In re Interrogatories case brief

In re Interrogatories case brief
Citation:  193 Colo. 298

Colorado Housing Finance Authority Act - issued bonds to provide finds for the achievement of low-income housing goals.
The bill was designed in order to create a reserve fund.
With the fund, the bonds were to be sold in the national bond market.
The senate questioned the court: "whether the bill violated sections of the Colorado state constitution?"

Court says: No

Court ruled that the authority, as a political subdivision of the state, has the power to incur obligations in its own name.  Its obligations thus did not constitute a constitutional debt of the state.

Also, the appropriation did not constitute a debt because it was discretionary and nonobligatory.

NOT A PLEDGE
Furthermore, the appropriation did not constitute a pledge of the state's credit. 
-This is because no debt was created and there was no lending of credit.

DID NOT MINGLE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS.
FURTHERED A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.

The Housing Authority has a reserve fund.
If the reserve fund needs replenished - go to the legislature.
The legislature may appropriate the funds to pay and the governor may approve.

Issue:  Whether the state is on the hook for this debt - is it government debt?

Holding:  No, it is not government debt because there is no legal obligation. 

Analysis:

-The government may replenish the reserve.
-The state is not required to pay you if the revenue backing is not sufficient. 
-Not a legally enforceable promise.

Bradwell v. Illinois case brief summary

Bradwell v. Illinois case brief summary

83 U.S. 130 (1873)

Subject/Issue: Woman's right to practice law. 
Does a woman have a right to practice law?
Does a woman have a constitutional right to be admitted to the bar?

Facts:
Myra Bradwell sued Illinois (the state) because it would not grant her a license to practice law.
She was denied because she was a female.
Bradwell argued fervently that a woman’s right to practice law was one of the privileges and immunities that was guaranteed to her by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding:
Surprisingly, the court disagreed!

Analysis:
Judge Miller stated that the decision of whether or not to admit a person to a state's bar does not rest on the question of citizenship.  If citizenship was allowed to be a criterion, the application of that criterion should rest with the states.

Concurring Opinion
"Although the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees certain privileges and immunities, these privileges and immunities cannot be said to include the right of women to practice law.
History shows that men and women have always occupied separate spheres and that women have been properly allocated domestic duties. This natural balance has been reflected in the law, which prevents a married woman from making a contract without her husband’s consent. The settled order should not be upset."

Question for review:  How do you think that this decision would play out today?  Would it be the same?