ADVISORY OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court declined to issue an advisory opinion to the Governor regarding whether a proposed constitutional amendment was properly adopted by the Senate, holding that the Court's constitutional authority to render advisory opinions is limited to interpreting the constitution on matters affecting the Governor's executive powers and duties, not to evaluating statutory appropriations or procedural constitutional questions.
The Court held it is not authorized to render the requested opinion because the constitutional provisions relating to proposed amendments and their publication do not confer executive powers or duties on the Governor, and any power to countersign payment warrants would derive from statutory appropriation, not the constitution. The Court's authority is limited to interpreting the constitution on questions affecting the Governor's executive powers and duties.
“The authority of the Justices of the Supreme Court under this section to render an opinion to the Governor at his request is confined to the interpretation of some portion of the constitution upon a question affecting the Governor's executive powers and duties, and does not authorize an opinion upon a question affecting the executive powers and duties of the Governor in countersigning an order to pay money from the State Treasury that may be authorized by a valid statute.”
Establishes the limiting principle that advisory opinions must concern constitutional interpretation affecting executive powers, not statutory appropriations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGovernor Gilchrist requested an advisory opinion concerning whether House Joint Resolution No. 222, a proposed constitutional amendment considered by …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Amendment Process cases and more on FLexlaw
In the Supreme Court of Florida, June Term, A. D. 1912, Tallahassee, Fla., September 24, 1912.
To His Excellency,
Albert W. Gilchrist,
Governor of Florida.
Sir:
Your executive communication of the 19th, inst, requesting an opinion upon the matters stated therein has been carefully considered by the justices of the Supreme Court who are in this City. Mr. Justice Hocker is unavoidably absent from the State.
Section 13 of Article IV of the State Constitution provides that, “The Governor may, at anytime, require the opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Court as to the interpretation of any portion of this constitution upon any question affecting his executive powers and duties, and the Justices shall render such opinion in writing.”
The authority of the Justices of the Supreme Court under this section to render an opinion to the Governor at his request is confined to the interpretation of some portion of the constitution upon a question affecting the Governor’s executive powers and duties, and does not authorize an opinion upon a question affecting the executive powers and duties of the Governor in countersigning an order to pay money from the State Treasury that may be authorized by a valid statute. See Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 39 Fla. 397; 50 Fla. 169; 54 Fla. 136; 62 Fla. 4.
The request is, in effect, for an opinion as to whether House Joint Resolution No. 222, relating to an amendment to the State Constitution, that was considered by both Houses of the Legislature at the regular session of 1911, was duly adopted by the Senate within the meaning of the constitution, so as to require the publication of such resolution as a duly proposed amendment to the constitution, and the opinion is requested because such publication seriously affects the executive power and duty of the Governor to countersign warrants drawn on the State Treasurer in payment for the publication.
The terms of the constitution relating to proposed amendments to the constitution and the publication thereof, do not confer any executive powers and duties upon the Governor. Even though the Senate had never acted at all on the joint resolution, and the publication thereof, as a proposed amendment to the constitution, is not required by law, yet a valid statutory appropriation of money to pay for such publication may authorize the Governor to exercise his constitutional power and duty to countersign an order or warrant drawn in accordance with such statutory appropriation. Therefore the power and duty to countersign an order or warrant to pay for such publication would depend not upon the constitution but upon the statutory appropriation; and the Justices of the Supreme Court are not authorized to render to the Governor at his request an opinion upon statutory enactments that affect his executive powers and duties.
In the advisory opinion to the Governor 43 Fla. 305, 31 South, Rep. 348, the opinion related to the Governor’s power and duty in countersigning a warrant for the pay-, ment of money from the State Treasury where the attempted appropriation was made by a joint resolution which was held to be not a law within the meaning of section 4 of Article IX of the constitution. No such question is presented here.
For the reasons stated you are respectfully advised that the Justices are not authorized by the constitution to render to you an opinion upon the question presented.
Very respectfully,
J. B. WHITFIELD,
R. F. TAYLOR,
T. M. SHACKLEFORD,
R. S. COCKRELL,
Justices of the Supreme Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 103 Fla. 668 (Fla. 1931)…22 South. Rep. 681; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 50 Fla. 169; 39-South. Rep. 187; Advisory Opinion to Gov [*671] ernor, 54 Fla. 136, 44 South. Rep. 756; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 62 Fla. 4, 57 South. Rep. 345; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 64 Fla. 1, 59 South. Rep. 778; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 69 Fla. 632, 68 South. Rep. 851; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 78 Fla. 156, 82 South. Rep. 606. Your excellency’s request for an opinion is not whether it is within the executive power and duty…
-
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 78 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1919)…order to pay money from the State Treasury that may be authorized by a statute. See Advisory Opinions to the Governor, 39 Fla. 397, 22 South. Rep. 681; 50 Fla. 169, 39 South. Rep. 187; 54 Fla. 136, 44 South. Rep. 745; 62 Fla. 4, 57 South. Rep. 345; 64 Fla. 1, 59 South. Rep. 778; 64 Fla. 14. Tour request for an opinion as to your authority to countersign Avarrants for the payment of expenses incurred under the provisions of a law, Chapter 7919, Acts of 1919, in effect involves the interpretation of a sta…
-
In re Advisory Opinion TO the Governor Request OF August 28, 388 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1980)…in their judgment the delay would cause public injury, [emphasis added] . See In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 113 So. 2d 703 (Fla.1959); In re Opinion of the Justices, 69 Fla. 632, 68 So. 851 (1915); In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 64 Fla. 1, 59 So. 778 (1912).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 43 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1901)
- In re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 50 Fla. 169 (Fla. 1905)
- In re Advisory Opinion to Honorable N. B. Broward, 54 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1907)
- In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 62 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1911)