The Volokh Conspiracy - Interesting Alabama Supreme Court Opinion:

I just came across an interesting concurring opinion by Justice Parker from the Alabama Supreme Court from just a couple of days abo. Justice Parker's opinion begins as follows:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). In these words, which enshrined the principle of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that constitutional interpretation is emphatically the responsibility of the judiciary. He did not say that constitutional interpretation is exclusively the responsibility of the judiciary.

Justice Parker then goes on to argue that each of the branches of government have an independent obligation to interpret the constitution, and that as a result, the court should defer to a longstanding constitutional interpretation by the legislature:

[T]he Alabama Legislature has consistently followed the third interpretation for at least three decades. I believe the Legislature is within its authority to interpret § 63 in this way, and I therefore conclude that this Court should defer to that interpretation. By so deferring, we show proper respect to a coordinate branch of government.

Interesting opinion that invokes, among other sources, Andrew Jackson's veto of the Bank of the United States on the ground that it was unconstitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's holding in McCullough.

Very interesting opinion.

I haven't been able to locate the opinion anywhere but on Westlaw, at 2005 WL 1023157. The case name is Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center Authority v. City of Birmingham.

	[Todd Zywicki, May 6, 2005 at 12:42pm] Trackbacks Interesting Alabama Supreme Court Opinion: I just came across an interesting concurring opinion by Justice Parker from the Alabama Supreme Court from just a couple of days abo. Justice Parker's opinion begins as follows: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). In these words, which enshrined the principle of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that constitutional interpretation is emphatically the responsibility of the judiciary. He did not say that constitutional interpretation is exclusively the responsibility of the judiciary. Justice Parker then goes on to argue that each of the branches of government have an independent obligation to interpret the constitution, and that as a result, the court should defer to a longstanding constitutional interpretation by the legislature: [T]he Alabama Legislature has consistently followed the third interpretation for at least three decades. I believe the Legislature is within its authority to interpret § 63 in this way, and I therefore conclude that this Court should defer to that interpretation. By so deferring, we show proper respect to a coordinate branch of government. Interesting opinion that invokes, among other sources, Andrew Jackson's veto of the Bank of the United States on the ground that it was unconstitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's holding in McCullough. Very interesting opinion. I haven't been able to locate the opinion anywhere but on Westlaw, at 2005 WL 1023157. The case name is Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center Authority v. City of Birmingham.