Opinion ID: 1405270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Fundamental Principles; Public Policy

Text: Mr. Brower contends the Act is unconstitutional because it violates fundamental principles in violation of art. I, §§ 1 and 32 of the Washington State Constitution and is against public policy in light of other constitutional violations he claims result from the Act. Article I, section 32 provides that [a] frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government. This provision has primarily been viewed as an interpretative mechanism in connection with individual rights, and has also been used to define principles of state and local government. Seeley v. State, 132 Wash.2d 776, 809-12, 940 P.2d 604 (1997). The court has reasoned that the provision emphasizes the importance of individual rights provided in Const. art I, §§ 1-31. Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wash.2d 772, 780-81, 819 P.2d 370 (1991). Article I, section 32 has not been interpreted as providing substantive rights in and of itself. The Act does not otherwise violate the constitution, and we will not apply art. I, § 32 to overturn the measure. Mr. Brower's claims of violation of public policy are duplicative of his claims that numerous constitutional provisions have been violated. We hold that the Act does not violate fundamental principles or public policy.