Cominus.com :: Seattle V Williams

In the past, God overlooked mans' ignorance, but now He commands all
people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge
the world with justice by the Man, Jesus Christ; the One He has appointed.
He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead.
                                                                                        -Acts 17:30-31

Seattle v Williams :: 128 Wn2d 341

Category: Bureaucracy and Documents

The focus of this case is whether a local traffic ordinance may be enforced when there is a conflict with State statute. The municipal court determined that the difference in breath standards (for DUI) between the Seattle Municipal Code and the Revised Code of Washington did in fact violate the Supremacy Clause of the State Constitution (art. 11, sec. 11). In other words, the local code violated the “general laws” of the State.

The majority cited the “mischief caused by such nonuniform application of traffic laws. . . . One can easily imagine the problems that such balkanization of our traffic laws would cause motorists who traverse the 38 distinct political jurisdictions that Interstate 5 crosses . . ..”

The minority agrees with the City on constitutional grounds. They argue that the law does not violate the Constitution. But their argument deteriorates into a maze of capital letters and numbers and a reference to art. 11, sec 10 which appears to give large cities some autonomy. But this clause in fact holds their authority under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and the laws of the State.

The majority, using long held precedent, rejected the constitutional arguments, stating that, “if, in order to resolve an issue before us, it is not necessary to reach a constitutional question, an appellate court should decline to do so.” Then they use the next six pages to explain that uniformity of traffic laws are mandated by RCW 46.08.020 and .030.

The issue that all sides neglect, whether by intent or ignorance, is this: Does the acceptance of a driver’s license constitute a contract with the State? If so, whose law has the driver contracted to conform to?

Rating the Usual Suspects:
passAlexander, Gerry  
passDurham, Barbara  
passGuy, Richard  
passHalpert, Helen  
passJohnson, Charles  
passMadsen, Barbara  
passUtter, Robert  
failDolliver, James  
failInnis, Jeanne  
failSidren, Mark  
failSmith, Charles  
failTalmadge, Phil  

«« Back To Case Reviews


PSA 139:1-4 [NIV] :: O LORD, You have searched me and You know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; You perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; You are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue You know it completely, O LORD.

SITE MENU
HOME

God's Call

Tandem Vincitur Firmly Established Isaiah's Warning Salvation - Who? Salvation - How? Prayers

Cominus' Agenda

Cominus Papers Under Tower Babel Blog Dean's Recipes Work For FOO

Judicial Forum

Judicial Reviews Judicial Ratings Judicial Elections Judicial Questions Justice Goodloe

Site Docket

Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms Of Use

Our Products:
Content Management
Domains For Lease
Diesel Database
For Sale File
Fun Feed
Bargain Patrol
Google Zoogle

Our Clients:
Extreme Coatings
KMSGC Pr Wash
Jack Case Cowboy
Idaho Truck Repair
Import Profile
Const'l Income
Truth In Taxation

Our Businesses:
Cougar Gulch Group
Unique Motif
Buy Cadillac
Idaho Contractor