Opinion ID: 2615891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Role of the court in constitutional interpretation and enforcement.

Text: [6] Appellants assign error to the trial court's conclusion that [i]t is the proper function of this court to interpret and enforce the constitution of the State of Washington ... We do not agree. The ultimate power to interpret, construe and enforce the constitution of this State belongs to the judiciary. Brownlee v. Clark, 87 Wn.2d 478, 482, 553 P.2d 1344 (1976); Haines v. Anaconda Aluminum Co., 87 Wn.2d 28, 34, 549 P.2d 13 (1976); Plummer v. Gaines, 70 Wn.2d 53, 58, 422 P.2d 17 (1966); State Highway Comm'n v. Pacific N.W. Bell Tel. Co., 59 Wn.2d 216, 222, 367 P.2d 605 (1961). See State ex rel. O'Connell v. Slavin, 75 Wn.2d 554, 557, 452 P.2d 943 (1969); State ex rel. Humiston v. Meyers, 61 Wn.2d 772, 777, 380 P.2d 735 (1963). See also Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 28, 95 L.Ed. 713, 71 S.Ct. 557 (1950). As we said in In re Juvenile Director, 87 Wn.2d 232, 241, 552 P.2d 163 (1976): Both history and uncontradicted authority make clear that `[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.' United States v. Nixon [418 U.S. 683, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039, 94 S.Ct. 3090 (1974)], supra at 703, quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), even when that interpretation serves as a check on the activities of another branch or is contrary to the view of the constitution taken by another branch. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549, 23 L.Ed.2d 491, 89 S.Ct. 1944 (1969); Tacoma v. O'Brien, 85 Wn.2d 266, 534 P.2d 114 (1975). As stated in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, 82 S.Ct. 691 (1962): Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Further, the effect of a judicial interpretation of the constitution may not be modified or impaired in any way by the legislature. See Haines v. Anaconda Aluminum Co., supra at 34.