Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Separation Of Powers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HJ 14 sparks debate on judicial review and separation-of‑powers; bar associations oppose
Summary
Representative Lee Deming framed HJ 14 as a reminder that all three branches share responsibility to interpret the constitution; witnesses including the State Bar and constitutional scholars warned the resolution misstates Marbury v. Madison and undermines judicial review.
Representative Lee Deming introduced House Joint Resolution 14, arguing the resolution clarifies that the legislative, executive and judicial branches each have a role in constitutional interpretation and that the doctrine of "judicial supremacy" misreads Marbury v. Madison. Deming cited oath language and constitutional text to argue for equal institutional responsibility.
Opponents strongly pushed back. Will McLaughlin, a retired constitutional‑law professor, urged the committee to read the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall and warned that Marbury and related precedents establish judicial review as the mechanism by which courts determine constitutionality. Representatives of the State Bar of Montana and Montana Bar Association (Bruce Spencer and Nikki Zupanic) argued the resolution mischaracterizes settled doctrine, would erode separation of powers, and could undermine the rule of law.
Several witnesses urged the committee to preserve judicial independence and warned that proposing that the legislature or executive could have equal or binding say on constitutionality risks dangerous political conflicts and instability in legal protections. The sponsor closed urging a green vote; the hearing record shows the issue is contested along constitutional and institutional lines.
