Opinion

Chartiers Valley Joint Schools v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors

  • 418 Pa. 520
  • 211 A.2d 487
  • 1965 Pa. LEXIS 625
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jun 30, 1965
Status
Published
Author
Bell
On the bench
Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
Cited by
114 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.2%

holding that sections 291, 292, and 293 of the School Reorganization Act of 1963,12 providing the Board of Education with reorganizing powers, did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power, because the Legislature provided the Board of Education with adequate guidelines for effectuating the Act

How later courts described this case

  • holding that sections 291, 292, and 293 of the School Reorganization Act of 1963,12 providing the Board of Education with reorganizing powers, did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power, because the Legislature provided the Board of Education with adequate guidelines for effectuating the Act
  • reiterating previous Supreme Court holding that a school district has only those powers granted to it by statute
  • discussing purpose of School Reorganization Act of 1963 and upholding its constitutionality
  • school reorganization permitted only where the Council of Basic Education deems it “wise in the best interests of the education system of the Commonwealth”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Concurring Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell:

I concur in the result solely because I consider this case unique. Legislators and draftsmen of Legislative Acts should realize that the Constitution of Pennsylvania vests all power to pass laws in the General Assembly (Article II, §1). The Legislature cannot abdicate or delegate this power because it is vested exclusively in the Legislature: Holgate Bros. Co. v. Bashore, 331 Pa. 255, 260 , 200 A. 2d 672 . See: Bell Telephone Co. of Pa. v. Driscoll, 343 Pa. 109, 113-114 , 21 A. 2d 912 .

Our prior decisions have gone the limit, indeed, I believe a number have gone beyond the limit, of recog *547 nizing very general and sometimes vague language to be sufficient standards under Article II, §1.

As the majority Opinion recognizes, the Legislature may establish primary standards and impose upon others the duty to carry out the declared legislative policy in accordance with the general provisions of the Act and with the legislatively created standards. Legislation must contain adequate standards which will guide and restrain the exercise of the delegated administrative functions.

I hope this warning will be sufficient to awaken legislative draftsmen to the necessity of complying with the Constitution instead of relying solely on the worthiness of legislative objectives.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.