Court Opinion

ID: 9625099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:27:49.207278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:00.812860
License: Public Domain

ROSSMAN, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the foregoing opinion, but I do not subscribe to the part which says: “Where the constitutionality of an act has not been raised as an issue in the trial court, it will not be considered here. ’ ’ Article VII, § 7,' Constitution of Oregon, requires every member of this court, upon induction into office, to subscribe to *47this oath: “I,--, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, # * That oath, which is exacted by the constitution itself, requires us to disregard any statute or ordinance which conflicts with the constitution. It is true that some decisions, such as The Alpha Corporation v. Multnomah County, 182 Or 671, 189 P2d 988, contain general language declaring that unless the validity of an act was challenged in the trial court this court will treat it as valid. When the record in cases of that kind is examined it will be seen that the appellate court was unable to do otherwise than treat the act as valid, for the record afforded no basis for a finding that the challenged act invaded constitutional rights. Such is also the situation in this case. In concurring, however, I do not want it understood that we are forced to hold an unconstitutional act valid merely because its validity had not been put in issue in the trial court. Any rule of procedure which produced a result of that kind would render the constitution a vanishing document.