stating that, where “the language of the constitution is not ambiguous it is not permissible to interpret it differently from its plain meaning”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, where “the language of the constitution is not ambiguous it is not permissible to interpret it differently from its plain meaning”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Dunn: I concur in the views expressed by Mr. Chief Justice Carter in the foregoing dissenting opinion.