Naftalin v. King

I dissent.

The majority admits that the act under consideration contravenes Minn. Const, art. 9, § 5, but refuses to declare the act unconstitutional. They say, after considering some of the facts involved in the case and the decisions upon which they rest their opinion:

“It follows logically from this that the issuance of such certificates creates a debt within the meaning of Minn. Const, art. 9, § 5, and to the extent that such amount exceeds $250,000, it is a violation of that provision.”

I refuse to join in the type of reasoning that permits an admitted unconstitutional act to be called…