Federalism and Viable State Government--The History of Utah's Constitution 1966 Utah Law Review 1966

1966 Utah L. Rev. 311 (1966)
Federalism and Viable State Government--The History of Utah's Constitution

handle is hein.journals/utahlr1966 and id is 331 raw text is: Federalism and Viable State Government -
The History of Utah's Constitution
By John J. Flynn*
I. INTRODUCTION
The decade of the 1960's has witnessed, thus far, a sharp upswing of
interest in the state of the states. Financial crisis, political paralysis, reappor-
tionment, and the continued trend of federal intervention in heretofore
local affairs have forced believers in the federal idea to reexamine the
status of state government. Efforts have been made in learned1 and popular
journals2 to explain the reasons for the decline of state government and the
continued growth of federal power. Concern with the condition of state
government in Utah has been evidenced by the passage of a joint resolution
by the Thirty-sixth Legislature submitting the question of the need for a
constitutional convention to the voterss and by legislative action initiating
studies of the executive,4 legislative,5 and judicial6 branches of Utah state
government. Concern with the status of Utah's government has wisely
turned to the fundamental document creating that government, the Utah
Constitution of 1896.
To be sure, the decline of state government has not been caused solely by
deficiencies in the governmental structure created by state constitutions. But
it will be the purpose of this Symposium to examine the contribution the
Utah constitution has made to the decline of state government and the
consequent inevitable increase of federal intervention into the void left by
constitutionally unable state government.
Two factors, however, must be evaluated with the individual studies in
this Symposium. The first is to place in perspective the role state constitu-
tions have played in the larger panorama of American federalism. The
second is to place Utah's constitution in its historical perspective, to better
understand why Utah adopted a basic framework of government designed
to prevent government from governing.
* Assistant Professor of Law, University of Utah.
1See, e.g., Barnhart, A New Constitution for Arkansas?, 17 ARK. L. RaV. 1 (1963);
Dionisopoulos, Indiana, 1851, Alaska, 1956: A Century of Difference in State Consti-
tutions, 34 Im. L.J. 34 (1958); Feldman, A Constitutional Convention in New York:
Fundamental Law and Basic Politics, 42 CORN. L.Q. 329 (1957); Flynn, The Crisis of
Federalism: Who is Responsible?, 51 A.B.A.J. 229 (1965); Karsh, A Missouri Consti-
tutional Convention in 1963, 25 Mo. L. REv. 50 (1960); Pope, Tennessee's Octoge-
narian Constitution, 22 TENN. L. REv. 346 (1952); Schnader, Dead Wood in the
Pennsylvania Constitution, 25 TEMP. L.Q. 399 (1952); Symposium -Nebraska Con-
stitutional Revision, 40 NEB. L. REv. 559 (1961).
Armbrister, The Octopus in the State House, The Saturday Evening Post, Feb. 12,
1966, p. 25; Brown, How to Put the States Back in Business, Harpers, Sept. 1964, p. 98;
Tydings, The Last Chance for the States, Harpers, March 1966, p. 71.
'Utah Laws 1965, S.J. Res. 3, at 695.
'Utah Laws 1965, ch. 138, at 387.
'Utah Laws 1st Spec. Sess. 1966, ch. 6, at 4.
'Utah Laws 1st Spec. Sess. 1966, ch. 7, at 6.
311

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

What Is HeinOnline?

Purchase Access

Contact Us

Log In

NEED HELP?

CONTACT US

Get started

Subscribe to our Newsletter