Opinion ID: 845744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: presumptive understanding of the framers of the michigan constitution

Text: A reasonable person must presume that the drafters and ratifiers of our state constitution expected Michigan courts to apply the absurd results rule of construction to Michigan statutes. This is because it was well-established by 1963 that courts should construe statutes to avoid absurd results and at times should depart from a strictly literal application of statutory language. Also, the Michigan Constitution includes no language disapproving this principle. Accordingly, the Court's earlier approval of the principle was consistent with the original intent of the drafters of the state constitution. Notably, in 1976, a time much closer to the adoption of the current Michigan Constitution than the present, this Court, in a majority opinion joined by six justices, stated: [It is a] fundamental rule of statutory construction that departure from the literal construction of a statute is justified when such construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and would be clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the act in question. Salas v. Clements, 399 Mich. 103, 109, 247 N.W.2d 889 (1976).