COURT OF APPEALS DECISON BY JUDGE TRICKEY DOES NOT ADDRESS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES April 28, 2015
The United States Constitution is the Supreme law of the United States. Each of its fifty states also has its own constitution by which the government and officials of each state are governed. Under our traditions of government the meaning of the provisions of a constitution is determined by the judicial branch of government. Judges often interpret constitutional provisions differently. But most start their interpretation with the language of the constitution. I read an MSNBC article recently, which stated: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took the stage at Southern Methodist University Monday night and argued the Constitution is “not a living document” and is “dead, dead, dead.” Justice Scalia discussed how children would visit the Supreme Court and refer to the Constitution as a “living document” but that the Constitution is, in fact, “dead.” A staunch conservative and “textualist,” Scalia believes the law must be taken literally and that the original meaning of the Constitution is the best way to interpret it. Regardless of whether one believes that a constitution is a “dead” document or “living organic law”, it is axiomatic that its interpretation must begin with the exact language of the constitution focused by the historical context in which it was written. Unfortunately, for us in the State of Washington judges appear not inclined to consider constitutional language or historical context when construing the nature and extent of judicial responsibilities. Here is a decision by Judge Trickey of Division 1 of the Washington Court of Appeals (who ran unopposed … Continue Reading