatory in form, does it clearly refer to the act amended?
Do the sections amended in an amendatory bill work an amendment in effect in other sections not set forth?
Do the amendments made by an amendatory bill necessitate an amendment to the title of the original act?
Is the enacting clause in proper form?
Does the measure accomplish the legislative purpose?
If the act is amendatory is the new matter in the amended sections underscored and the old matter stricken out, as required by the rules of both houses of the legislature?
|
|
145 |
ALLIED ACTIVITIES
The Nebraska Legislative Reference Bureau was first established as a department of the Nebraska State Historical Society, May 10, 1906. With it, at that time, were combined the historical research and the field work of the Historical Society. It was made a separate institution by act of the Nebraska legislature. (Laws of 1911, Chapter 72; Compiled Statutes of 1929, 50-401 to 50-407). Under this act, the Reference Bureau has its permanent home on the university campus. During the sessions of the legislature, it is furnished with rooms in the state capitol.
Research, publication, information and instruction in subjects related to matters of government and Nebraska affairs are carried on in co-operation with related departments of the University of Nebraska. Its library is used as a reference library by the entire state.
|
146 |
|
Bulletins
No. 1. Origin and Purpose of Nebraska Legislative Reference Bureau. Revised Edition, 1926. 8 p.
No. 2. Preliminary Report Nebraska Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission. Dec. 20, 1912. 48 p. (Out of print.)
No. 3. Legislative Procedure in the Forty-eight States, Addison E. Sheldon and Myrtle Keegan. Jan. 1, 1914. 28 p. (Out of print.)
No. 4. Reform in Legislative Procedure and Budget in Nebraska. (Report of joint legislative committee to Nebraska legislature of 1915.) May 15, 1914, 47 p. (Out of print.)
No. 5. Nebraska Municipalities. Addison E. Sheldon and William E. Hannan. June 1, 1914. 74 p.
No. 6. Bank Deposit Guaranty in Nebraska. Z. Clark Dickinson. Nov. 1, 1914. 38 p. 26 portraits.
No. 7. The Direct Primary in Nebraska. Niels Henriksen Debel. Nov. 1, 1914. 112 p. 25 portraits. 3 diagrams. (Out of print.)
No. 8. Local and Nebraska History in Nebraska Public Schools. C. N. Anderson. Oct. 1, 1915. 15 p. 2 portraits. (Out of print.)
No. 9. State Supported Library Activities in the United States. Edna D. Bullock. Oct. 30, 1915. 58 p. 4 illustrations.
No. 10. The Torrens Land Transfer Act of Nebraska. Thorne A. Browne. June 10, 1916. 60 p. 6 illustrations.
|
|
147 |
No. 11. Reorganization of State Government in Nebraska. Luella Gettys. July, 1922. (No. 11 was formerly assigned to a revision of Bulletin No. 3, which was never published.)
No. 12. Exercise of the Veto Power in Nebraska. Knute Emil Carlson. Nov. 1, 1917. 101 p. (Out of print.)
No. 13. Nebraska Constitutions of 1866, 1871, and 1875, with proposed amendments submitted to the people September 21, 1920. Aug., 1920. 212 p.
No. 14. Nebraska Voters' Handbook. Oct., 1924. 60 p.
No. 15. Nebraska Taxpayers' Handbook. March, 1928. 46 p.
Nebraska Blue Book and Historical Register. 1915, 1918, 1920, 1922, 1924, 1926, 1928, 1930, 1932 (in preparation.) Legislative Reference Bureau Staff.
Manual of Nebraska Legislative Procedure. 1917, 1919, 1921, 1923, 1925, 1927, 1929, 1931. Legislative Reference Bureau Staff.
Subject Index of Senate and House Bills, 1915, 1917, 1919, 1921, 1923, 1925, 1927, 1929, 1931.
Abridged Subject Index to 1919 Session Laws of Nebraska. Jan., 1921.
Subject Index to the Proceedings of the Nebraska Constitutional Convention. June, 1925. 15 p.
Subject Index to 1927 Session Laws of Nebraska. June, 1928. 14 p.
No. 1. Selection of Civic Information from the Library of the Legislative Reference Bureau. 12 p.
|
148 |
|
No. 2. Information About Nebraska, Where to Get It. Oct., 1925. 11 p.
No. 3. County Poor Relief in Nebraska. Dec., 1925. 16 p.
No. 4. What Government Is Doing. Feb., 1926. 12 p.
No. 5. Municipal Reference and Research, a Letter to the City and Village Officials of Nebraska, Dec., 1929. 4 p.
 |
 |
 |
|
© 2003 for the NEGenWeb Project by Pam Rietsch, Ted & Carole Miller. |
||