Preview:

1/29/01

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 00-CA-1176 EUGENE C. LATOUR, II, CLYDE LAFLEUR and JOSEPH L. LACHNEY, JR. VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA; HONORABLE M.J. "MIKE" FOSTER, GOVERNOR; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, ATTORNEY GENERAL; WILLIAM R. "RUT" WHITTINGTON, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE POLICE ON APPEAL FROM THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF EVANGELINE, HONORABLE PRESTON AUCOIN, JUDGE CALOGERO, Chief Justice, subscribing to the opinion and assigning additional reasons. I agree with the majority opinion. However, I write separately to build on that reasoning on an issue that I feel is important to the resolution of this case. Laws enacted by the Legislature are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality from our courts. See State v. Griffin, 495 So. 2d 1306, 1308 (La. 1986); City of Lake Charles v. Henning, 414 So. 2d 331, 333 (La. 1982). Further, "it is not enough [for a person challenging a statute] to show that the constitutionality [of the statute] is fairly debatable, but, rather, it must be shown clearly and convincingly that it was the constitutional aim to deny the Legislature the power to enact the statute." Board of Directors of Louisiana Recovery Dist. v. Taxpayers, Property Owners, & Citizens of the State of Louisiana, 529 So. 2d 384, 388 (La. 1988); accord Ancor v. Belden Concrete Products, Inc., 260 La. 372, 379, 256 So. 2d 122, 125 (1971). This presumption of a statute's constitutionality is especially true in a situation such as this where the Legislature has limited the scope of gambling because the Louisiana Constitution commands: "Gambling shall be defined by and suppressed by the 1

legislature." La. Const. art. XII,

Download CALOGERO, C.J., additionally, concurs and assigns reasons..pdf

Louisiana Law