In Re Burke

Good Law
190 Cal. 326·1923 Cal. LEXIS 520·212 P. 193
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 9, 1923Crim. No. 2534.California929 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

—The petitioner asks for his discharge on habeas corpus from an imprisonment under a charge of a violation of the Wright Act, so called, being an act of the legislature submitted to a referendum at the last election and carried by the people. His principal point is that the act is void because it purports to enact into the law in this state all the penal provisions of the so-called Volstead Act, being an act of Congress passed pursuant to the eighteenth amendment of the federal constitution, and to enforce its provisions.

The question whether a state may enact a law in that manner is not a new one in the jurisprudence of the United States. Wherever there is no constitutional provision which forbids it, it is proper to declare that any law of the United States, or of another state, shall be the law of this state. We find no constitutional provision in this state which forbids such action. That portion of section 24 of article IV of the constitution which reads as follows, to wit: “No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title; but in such case the act revised or section amended shall be re-enacted and published at length as revised or amended, ’ ’ does not prohibit…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.