HJ14 may influence how state laws are interpreted and enforced by emphasizing the need for mutual respect and acknowledgment among the different branches of government. By addressing the balance of power, the resolution could potentially lead to legislative challenges against judicial decisions that are perceived to overreach or misinterpret the constitution. It raises questions about the historical acceptance of judicial supremacy and whether this needs to be reassessed within the context of contemporary governance.
Summary
House Joint Resolution 14 (HJ14) asserts the shared responsibility of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government in interpreting and maintaining fidelity to the constitution. The resolution challenges the notion that the courts have exclusive power to determine the constitutionality of laws, as established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. The legislators argue that each branch has an equal duty under their oaths to uphold the constitution, thus fostering a more balanced relationship among the government branches.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HJ14 appears to be contentious, reflecting a divide between those who support judicial authority and those advocating for a more balanced approach to constitutional interpretation. Proponents of the resolution argue that it restores necessary checks on judicial power, while opponents may view it as an encroachment on the judiciary's fundamental role in protecting constitutional rights. The discussions reveal an underlying tension between differing ideological views on governance and the role of each branch in law-making.
Contention
A notable point of contention is the interpretation of Marbury v. Madison itself. Supporters of HJ14 claim that misinterpretations have allowed the judicial branch to assume power not intended by the framers of the constitution. The resolution asserts that while judicial rulings should be respected, it is misleading to claim that these interpretations are final and that legislative efforts must bow to them without question. This flickering relationship between the branches could lead to potential conflicts in future legislative actions.
Proposing An Amendment To Article Xvii, Section 3 Of The Hawaii Constitution To Specify That The Standard For Voter Approval Of A Constitutional Amendment Proposed By The Legislature Is A Majority Of All The Votes Tallied Upon The Question.
(Constitutional Amendment) Requires legislative approval of a proposed constitutional amendment in two sessions before being submitted to the electors for ratification