If adopted, SJ15 would influence the perception of constitutional interpretation within state law, asserting a shift in the balance of power among governmental branches. It aims to clarify that no single branch has overarching power when assessing the constitutionality of laws. Consequently, this may lead to disputes over constitutional interpretation becoming more prevalent, as any branch could contest judicial decisions that they perceive to misinterpret or misapply the Constitution. This could alter how laws and governing policies are developed and challenged within the state.
Summary
Senate Joint Resolution 15 (SJ15) asserts the co-equal responsibility of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government in interpreting the Constitution. The resolution challenges the historically accepted notion stemming from the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison that the courts hold exclusive authority in determining the constitutionality of statutes and that their decisions are final binding on the other branches of government. Instead, SJ15 emphasizes that all branches have an equal duty under oath to uphold and interpret both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Montana.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SJ15 is marked by division. Supporters view the resolution as a pushback against a monopoly of interpretation by the judicial branch, reinforcing checks and balances among branches of government. Conversely, critics warn it may encourage legislative overreach into judicial responsibilities, potentially undermining the principle of judicial independence. This highlights an ongoing debate about the extent of power among branches and the nature of cooperation between them in the governance of Montana.
Contention
The primary contention around SJ15 stems from its implications for the separation of powers doctrine. Proponents argue it establishes necessary limits on judicial authority, while opponents argue it threatens judicial independence and could lead to political influence over judicial decisions. The debate reflects broader national conversations about judicial power and its relationship with other governmental branches, raising fundamental questions about the design of governance and the roles intended for each branch.
A JOINT RESOLUTION relating to unconstitutional acts that would undermine the rights of Kentucky citizens and the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
A JOINT RESOLUTION relating to unconstitutional acts that would undermine the rights of Kentucky citizens and the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Proposes temporary constitutional amendment allowing State constitutional convention convened to reform system of property taxation to propose statutory changes.
Proposes temporary constitutional amendment allowing State constitutional convention convened to reform system of property taxation to propose statutory changes.
(Constitutional Amendment) Provides for the election of constitutional convention delegates and vote requirements necessary for the adoption of a new constitution (RR SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
(Constitutional Amendment) Modifies disposition of certain state revenues through repeal of the Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund and deposits of certain revenue streams into the Budget Stabilization Fund (RRF INCREASE GF RV See Note)
(Constitutional Amendment) Provides relative to the application of state monies to the unfunded accrued liability of the Teachers' Retirement System of La. (EN DECREASE SD RV See Note)
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.