Filed Date: 2/7/1980
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
REQUESTED BY: Dear Senator Murphy:
You ask our opinion as to the constitutionality of legislation supposedly implementing Article
With respect to the provisions in LB 158, we must call your attention to the letter of this office to the Clerk of the Legislature, dated December 28, 1972, and found in Volume 1, page 36 of the 1973 Legislative Journal. We enclose a copy of that letter herein. In that letter we said that we could not give an opinion to a senator on the constitutionality of or interpretation of a bill which has already become law. This policy precludes our commenting on the provisions of LB 158, which provisions are now found in sections
LB 986 would amend the third sentence of section
". . . Any such city or village is also granted power and authority to do all community development activities, and to do all things necessary to cooperate with the federal government in all matters relating to community development program activities as a grantee, or as an agent or otherwise, under the provisions of the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383, 93rd Congress or any such subsequent or similar legislation. . . ."
The question immediately arises as to whether this constitutes delegation of legislative authority to Congress, since it may be construed to grant to Congress the authority to enlarge or alter the powers of cities and villages by federal legislation. It is clear that the Legislature may adopt by reference the provisions of a federal act in force at the time of the passage of the state act. Smithbergerv. Banning,
While it is, perhaps, not perfectly clear that the amendatory language was intended to alter the powers of cities and villages upon the amendment of federal laws, it is at least susceptible of that interpretation, and for that reason is, in our opinion, highly suspect.
Section 2 of the bill would amend section
As a constitutional matter, the only question is whether these would be public purposes. We believe they are. We are not sure precisely what is intended by shopping malls and plazas or convention and civic centers, but we assume that they would be public facilities, and would not involve the municipalities' getting into private commercial activities. So far as parking facilities are concerned, the Nebraska Supreme Court has held that the operation of parking facilities is a public purpose. See Omaha Parking Authorityv. City of Omaha,
Section 3 of the bill would amend section