*1
good example
necessity
appointing
law,
it
is also a
indigent,
applicants
in
counsel
incarcerated
some habeas
corpus
opinions
my dissenting
Barnett,
cases. See also
Huff
345),
Caldwell,
In some fail do so is a denial of due process law.
I would reverse the instant case and direct the corpus habeas appointment court to make a determination as whether the represent applicant
of counsel to in this case is hearing comports in order to have a fair with due process of law under the and Federal Constitutions. respectfully dissent. Ingram joins
I am authorized to state that Justice me dissent.
28194. BLACKMON v. GOLIA et al. appeals Justice. The State Revenue Commissioner Undercofler, judgment enjoining enforcing from a him from certain p. Act.” 328. The trial (a) (b) court found that 5A sections and 5A lacked thereof (a) and violated the 5A Constitution. Section municipalities directs and counties beer an excise tax less than 3 1/2 cents more nor per proportionately than 5 cents ounces thereof. Section (b) imposed upon 5A directs that the wholesale dealers. "grandfather” provision municipalities There is for those imposing greater tax as of December 1972. Held: Assembly may l.The initial here is whether the General a tax or whether counties to direct only delegate specific provisions to them under succinctly: Is the more to tax. Stated Constitution Georgia to the General a limitation? absolutely unrestricted of this State "The General *2 long legislation enact power undertake to it does not Tripp prohibited Federal Constitution.” the State or measures (79 respect to taxes 284, With Martin, 210 Ga. v. legislature taxes stated, "The of the it has been organic only law.” State inherent, circumscribed and is (71 619, "The Co., SE A. 136 Ga. v. & R. Ga. Western except legislature, right limit, is without in the granted. power specially provided It is not a in the Constitution. by special Burch exist, clauses.” is limited It is assumed to Mayor 596, it is seen that Savannah, 42 598. Thus v. &c. of of the limitation on the is a Constitution recognized principle Ill, provides: "The which Par. XX of to make all have the shall repugnant to the and not this Constitution consistent with States, shall deem which of the United Constitution necessary proper of the State.” for the welfare (170 Harper, 680, 685 SE 177 Ga. § 2-1920. See Green v. (1912), p. McElreath, 528. Indeed Saye, appears "The Extent states. See to be the view of all the Legislative B. J. 147. The statements Power.” of State that, government departments have and can the State the "The people them have conferred exercise such principle of our "a fundamental and that Constitution” any implied ... denies under the Constitution State Government or inherent exercise legislative department in the through sovereign people, any that has not department legislative reposed Constitution, in the been Talmadge, government” appear Thompson 201 Ga. v. 883) (41 disapproved. 867, 879, are Subject limitations, counties are cities and to constitutional political legislature. They are subordinate
creatures of the divisions of the State for Foster, local administration. Penick (NS) 1159, 12 12 LRA AC SE 129 Ga. legislature Accordingly, Constitution, the if inhibited including perform acts divisions direct these levying County, aof tax. As stated 169 Ga. why 354, 359 SE "We see no valid reason legislature can not taxes for these prohibited by where such levies are otherwise Dennington Constitution of this Roberta, State.” Also as stated 20): duty SE of the town council to the tax recommended the school board was Act, under the and the was a (Constitutional questions validity ministerial function.” mandatory special appear a case.) tax act and do not in this Municipal Corporations,
See also 62 § 194; CJS Municipal Corporations, AmJur2d Appellee argues provision authorizing that the constitutional the county to a taxation city, by implication, Assembly,
or power denies to the General county city. such on taxation We agree. do not recognize by appellee
We that, asserted "A expressly prescribes [constitutional] the manner doing particular thing of impliedly prohibits performance exclusive in substantially in a different *3 Fortson, manner.” Jones However, states, Assembly provide by General government is authorized to self law the (Const., of XV, I, . . .” Art. Sec. Par. 2-8301) I; § does not come within this impliedly Assembly directing to restrict the General local First, taxation for at least two the reasons. constitutional provision merely permissive, second, is and it relates to the delegation of and not to the exercise of We reach Assembly’s right the same conclusion as to the General to delegate its of VII, taxation to counties. Art. Sec. (Code 2-5701). IV, Par. I §Ann. principles 2. Under the of announced Division 1 we must determine whether the tax the instant a case is tax levi- Assembly ed the General or is a tax the local levied governments through power by the General This is lim- because the constitutional relating uniformity purpose itations, such as those upon Assembly levy the General a tax upon Assembly’s are different such limitations the General authority taxing governments. its to local provisions under consideration "Uniform Beer Act” The "Municipalities here state: hereby tax, beverages . an excise .. directed
malt (3.5^) than cents nor more and one-half less three not than (5$) delegation ounces...” There no five cents in the local vested this tax. There is no discretion governments. By authority of the General direction governments Assembly tax. The must the affected over subordinate exercised to tax It has subdivisions. exercised Although directing tax local officials the limits set fixed rate is the although into the taxes are received imposed by treasuries, Act the Assembly. the tax is is, therefore, tax a state The (Code Georgia VII, I, 3.Art. Par. Ill of the Sec. 2-5403) upon the same "All taxation shall be declares: authority subjects limits of territorial class levying the State of the tax.” We have concluded that authority levying Tax.” It follows is the the prescribe like the act does tax lacks because subjects within the affected the act same class of delegates contrary to fix the the the act state. On the permits governments. This tax within limitations to the local tax rate to not uniform. consequently vary between local Ewing Wright, only one class of classification. Here we have namely, subjects, Hirsch, beer wholesalers. See There are no territorial tax uniform. in the Act which would render the classifications questions decide, we, of whether trial court did not nor do Rule” the "Uniform Beer Tax Act” violates "Home Constitution or violates 2-5403) I, §Ann. Ill of the general states, "All under taxes shall be levied and collected *4 public only.” II, and for See 2-5501); Mayes Daniel, I standing City 5.Do to raise the the citizens of the Arcade have by appellees made in this case? The issue raised issues to direct is whether the General imposition It said often of local taxes for local has been destroy. that tax is the In opinion our citizens have both a municipality personal property in maintaining interest municipal purposes in their municipal
citizens elect the officials who exercise this awesome appellees challenged here citizens of the City Arcade have direct imposition of local tax basis that this is vested exclusively their local government. There is more than mere apprehension of such action on the part appellees. The act under attack has been adopted its terms it is opinion our appellees standing have to maintain this action. concur, J.,
Judgment All the Justices who except Ingram, affirmed. dissents the ruling made in Division 3 and from affirmance. Argued September 11, Decided October Rehearing denied November Bolton, General, Chambers, Arthur K. Attorney Richard General, Attorney Assistant appellant.
Robinson, Buice, Strickland, Harben, Jr., Harben & Sam S. Jack Davidson, appellees.
Melton, House, & Hanes, McKenna & amicus curiae. Lefkoff Justice, dissenting. respectfully dissent to the majority Ingram, statute, I construed, this when properly for local purposes. county, Each city allowing free, the sale malt beverages, the limits statute, to set its own rate. Not a of the tax yield dime which flows into local goes coffers from the state. Consequently, tax need not be uniform throughout the state. The Constitution requires territory of the city It county. meets test ought this not to be overturned Connor, court. See Hawes v. Abbott,
County Homes Owners Assn. 28244. DANIEL FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN.