Particularly As Articulated in the Declaration of Independence) Plays Or Should Play in Constitutional Interpretation

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Particularly As Articulated in the Declaration of Independence) Plays Or Should Play in Constitutional Interpretation In this session, we will explore the role, if any, that natural law (particularly as articulated in the Declaration of Independence) plays or should play in constitutional interpretation. Readings for January 22, 2019 Session: 1. Declaration of Independence, excerpts ........................................................................................... 2 2. U.S. Constitution (review your own copy) 3. Troxel v. Granville excerpts ........................................................................................................... 2-8 4. Missouri Admission Debate, excerpts......................................................................................... 9-16 5. Federalist 43, excerpts .............................................................................................................. 17-18 6. Lincoln, Fragment on the Constitution .......................................................................................... 19 7. Eastman, The Declaration in the States .................................................................................... 19-33 8. Madison, On Property .................................................................................................................... 34 Eastman, Natural Law and the Constitution, Page 1 Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. *** We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. [Signed by] JOHN HANCOCK [President] *** Eastman, Natural Law and the Constitution, Page 2 Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000) Sandra Day O’Connor, Supreme Court of the United States *Justice O’Connor announced the judgment of the visitation altogether, but instead asked the court to Court and delivered an opinion, in which the Chief order one day of visitation per month with no over- Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join. night stay. In 1995, the Superior Court issued an oral ruling and entered a visitation decree ordering visita- Section 26.10.160(3) of the Revised Code of tion one weekend per month, one week during the Washington permits “[a]ny person” to petition a su- summer, and four hours on both of the petitioning perior court for visitation rights “at any time,” and grandparents’ birthdays. authorizes that court to grant such visitation rights whenever “visitation may serve the best interest of Granville appealed, during which time she married the child.” Petitioners Jenifer and Gary Troxel peti- Kelly Wynn. Before addressing the merits of Gran- tioned a Washington Superior Court for the right to ville’s appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals re- visit their grandchildren, Isabelle and Natalie Troxel. manded the case to the Superior Court for entry of Respondent Tommie Granville, the mother of Isa- written findings of fact and conclusions of law. On belle and Natalie, opposed the petition. The case ul- remand, the Superior Court found that visitation was timately reached the Washington Supreme Court, in Isabelle and Natalie’s best interests: which held that §26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally in- The Petitioners [the Troxels] are part of a terferes with the fundamental right of parents to rear large, central, loving family, all located in their children. this area, and the Petitioners can provide op- Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel shared a rela- portunities for the children in the areas of tionship that ended in June 1991. The two never mar- cousins and music. ried, but they had two daughters, Isabelle and Na- …The court took into consideration all talie. Jenifer and Gary Troxel are Brad’s parents, and factors regarding the best interest of the chil- thus the paternal grandparents of Isabelle and Na- dren and considered all the testimony before talie. After Tommie and Brad separated in 1991, it. The children would be benefitted from Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought his spending quality time with the Petitioners, daughters to his parents’ home for weekend visita- provided that that time is balanced with time tion. Brad committed suicide in May 1993. Although with the childrens’ [sic] nuclear family. The the Troxels at first continued to see Isabelle and Na- court finds that the childrens’ [sic] best in- talie on a regular basis after their son’s death, Tom- terests are served by spending time with mie Granville informed the Troxels in October 1993 their mother and stepfather’s other six chil- that she wished to limit their visitation with her dren. daughters to one short visit per month. Approximately nine months after the Superior In December 1993, the Troxels commenced the Court entered its order on remand, Granville’s hus- present action by filing, in the Washington Superior band formally adopted Isabelle and Natalie. Court for Skagit County, a petition to obtain visita- tion rights with Isabelle and Natalie. The Troxels The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the filed their petition under two Washington statutes, lower court’s visitation order and dismissed the Wash. Rev. Code §§26.09.240 and 26.10.160(3) Troxels’ petition for visitation, holding that non- (1994). Only the latter statute is at issue in this case. parents lack standing to seek visitation under Section 26.10.160(3) provides: “Any person may pe- §26.10.160(3) unless a custody action is pending. In tition the court for visitation rights at any time includ- the Court of Appeals’ view, that limitation on nonpa- ing, but not limited to, custody proceedings. The rental visitation actions was “consistent with the con- court may order visitation rights for any person when stitutional restrictions on state interference with par- visitation may serve the best interest of the child ents’ fundamental liberty interest in the care, cus- whether or not there has been any change of circum- tody, and management of their children.” Having re- stances.” At trial, the Troxels requested two week- solved the case on the statutory ground, however, the ends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks of visitation each summer. Granville did not oppose * This opinion (copied from the court’s slip opinion) has been ed- ited, with most citations removed and some content removed for the sake of brevity. Eastman, Natural Law and the Constitution, Page 3 Court of Appeals did not expressly pass on Gran- nuclear family are called upon with increasing fre- ville’s constitutional challenge to the visitation stat- quency to assist in the everyday tasks of child rear- ute. ing. In many cases, grandparents play an important role. For example, in 1998, approximately 4 million The Washington Supreme Court granted the children—or 5.6 percent of all children under age Troxels’ petition for review and, after consolidating
Recommended publications
  • In the Missouri Supreme Court ______
    IN THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT ________________________________________________________________________ CAUSE NO. SC87400 ________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS APPELLANT, v. SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. RESPONDENT. ________________________________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DIVISION NO. 5 HONORABLE DAVID L. DOWD ________________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLANT ________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS LAW DEPARTMENT Mark Lawson #33337 Associate City Counselor Room 314, City Hall St. Louis, MO 63103 Phone: (314) 622-3361 Fax: (314) 622-4956 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS . 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . 4 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT . 18 STATEMENT OF FACTS . 19 POINTS RELIED ON . 22 ARGUMENT . 33 POINT I . 33 POINT II . 39 POINT III . 48 POINT IV . 63 POINT V . 77 POINT VI . 88 POINT VII . 94 POINT VIII . 98 POINT IX . 100 POINT X . 103 POINT XI . 110 POINT XII . 116 POINT XIII . 118 CONCLUSION . 122 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . 123 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . 123 APPENDIX . A-0 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases 508 Chestnut, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 389 S.W.2d 823 (Mo. 1965) 111 Airtouch Communications, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 76 P.3d 342 (Wyo. 2003) 38 Airway Drive-In Theatre Co. v. City of St. Ann, 354 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. banc 1962) 115 Armco Steel Corp. v. Dept. of Treasury, 358 N.W.2d 839 (Mich. 1984) 118 Arsenal Credit Union v. Giles, 715 S.W.2d 918 (Mo. banc 1986) 106 Asmus v. Pacific Bell, 999 P.2d 71 (Cal. 2000) 60 B & D Inv. Co., Inc. v. Schneider, 646 S.W.2d 759 (Mo.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Ple Sample Sam Ample Sample Sam
    SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SA SAMPLE SAMPLE SA SAMPLE SAMPLE SA MPL SAMPLE SAMPLE SA MPL DEM SAMPLEREP SAMPLE MPLE SA E in the County ofSAMPLE Cass SAMPLE MPLE Vote for ONE SA FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL MPLE SAMPLE DEM SAMPLE SA TERESA HENSLEY REP JOSH HAWLEY SAMPLELIB MPLE DISTRICT 4 SA Write-in OFFICIAL SAMPLE BALLOT DEM Vote for ONE eneral Election will be held REP SAMPLE MPLE SAM CASS COUNTY, MISSOURI FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE SA LIB LIBERTARIAN - (LIB); CONSTITUTION - (CST); GREEN - (GRN); INDEPENDENT - (IND) NOTICE OF ELECTION GRN GORDON CHRISTENSEN REP MPLE SAMPLE GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 8, 2016 SAMPLE LIB IND VICKY HARTZLER SA FOR GOVERNORVote for ONE MARK BLISS IND MPLE SAMPLE SAMPLEWrite-in DISTRICT 31 FOR STATEVote SENATOR for ONE SA CHRIS KOSTER DEM MPLE SAMPLE ERIC GREITENS SAMPLEREP SA LIB CISSE W SPRAGINS ED EMERY DEM DON FITZ SAMPLEGRN LORA YOUNG SA MPLREP E SAMPLE LESTER BENTON (LES) TURILLI, JR. TIM WELLS DEMOCRATIC - (DEM); REPUBLICAN - (REP); Vote for ONE DEM Write-in Write-in DISTRICT 33 SAMPLE Vote for ONE MPLE SAMPLE Notice is hereby given that the November G FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SA FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE REP DEM on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 as certified to this office by the participating entitiesSAMPLERUSS of CARNAHAN Cass County. REP MPLE SAM LIB MIKE PARSON SALIB CHASE LINDER The ballot for the election shall be in substantially the following form: STEVEN R. HEDRICK DONNA PFAUTSCH A vote for candidates forVote President for ONE PAIR and MPLE CST JENNIFER LEACH SAMPLE Vice President is a vote for their Electors.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Consolidation in Missouri, Where Are We After 20 Years?
    Court Consolidation in Missouri, Where Are We After 20 Years? Institute Of Court Management Court Executive Development Program Phase III Project May, 2001 Jerry A. Moyer, Clerk of the Circuit Court Barton County Circuit Court Lamar, Missouri 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: 1. The Honorable C. David Darnold, Senior Judge, State of Missouri; Presiding Circuit Judge, 28th Judicial Circuit, 1979-2000, 2. The Honorable Henry L. Lisle, Associate Circuit Judge, Barton County, Lamar, Missouri, 1967-1982, retired; Member of the Cosgrove Committee, 1974-1976, 3. Mr. David Heumader, Trial Court Administrator, 28th Judicial Circuit, Vernon County, Nevada, Missouri, 1998-present, 4. The Honorable Frank Conley, Presiding Circuit Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, Boone County, Columbia, Missouri, 1970-present, 5. The Honorable Charles D. Curless, Associate Circuit Judge, Barton County, Lamar, Missouri, 1995-present, 6. Dr. Daniel H. Straub, Ph.D., Senior Faculty Member, Institute for Court Management, National Center For State Courts. 7. Mrs. Nancy Griggs, Director of Court Services Division, Office of State Courts Administrator, State of Missouri. 8. Ms. Linda Hope, Evaluation Specialist, Office of State Courts Administrator, State of Missouri. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Note: Page numbers are changed in electronic format) Acknowledgments....................................................................................................i Table of Contents....................................................................................................ii List of Illustrations
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Constitution Article III Initiative and Referendum Section
    Missouri Constitution Article III Initiative and Referendum Section 49. Reservation of power to enact and reject laws. The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided. Section 50. Initiative petitions--signatures required--form and procedure. Initiative petitions proposing amendments to the constitution shall be signed by eight percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state, and petitions proposing laws shall be signed by five percent of such voters. Every such petition shall be filed with the secretary of state not less than six months before the election and shall contain an enacting clause and the full text of the measure. Petitions for constitutional amendments shall not contain more than one amended and revised article of this constitution, or one new article which shall not contain more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith, and the enacting clause thereof shall be "Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:". Petitions for laws shall contain not more than one subject which shall be expressed clearly in the title, and the enacting clause thereof shall be "Be it enacted by the people of the state of Missouri:". Section 51. Appropriations by initiative--effective date of initiated laws -- conflicting laws concurrently adopted. The initiative shall not be used for the appropriation of money other than of new revenues created and provided for thereby, or for any other purpose prohibited by this constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • You Are Advised That the Proposed Constitutional Amendment May Change, Repeal, Or Modify by Implication Or May Be Const
    NOTICE: You are advised that the proposed constitutional amendment may change, repeal, or modify by implication or may be construed by some persons to change, repeal or modify by implication, the following Articles and Sections of the Constitution of Missouri: Article I, Section 8 and the following Sections of the Missouri Revised Statutes: Sections 105.450 through 105.496 and Sections 130.011 through 130.160. The proposed amendment revises Article III of the Constitution by amending Sections 2, 5, 7, and 19 and adopting three new sections to be known as Article III Sections 3, 20(c), and 20(d). Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended: Section A. Article III of the Constitution is revised by amending Sections 2, 5, 7, 19, and adopting three new sections to be known as Article III Sections 3, 20(c), and 20(d) to read as follows: Section 2. After the effective date of this section, no person serving as a member of or employed by the General Assembly shall act or serve as a paid lobbyist, register as a paid lobbyist, or solicit prospective employers or clients to represent as a paid lobbyist during the time of such service until the expiration of two calendar years after the conclusion of the session of the general assembly in which the member or employee last served and where such service was after the effective date of this section. (a) No person serving as a member of or employed by the General Assembly shall accept directly or indirectly a gift of any tangible or intangible item, service, or thing of value from any paid lobbyist or lobbyist principal in excess of five dollars per occurrence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Source of Authority for Rules of Court Affecting Procedure
    Washington University Law Review Volume 22 Issue 4 January 1937 The Source of Authority for Rules of Court Affecting Procedure Tyrrell Williams Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Tyrrell Williams, The Source of Authority for Rules of Court Affecting Procedure, 22 WASH. U. L. Q. 459 (1937). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol22/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY Volume XXII JUNE, 1937 Number 4 THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY FOR RULES OF COURT AFFECTING PROCEDURE TYRRELL WILLIAMSt This article is divided into sections as here indicated. Section 1: The Scope of This Article. Section 2: What Is Procedure? Section 3: What Are Rules of Court? Section 4: The Different Functions of the Judiciary under a Typical American State Con- stitution. Section 5: The Doctrine of Inherent Judicial Power over Matters Ancillary to the Administration of Justice, but Concurrent with Non-Frustrating Legislative Power. Section 6: Certain Doctrines at Variance with the Doctrine Presented in Section 5. Section 7: The Doctrine of Legislative Supremacy in the Field of Procedure. Section 8: Constitutional Limitations on the Doctrine of Legislative Supremacy. Section 9: The Doctrine of Inherent and Exclusive Judicial Rule-Making Power in the Field of Procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Initiatives Since 1904 - 2000154
    Statewide Initiatives Since 1904 - 2000154 Year State Type Measure Number Subject Matter Description Pass/Fail 1904 Oregon DS 2 Election Reform Direct primary nominating convention law. Passed 1904 Oregon DS 3 Alcohol Regulation Local option liquor law. Passed Gross earning tax on sleeping, refrigerator and 1906 Oregon DS 10 Taxes Passed oil car companies. Gross earning tax on express, telephone and 1906 Oregon DS 11 Taxes Passed telegraph companies. 1906 Oregon DA 2 Election Reform Equal suffrage amendment. Failed 1906 Oregon DS 3 Alcohol Regulation Amendment to local option liquor law. Failed Law to abolish tolls on the Mt. Hood and 1906 Oregon DS 4 Administration of Government Barlow road and providing for its ownership by Failed the state. Requiring referendum on any act calling a 1906 Oregon DA 5 Election Reform Passed constitutional convention. Giving cities sole powers to amend their 1906 Oregon DA 6 Administration of Government Passed charters. Authorizing state printers compensation to be 1906 Oregon DA 7 Business Regulation Passed regulated by law at any time. Initiative and referendum to apply to all local, 1906 Oregon DA 8 Initiative and Referendum Passed special and municipal laws. 1906 Oregon DS 9 Utility Regulation Prohibition of free passes on railroads. Passed The authorization of the sale of school and other public lands at auction giving the lessee 1908 Oklahoma DS 5 Administration of Government the right of acceptance of the land at the Failed highest bid, limiting the sales to 160 acres of land to the individual. Giving cities control of liquor selling, 1908 Oregon DA 11 Alcohol Regulation poolrooms, theaters, etc, subject to local Failed option law.
    [Show full text]
  • The •Œright to Farm╊ and Missouri╎s Review of Constitutional Amendments
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Missouri School of Law Missouri Law Review Volume 81 Issue 1 Winter 2016 Article 20 Winter 2016 Sustainable Constitutional Growth? The “Right to Farm” and Missouri’s Review of Constitutional Amendments Angela Kennedy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Angela Kennedy, Sustainable Constitutional Growth? The “Right to Farm” and Missouri’s Review of Constitutional Amendments, 81 MO. L. REV. (2016) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol81/iss1/20 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kennedy: Sustainable Constitutional Growth? COMMENT Sustainable Constitutional Growth? The “Right to Farm” and Missouri’s Review of Constitutional Amendments ANGELA KENNEDY* INTRODUCTION The Missouri River Basin is comprised of more than 100 million acres of cropland across nine states, including Missouri.1 It produces nearly half of U.S. wheat, nearly a quarter of its grain corn, and over a third of its cattle, and in 2008, the value of these crops and livestock exceeded $100 billion.2 Mis- souri’s share in this revenue, however, contributed to less than three percent of Missouri’s gross domestic product (“GDP”) in 2013:3 not what one would call the “foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy,” or even a “vital sector of Missouri’s economy.”4 Yet these assertions are memorialized * B.A., Brigham Young University, 2010; J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Elections
    CHAPTER 7 MISSOURI ELECTIONS Weinhold St. Francois Photo courtesy of Missouri State Archives Publications Collection 588 OFFICIAL MANUAL The statutes require that all public elections be held on the general election day, the primary election day, the general municipal election day, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Missouri Voting November, or on another day expressly provided by city or county charter and in nonprimary years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday and Elections in August. (115.123.1, RSMo) The general election day is the first Tuesday Who registers to vote in Missouri? after the first Monday in November in even- numbered years. The primary election day is the Citizens living in Missouri must register in first Tuesday after the first Monday in August in order to vote. Any U.S. citizen 17 years and 6 months of age or older, if a Missouri resident, even-numbered years. (115.121 (1 & 2), RSMo) may register and vote except: Elections for cities, towns, villages, school A person who is adjudged incapacitated. boards and special district officers are held the A person who is confined under sentence of first Tuesday after first Monday in April each imprisonment. year, known as “general municipal election day.” A person who is on probation or (115.121.3, RSMo) parole after conviction of a felony until A statewide presidential preference primary finally discharged. shall be held on the second Tuesday after the A person who has been convicted of a felony first Monday in March of each presidential or misdemeanor connected with the right of election year.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Constitution of Missouri
    Washington University Law Review Volume 9 Issue 2 January 1924 The New Constitution of Missouri William W. Hollingsworth Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation William W. Hollingsworth, The New Constitution of Missouri, 9 ST. LOUIS L. REV. 071 (1924). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol9/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ST. LOUIS LAW REVIEW Published by the Undergraduates of the Vol IX Washington University School of Law No. 2 THE NEW CONSTITUTION OF MISSOURI.* In 1820 a constitutional convention met and within the phenomenally short space of five weeks drew up Missouri's first constitution. So complete did the members of this con- vention regard their work that this document was never submitted to the people for approval or rejection, but was put immediately into effect. Another constitution drafted in 1845 was rejected by the people of the State the following year. A third convention met in 1861, but owing to war conditions, no constitution resulted. Again in 1865, a new convention drafted and submitted a constitution which was to last only ten years. In 1875 a convention drew up and promulgated the constitution under which Missouri is now governed. Since the adoption of the present constitution, there have been proposed approximately one hundred amendments, about twenty of which have been adopted.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Constitutions: History, Theory and Practice (Continued) William F
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1958 Missouri Constitutions: History, Theory and Practice (continued) William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "Missouri Constitutions: History, Theory and Practice (continued)" (1958). Faculty Publications. 1617. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1617 Copyright c 1958 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs MISSOURI CONSTITUTIONS: HISTORY, THEORY AND PRACTICE (Continued-from the Januray issue) WILIAm F. SWINDLER I. BASIC THEORIEs OF MIssouRI CONSTITUTIONAL LAw The fourth and latest constitution of Missouri, taken with its predecessors, exemplifies not only the main currents of social and economic development in the state but the fundamental differences in character in the state and federal organic law.136 This difference in part, of course, is attributed to the traditional definition of the Federal Constitution as a grant of power while the state instrument is held by many established authorities to be a limitation of power-although this latter assumption is not always easy to reconcile with the assertion which typically appears in state bills of rights, that the ultimate source of power is in the people themselves.18 7 Whether this distinction in any case justifies the elaborate detail in which state constitutions are wont to 38 express themselves on sundry matters, is a matter for extended debate.' In any event, the Missouri constitutional convention of 1943-44 did attempt to avoid devising an overly-intricate and exhaustive catalog of provisions and prohibitions, and rather sought to simplify and consolidate many concepts which had been introduced heterogeneously into the 1875 constitution.' 8 9 Analysis of the 1945 document, and comparison with its antecedents, makes possible the classification of its subject-matter under seven major headings, as outlined in Table II.
    [Show full text]
  • City Charter Webster Groves Missouri
    CITY CHARTER WEBSTER GROVES MISSOURI ADOPTED - MARCH 23, 1954 REVISED PRINTING: APRIL 2, 2002, JUNE 2, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Article 1 Incorporation—Form of Government—Powers…… 1 Article 2 The Council………………………………………... 2 Article 3 The City Manager………………………………….. 11 Article 4 Administrative Service…………………………….. 12 Article 5 Department of Finance…………………………….. 13 Article 6 Department of Public Works………………………. 24 Article 7 Department of Personnel…………………………… 24 Article 8 Department of Law…………………………………. 29 Article 9 The Municipal Court………………………………... 29 Article 10 Boards and Commissions…………………………... 30 Article 11 Planning and Zoning……………………………….. 32 Article 12 Public Improvements……………………………….. 34 Article 13 Nominations and Elections…………………………. 38 Article 14 Initiative, Referendum and Recall………………….. 41 Article 15 Miscellaneous Provisions…………………………… 46 Index………………………………………………………………… 51 CHARTER for Webster Groves, Missouri PREAMBLE In order to secure the benefits and advantages of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, adopted in the year 1945, and to establish Home Rule for the City under the pro- visions thereof, the people of Webster Groves hereby adopt the following Charter. ARTICLE I INCORPORATION - FORM OF GOVERNMENT - POWERS Section 1.1 INCORPORATION. The inhabitants of the City of Webster Groves within the corporate limits as now established or as hereafter established in the manner provided by law, shall continue to be a municipal body politic and corporate in perpetuity, under the name of the “City of Webster Groves”. Section 1.2 FORM OF GOVERNMENT. The municipal government provided by this Charter shall be known as a “council- manager government” Pursuant to the provisions of this Charter and subject only to the limitations imposed hereby and by the Constitution of Missouri, all powers of the City shall be vested in an elective Council which shall enact local legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies, and appoint the City Manager, who shall execute the laws and administer the government of the City.
    [Show full text]