OLYMPIA – Standing in line at Safeway one evening last week, I was reminded that almost everyone considers themselves an expert in constitutional law.

An irate shopper was unhappy that his total was more than the amount available on his bank card and a coupon he was sure was good, wasn’t. The more irate he became, the calmer the cashier became, repeating slowly that she was sorry but there wasn’t anything she could do. With increasing volume, he said he didn’t like her attitude and the way she was looking at him, reached into the bag and pulled out items to reduce the tab. The manager came over and offered to help if he would calm down at which point the shopper declared with even more volume he was within his rights. “The First Amendment gives me the right to complain,” he shouted. “You can look it up. If you don’t believe me, you can ask Rachel Maddow.”

Eventually, he grabbed up his bag of groceries and left, leaving the cashier to shake her head but ring up other purchases rather than call the MSNBC host. I assured her that having read the First Amendment carefully, it did not contain the right to be a jerk.

Such certitude over what a constitution says or doesn’t say infuses the fight over public school funding . . .

. . .  in what is generally shorthanded as the McCleary case, in which the state Supreme Court is ordering the Legislature to do more to live up to the constitutional duty of make education the state’s paramount duty. It is difficult to find a legislator or high-level member of the executive branch who isn’t sure what is within the constitutional authority of the state Supreme Court, and what is outside of it. If only they all agreed.

The court seemed to put legislators on the judicial equivalent of double secret probation on Thursday. The nine justices said legislators are in contempt by the simple fact that they failed to do what the court told them to do earlier this year, come up with a plan for getting public schools up to constitutional snuff by 2018. Considering that legislators instead came up with a long-winded explanation – some might say excuse – for why they couldn’t come up with a plan, this might be considered the “no-duh” part of the ruling. But rather than levy some sort of penalty or punishment, the justices gave legislators another session to work it out, with the promise of bad things to come should there be a repeat performance. Not exactly the wisdom of Solomon, but definitely the better part of discretion.

This immediately touched off what will be months more of debate as to how, or whether, one branch of government might constitutionally impose its will on another branch of government. One can only hope that these conflicting pronouncements, usually delivered with absolute certitude, will have more to back them up than the irate shopper.

---

---