stating that the Legislature does not have free rein to make any measure a health and safety measure in order to avoid Proposal C simply by defining it as such
How later courts described this case
- stating that the Legislature does not have free rein to make any measure a health and safety measure in order to avoid Proposal C simply by defining it as such
- noting that "here with ninety-eight percent of the private school students being in church-related schools the 'impact' is nearly total"
- “wherever possible an interpretation that does not create constitutional invalidity is preferred to one that does”
- “A second rule is that to clarify meaning, the circumstances surrounding the adoption of a constitutional provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished may be considered.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J.
(dissenting in part and concurring in part). For the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Carman v. Secretary of State (1971), 384 Mich 443 , we believe this case should *437 be dismissed with prejudice. However, the majority-opinion in Carman, supra, is for the present at least, the law in Michigan.
We agree that if Proposal C was properly submitted to the people and properly adopted, the opinion of Justice Williams correctly interprets our Constitution as amended and correctly applies the due process and equal protection clauses of the Federal Constitution.
T. G. Kavanagh, J., concurred with T. M. Kava-NAGH, C. J.