Court Opinion

ID: 9508857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:39:49.618714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:40.649774
License: Public Domain

*392CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE,
specially concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion.
I believe that the analysis concerning ambiguity in Art. VII, Sec. 8(2), Mont. Const., is correct under the existing precedents cited in the majority opinion; however, it would not have been necessary to discuss this question.
There is no need to balance the interpretations of Art. VII, Sec. 8(1), and Art. VII, Sec. 8(2). The plain and unambiguous language of Art. VII, Sec. 8(1), ‘‘[e]ach nomination shall be confirmed by the Senate, but a nomination made while the Senate is not in session shall be effective as an appointment until the end of the next session” requires no interpretation or balancing. (Emphasis supplied.)
This Court applies the rules of statutory construction when interpreting the Constitution. Under those rules, the intent of the framers is controlling and that intent must first be determined from the plain language of the words used. Butte-Silver Bow Local Govern. v. State (1989), 235 Mont. 398, 768 P.2d 327, 330, 46 St.Rep. 87, 90.
The emphasized language of Art. VII, Sec. 8(1), is plain and unambiguous. The words are clear and need no interpretation.