ÿWPCH> …# VUNa %¯ 0Nµb 0Ù ä w@ì 4, @ †O 0@Õ 0D 0JY 0T£ 0^÷ 0hU 0r½ 0|/ 0†« 01 1uÁ 0d6 BšU2>·B)õDC AMaU*® D3Ø- ¬8eäSI€œÑ¿íܬøˆ!»€$×;(¢*W´,6 /A3v~R5vÓÐ6 AO£<Æò< 0D¸= D/ü= B+>˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù- ù-(‰(2 /$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xe~X¼¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó E/  P Ó€DÒ 3|xgilley v. culpepper - concurring opinion Í  ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd€ -Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial))))'ÿÿdxd #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌJune€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThese€statutes€pertaining€to€mayor„aldermanic€charters€were€repealed€in€1991€and€wereÏreplaced€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€6„1„101€through€6„4„402€(1992€&€Supp.€1996).Ì [Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThese€statutes,€as€amended,€are€now€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€16„18„101,€„102€(1994).Ì IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€statute€is€currently€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„18„102(2)€(1994).Ì vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€does€not€contain€copies€of€the€ordinances€that€would€have€been€requiredÏfor€the€appointment€of€a€municipal€judge.Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€appointment€was€presumably€made€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„18„101€(the€successor€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„123);€however,€the€record€does€not€contain€aÏcopy€of€the€required€ordinance.Ì µÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„18„201€establishes€the€electoral€process€as€an€alternative€to€theÏappointment€process.€€Municipalities€may€continue€appointing€their€municipal€judges€if€theyÏwish.Ì ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTwenty„one€of€the€159€general€sessions€judges€in€Tennessee€are€not€lawyers.€€InÏaddition,€248€of€the€343€incorporated€cities€in€Tennessee€have€municipal€courts.€ÏApproximately€75€of€these€courts€are€presided€over€by€non„lawyer€judges.€€òòSeeóó€M.€Lee€SmithÏPublishers,€òòTennessee€Attorneys€Directoryóó€(1997);€Municipal€Technical€Advisory€Service,ÏUniversity€of€Tennessee,€òòDirectory€of€Tennessee€Municipal€Officialsóó€(1996).€€The€number€ofÏcity€court€judges€with€law€degrees€has€increased€since€1978€when€only€57%€of€the€municipalÏcourt€judges€were€lawyers.€€Frederic€S.€Le€Ô_ÔClercqÔ_Ô,€òòThe€Tennessee€Court€System,óó€8€Mem.€St.ÏÔ_ÔU.L.Ô_Ô€Rev.€185,€437€(1978).€Ì îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Appellate€Court€Efficiency€Act€in€1989,€cases€involvingÏconstitutional€issues€where€no€factual€or€other€issues€existed€bypassed€the€intermediateÏappellate€courts.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€no€longer€has€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€theseÏtypes€of€cases,€and€they€are€now€routinely€presented€to€the€intermediate€appellate€courts.€€òòSeeóóÏAct€of€April€13,€1989,€ch.€147,€ðð€2,€1989€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€213,€213€(codified€at€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€16„4„108(a)(2)€(1994).€€Ì ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Vermont€Supreme€Court€declined€to€follow€òòNorth€v.€Russellóó€because€the€state€didÏnot€afford€criminal€defendants€the€right€to€a€de€novo€trial€before€a€lawyer€judge.€€òòState€v.ÏÔ_ÔDunkerleyÔ_Ô,óó€365€A.2d€131,€132€(Ô_ÔVtÔ_Ô.€1976).€€Prior€to€òòNorth€v.€Russellóó,€the€state€courts€had€beenÏdivided€on€the€question.€€Compare€òòDitty€v.€Hampton,óó€490€S.W.2d€772,€775„76€(Ky.€Ct.€App.Ï1972);€òòTsiosdia€v.€Rainaldióó,€547€P.2d€553,€555„56€(N.M.€1976)€(approving€the€use€of€non„lawyer€judges)€with€òòGordon€v.€Justice€Court€for€Yuba€Judicial€Dist.,óó€525€P.2d€72,€78„79€(Cal.Ï1974)€(disapproving€the€use€of€non„lawyer€judges).€€Ì ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCharles€Warren,€òòA€History€of€the€American€Baróó€3€(1911);€Frederic€S.€Le€Ô_ÔClercqÔ_Ô,€òòTheÏConstitutional€Policy€That€Judges€Be€Learned€in€the€Law,óó€47€Tenn.€L.€Rev.€at€701„02.Ì ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔProfessorððs€Le€Ô_ÔClercqÔ_Ôððs€assertion€that€the€reception€clause€of€Tenn.€Const.€of€1796,Ïart.€X,€ðð€2€incorporates€North€Carolinaððs€requirement€that€judges€be€ð ðlaw€trainedðð€has€not€beenÏjudicially€endorsed.€€òòSeeóó€Frederic€S.€Le€Ô_ÔClercqÔ_Ô,€òòThe€Constitutional€Policy€That€Judges€BeÏLearned€in€the€Law,€óó47€Tenn.€L.€Rev.€at€712„13.€€Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòCrawford€v.€Ô_ÔGilpatrickÔ_Ô,óó€646€S.W.2d€433,435€(Tenn.€1983)€(stating€that€there€are€noÏgeneral€statutory€qualifications€for€general€sessions€court€judges);€Frederic€S.€Le€Ô_ÔClercqÔ_Ô,€òòTheÏTennessee€Court€System,€óó8€Mem.€St.€Ô_ÔU.L.Ô_Ô€Rev.€at€436.Ì ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€6„21„501(b)(3)€(Supp.€1996)€(requiring€five€cities€with€a€cityÏmanager„commission€form€of€charter€to€appoint€a€city€judge€who€is€an€ð ðattorney€at€law€entitledÏto€practice€in€the€courts€of€the€stateðð);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€6„21„501(c)(1)€(Supp.€1996)Ï(requiring€elected€city€judges€in€Hamilton€and€Knox€Counties€to€be€a€ð ðan€attorney€authorized€toÏpractice€in€the€courts€of€the€stateðð);€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€6„33„102(a)€(1992)€(requiring€cityÏjudges€in€cities€under€a€modified€city€manager„council€charter€to€be€a€ð ðperson€licensed€toÏpractice€law€in€the€state€of€Tennesseeðð).€€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€finding€and€the€partiesððÏstipulation€that€municipal€court€judges€are€not€required€by€statute€to€be€authorized€to€practiceÏlaw€is€only€partially€correct.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€State€has€not€asserted€in€this€case€that€the€present€statutory€qualifications€forÏmunicipal€court€judges€or€general€sessions€judges€is€contrary€to€the€equal€protection€or€classÏlegislation€provisions€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€or€Tenn.€Const.€art.€XI,€ðð€8.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€ ‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ€ÑÑ7€$¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€+„ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEó ó̜ـ€ÙßR€.2-A1-j|+é` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÔ€+¼ÔÌÌÌTHE€CITY€OF€WHITE€HOUSE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àœ€€€€€€€€€€›à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSumner€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€95C„41Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌLAWRENCE€RAY€WHITLEY,à àà à)à àAppeal€No.ÌDistrict€Attorney€General€for€theà àà à)à à01A01„9612„CH„00571ÌEighteenth€Judicial€District€of€theà àà à)ÌState€of€Tennessee,€à àà àà àà à)ÌœET€AL.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÓ€ÓÔ€+„Ôà@ àò òòòDISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌÔ€+¼ÔÌà àThe€sole€issue€on€this€appeal€is€whether€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€requiresÏmunicipal€court€judges€to€be€licensed€lawyers€if€they€exercise€concurrentÏjurisdiction€with€general€sessions€courts€in€cases€involving€violations€of€stateÏlaw€within€the€territorial€limits€of€their€municipality.€€Issues€relating€to€theÏqualifications€of€Tennesseeððs€judges€are€of€compelling€public€importanceÏrequiring€deliberate,€careful€consideration.€€I€cannot€concur€with€either€theÏcourtððs€methodology€or€its€result.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àThe€City€of€White€House€lies€in€both€Robertson€and€Sumner€Counties.€ÏIt€was€incorporated€in€1971€using€a€mayor€and€aldermanic€charter€authorizedÏby€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€6„101,€„134€(1971).× ƒ3 ××  ×€€The€enabling€statutes€at€thatÏtime€did€not€provide€for€a€municipal€judge,€and€in€fact,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€6„132€stated€that€the€mayor€had€ð ðall€the€powers€of€a€justice€of€the€peace€withinÏthe€municipality,€for€the€purpose€of€keeping€the€peace€and€trying€offensesÏagainst€any€ordinances€or€the€laws€of€the€state.ððÌÌà àIn€1972,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€Due€ProcessÏClause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€prohibited€mayors€from€serving€asÏjudges€when€the€fines,€forfeitures,€costs,€and€fees€generated€by€their€courtsÏprovided€a€substantial€portion€of€the€cityððs€funds.€€òòWard€v.€Village€ofÏÔ_ÔMonroevilleÔ_Ô,óó€409€U.S.€57,€61,€93€S.€Ct.€80,€83€(1972).€€Accordingly,€in€1973Ïthe€General€Assembly€enacted€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„123€(Supp.€1973)× ƒ4 ××  ×€toÏempower€the€governing€body€of€the€municipality€to€establish€the€office€ofÏmunicipal€judge€by€ordinance.€€Rather€than€prescribing€specific€qualificationsÏfor€the€office,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„123× ƒ5 ××  ×€left€the€matter€of€the€judgeððsÏqualifications€to€the€cityððs€governing€body.ÌÌà àFrom€1973€until€1988,€the€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermen€of€WhiteÏHouse€appointed€various€lawyers€to€serve€as€municipal€judge,€presumably€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„123.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€When€the€person€serving€asÏmunicipal€judge€resigned€in€1988,€the€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermen,Ïfollowing€a€practice€common€in€other€parts€of€the€state,€requested€the€generalÏsessions€judges€from€Robertson€and€Sumner€Counties€to€act€as€White€HouseððsÏmunicipal€judge.€€Accordingly€the€general€sessions€judge€from€Sumner€CountyÏpresided€over€the€cases€arising€in€the€part€of€the€city€located€in€SumnerÏCounty,€and€the€general€sessions€judge€from€Robertson€County€presided€overÏthe€cases€arising€in€the€part€of€the€city€located€in€Robertson€County.€€BothÏthese€general€sessions€court€judges€were€presumably€licensed€lawyers.€€TwoÏyears€later,€in€1990,€the€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermen€appointed€a€licensedÏlawyer€to€serve€as€the€cityððs€sole€municipal€judge.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIn€1992€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€municipal€judges€couldÏnot€constitutionally€exercise€concurrent€jurisdiction€over€state€criminalÏoffenses€if€they€were€appointed€as€opposed€to€elected.€€òòState€ex€rel.€SouthÏCarthage€v.€Barrett,óó€840€S.W.2d€895,€899€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€GeneralÏAssembly€responded€in€1993€by€enacting€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„18„201,€„207Ï(1994)€authorizing€incorporated€municipalities€to€enact€ordinances€providingÍfor€the€popular€election€of€municipal€judges.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„18„202Ïprescribes€the€qualification€for€these€elected€judges€as€follows:€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]nyÔ_Ô€cityÏjudge€elected€by€popular€vote€must€meet€the€requirements€established€in€articleÏVI,€ðð€4€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€for€judges€of€inferior€courts.ððÌÌà àOn€February€17,€1994,€the€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermen€enactedÏOrdinance€94„1€establishing€a€city€court€for€the€City€of€White€House.€€SectionÏ1„503(b)€contains€age,€residence,€and€minimum€education€requirements€butÏdoes€not€require€the€city€judge€to€be€licensed€to€practice€law€in€Tennessee.€ÏThe€city€judge€has€jurisdiction€to€try€ð ðpersons€charged€with€the€violation€ofÏmunicipal€ordinances.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Section€1„502(a).€€If€the€city€judge€is€elected,€heÏor€she€also€has€ð ðthe€authority€to€exercise€jurisdiction€concurrent€with€courts€ofÏgeneral€sessions€in€all€cases€involving€the€violation€of€the€criminal€laws€of€theÏstate€within€the€corporate€limits€of€the€city.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Section€1„502(c).€€ÌÌà àIn€August€1994,€the€residents€of€White€House€elected€Charles€R.ÏÔ_ÔBobbittÔ_Ô,€Jr.€as€their€first€elected€city€judge.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBobbittÔ_Ô€met€all€of€theÏrequirements€for€the€office€contained€in€Ordinance€No.€94„1,€ðð€1„503(b)€butÏwas€not€a€licensed€lawyer.›€€Following€the€election,€the€District€AttorneysÏGeneral€for€the€Eighteenth€and€Nineteenth€Judicial€Districts,€that€includeÏRobertson€and€Sumner€Counties,€declined€to€prosecute€violations€of€stateÏstatutes€occurring€within€the€White€House€city€limits€in€the€White€House€CityÏCourt.€€Their€decision€stemmed€from€a€concern€that€prosecuting€stateÏwarrants€in€the€White€House€City€Court€might€violate€the€defendantsðð€dueÍprocess€rights€because€Judge€Ô_ÔBobbittÔ_Ô€was€not€a€licensed€lawyer.€€The€districtÏattorneys€general€received€some€support€from€the€Attorney€General€andÏReporter€who€rendered€an€opinion€on€June€16,€1994€stating€that€Judge€Ô_ÔBobbittÔ_ÔÏð ðmight€also€be€disqualified€from€disposing€of€cases€involving€adults€whereÏsuch€cases€involve€the€possibility€of€incarceration€or€other€deprivation€ofÏliberty.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Op.€Ô_ÔAttððyÔ_Ô€Gen.€U94„91€(June€16,€1994).€€The€attorney€generalððsÏobservation€was€based€on€an€extrapolation€from€an€earlier€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€decision€holding€that€non„lawyer€judges€could€not€preside€over€juvenileÏdelinquency€hearings€where€the€juvenile€faced€the€possibility€of€confinementÏor€other€loss€of€liberty.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.€Mitchell,óó€596€S.W.2d€779,€791Ï(Tenn.€1980).€€ÌÌà àThe€White€House€city€officials€desired€to€avoid€requiring€their€policeÏofficers€to€travel€to€either€Ô_ÔGallatinÔ_Ô€or€Springfield€to€prosecute€minorÏviolations€of€state€law€occurring€within€the€White€House€city€limits.€€TheyÏrequested€the€district€attorneys€general€to€reconsider€their€position,€and€whenÏthe€district€attorneys€general€declined,€the€City€of€White€House€filed€suit€in€theÏChancery€Court€for€Sumner€County€seeking€declaratory€and€injunctive€relief.€ÏThe€trial€court€filed€an€opinion€on€March€27,€1996,€concluding€that€cityÏjudges€must€meet€all€the€qualifications€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€4,€that€theÏConstitution€of€Tennessee€does€not€require€€city€judges€to€be€ð ðlicensed€toÏpractice€law€or€ððlearned€in€lawðð,ðð€and€that€municipal€court€judges€are€notÏrequired€by€statute€to€be€authorized€to€practice€law.€€Accordingly,€the€trialÏcourt€declared€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôc]oncurrentÔ_Ô€jurisdiction€and€authority€with€courts€ofÏgeneral€sessions€as€set€forth€in€Title€40€in€all€cases€of€the€violation€of€criminalÏlaws€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€within€the€limits€of€municipality€exists€in€theÍWhite€House€City€Court.ðð€€Later,€on€October€15,€1996,€the€trial€court€declinedÏto€issue€a€writ€of€mandamus€directing€the€district€attorneys€general€toÏprosecute€state€warrant€violations€in€the€White€House€city€court€and€declaredÏthat€the€city€judge€could€not€order€the€Sumner€County€sheriff€to€incarcerateÏprisoners€in€the€absence€of€a€contract€between€White€House€and€SumnerÏCounty.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àThe€constitutional€issue€in€this€case€transcends€the€status€of€the€WhiteÏHouse€City€Court.€€It€raises€fundamental€questions€concerning€our€modernÏunderstanding€of€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8.€€It€will€likewise€affect€the€ability€ofÏnon„lawyer€judges€presiding€over€general€sessions€and€municipal€courtsÏthroughout€the€stateÔ_Ô× ƒ9 ××  ×Ô_Ô€to€adjudicate€cases€involving€the€violation€of€stateÏcriminal€statutes€where€the€defendant€faces€the€possibility€of€confinement€orÏother€loss€of€liberty.€€The€present€controversy€should€be€resolved€by€applyingÏTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€to€these€circumstances.€€Regrettably,€the€court€hasÏabdicated€its€responsibility€to€interpret€the€constitution€and€has€decided€insteadÏto€predict€how€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€might€decide€the€issue.€ÏAttempting€to€divine€an€answer€from€the€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.€MitchellóóÍdecision€is€little€more€than€judicial€guesswork.€€The€Constitution€of€TennesseeÏdeserves€better.ÌÌà àThe€Constitution€of€Tennessee€contains€the€fundamental€Ô_ÔprinciplesÔ_Ô€thatÏorder€our€government€and€society.€€òòÔ_ÔMaxey€v.€PowersÔ_Ô,óó€117€Tenn.€381,€400,Ï10Ô_Ô1€S.Ô_ÔW.€181,€186€(1907);€òòBouldin€v.€Lockhartóó,€69€Tenn.€195,€199€(1878);ÏòòState€v.€Turk,óó€8€Tenn.€(Mart.€&€Ô_ÔYerÔ_Ô.)€286,€290„91€(1827).€€These€principlesÏdo€not€remain€static€but€rather€gather€meaning€from€experience.€€òòNationalÏMut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Tidewater€Transfer€Co.,€óó337€U.S.€582,€646,€69€S.€Ct.€1173,Ï1195€(1949)€(Frankfurter,€J.,€dissenting).€€Thus,€as€Justice€Henry€was€so€fondÏof€reminding€us,€our€constitution€contains€not€just€rules€for€the€passing€hour,Ïbut€rather€principles€for€an€expanding€future.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.€Mitchell,Ïóó596€S.W.2d€at€785;€òòCumberland€Capital€Corp.€v.€Pattyóó,€556€S.W.2d€516,€530Ï(Tenn.€1977)€(quoting€Benjamin€Ô_ÔCardozoÔ_Ô,€òòThe€Nature€of€the€Judicial€ProcessóóÏ83€(1921)).€€While€we€should€remain€committed€to€the€growth€and€adaptationÏof€constitutional€principles,€òòÔ_ÔShousaÔ_Ô€v.€Matthews€Ô_ÔDrivurselfÔ_Ô€Serv.,€Inc.,óó€210ÏTenn.€384,€389,€358€S.W.2d€471,€473€(1962),€we€must€make€sure€that€newÏprinciples€truly€evolve€from€old€ones.€€òòMetropolitan€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ô€v.€Poe,óó€215€Tenn.Ï53,€80,€383€S.W.2d€265,€277€(1964).€ÌÌà àOf€the€three€branches€of€government,€the€judiciary€has€the€primaryÏobligation,€and€privilege,€to€keep€the€constitution€alive€and€relevant€toÏcontemporary€society.€The€courts€are€the€constitutionððs€chief€protectors,€òòÔ_ÔNeelyÔ_ÔÏv.€State,óó€63€Tenn.€174,€185€(1874),€and€are€the€chief€expositors€of€theÏfundamental€principles€it€contains.€€òòMetropolitan€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ô€v.€Tennessee€State€Bd.Ïof€Equalization,óó€817€S.W.2d€953,€955€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔWitcherÔ_Ô€v.ÍÔ_ÔBilbreyÔ_Ô,óó€878€S.W.2d€567,€573€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€This€responsibility€fallsÏnot€just€on€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€shoulders.€€All€the€courts€areÏparticipants€in€the€ongoing€constitutional€dialogue,€and€thus€lower€courts,Ïincluding€intermediate€appellate€courts,Ô_Ô× ƒ: ××  ×Ô_Ô€should€not€brush€constitutional€issuesÏaside€by€rationalizing€that€the€supreme€court€will€eventually€get€around€toÏaddressing€them.ÌÌà àConstitutional€adjudication€should€not€be€shaped€by€judicial€ingenuity€orÏby€individual€judgesðð€personal€preferences€or€agendas.€In€order€to€avoidÏarbitrariness,€judges€must€approach€constitutional€questions€in€a€principledÏway€that€takes€into€account€the€text€of€the€constitution€and€the€history,Ïstructure,€and€underlying€values€in€the€entire€document.€€Judges€should€alsoÏprovide€a€full€explanation€of€their€resolution€of€constitutional€issues.€ÏòòSummers€v.€Thompson,óó€764€S.W.2d€182,€188€(Tenn.€1988)€(Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€J.,Ïconcurring).ÌÌà àThe€analysis€of€any€constitutional€issue€should€begin€with€the€text€of€theÏconstitution€itself.€€òòÔ_ÔHatcherÔ_Ô€v.€Bell,óó€521€S.W.2d€799,€803€(Tenn.€1974);ÏòòPrescott€v.€Duncan,óó€126€Tenn.€106,€128,€148€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€229,€234€œ(1912).›€€It€is,Ïafter€all,€the€constitution€that€the€courts€are€expounding,€òòÔ_ÔMcCullochÔ_Ô€v.ÏMaryland,óó€17€U.S.€(4€Wheat.)€316,€407,€4€L.€Ed.€579,€602€(1819),€not€just€theÏearlier€decisions€interpreting€the€constitution.€€òòGraves€v.€New€York€ex€rel.ÍÔ_ÔOððKeefeÔ_Ô,óó€306€U.S.€466,€491„92,€59€S.€Ct.€595,€604€(1939)€(Frankfurter,€J.,Ïconcurring).€€The€meaning€and€significance€of€the€text€can€be€illuminated€byÏconsidering€the€intentions€of€the€drafters,€òòÔ_ÔHatcherÔ_Ô€v.€Bell,óó€521€S.W.2d€at€803,Ïthe€practices€and€usages€in€existence€when€the€constitution€was€ratified,€òòÔ_ÔPeayÔ_ÔÏv.€Nolan,óó€157€Tenn.€222,€230,€7€S.W.2d€815,€817€(1928),€the€common€law,ÏòòWilliams€v.€Taxing€District,óó€84€Tenn.€531,€535€(1886),€and€the€contemporaryÏconstruction€of€the€text€by€the€legislature€and€the€courts.€€òòState€v.€Wilson,óó€80ÏTenn.€246,€265€(1883).€ÌÌà àPrior€judicial€decisions€play€an€important€role€in€constitutionalÏadjudication.€€They€provide€stability€and€consistency€in€constitutionalÏunderstanding,€òòMonday€v.€Ô_ÔMillsapsÔ_Ô,óó€197€Tenn.€295,€298,€271€S.W.2d€857,€858Ï(1954);€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔPittsÔ_Ô€v.€Nashville€Baseball€Club,óó€127€Tenn.€292,€303,€154ÏÔ_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€1151,€1154€œ(1913),›€and€they€also€provide€a€safeguard€against€judges€whoÏmight€desire€to€import€their€own€ideologies€into€the€constitution€by€claimingÏto€have€new€insights€into€the€draftersðð€intentions.€€However,€prior€judicialÏdecisions€cannot€trump€the€text€of€the€constitution.€€As€Judge€Kennedy€notedÏover€one€hundred€and€fifty€years€ago,ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€can€never€follow€precedent,€in€the€line€of€analogy,Ïwhen€it€leads€to€an€infraction€of€the€constitution.€ÏHence€the€necessity€of€a€frequent€recurrence€to€firstÏprinciples.€€If€we€follow€precedent,€and€move€onÏaccording€to€analogy€of€cases,€we€shall€be€led€fromÏstep€to€step€until€the€constitution€itself€will€be€lostÏamidst€the€subtleties€of€the€law.ÌÌÓ€ÓòòBank€v.€Cooper,óó€10€Tenn.€(2€Ô_ÔYerÔ_Ô.)€599,€622€(1831)€(Kennedy,€J.,Ïconcurring).€€I€fear€that€by€focusing€only€on€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.€Mitchellóó,Íthe€court€has€ignored€the€first€principles€and€has€lost€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8Ïin€the€subtleties€of€the€law.€Ì€ÌœÌ›à@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€never€held€that€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ððÏ8€or€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€requires€that€allÏjudges€who€preside€over€criminal€adjudicatory€proceedings€involving€adultsÏmust€be€lawyers.€€While€it€has€held€that€due€process€prevents€the€use€of€non„lawyer€judges€in€juvenile€delinquency€proceedings,€it€pointed€out€that€ð ðthereÏis,€perhaps€some€warrant€for€a€lay€judge€in€the€disposition€of€small€offensesÏand€due€process€is€not€offended.ðð€€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.€Mitchell,óó€596€S.W.2dÏat€788.€€This€observation€is€consistent€with€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtððsÏconclusion€four€years€earlier€that€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€FourteenthÏAmendment€did€not€require€trying€a€criminal€defendant€before€a€non„lawyerÏjudge€when€the€defendant€had€the€right€to€a€de€novo€trial€before€a€lawyerÏjudge.€€òòNorth€v.€Russell,óó€427€U.S.€328,€339,€96€S.€Ct.€2709,€2714€(1976).€€ÌÌà àThose€who€now€desire€to€extend€the€holding€of€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.ÏMitchellóó€to€adult€criminal€adjudicatory€proceedings€in€city€courts€mustÏconfront€òòNorth€v.€Russellóó.€€Virtually€every€other€state€court€addressing€theÏissue€has€reached€a€result€consistent€with€the€òòNorth€v.€Russellóó€decision.€€òòSeeóóÏòòPalmer€v.€Superior€Court,óó€560€P.2d€797,€799€(Ariz.€1977);€òòShoemaker€v.ÏState,óó€375€A.2d€431,€439€(Del.€1977);€òòÔ_ÔTreimanÔ_Ô€v.€State€ex€rel.€Miner,óó€343ÏSo.2d€819,€823€n.2€(Fla.€1977);€òòWalker€v.€State,óó€420€S.E.2d€17,€18„19€(Ga.ÍCt.€App.€1992);€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔSabriÔ_Ô,óó€362€N.E.2d€739,€744€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1977);ÏòòÔ_ÔBroussardÔ_Ô€v.€Town€of€Ô_ÔDelcambreÔ_Ô,óó€458€So.€2d€1003,€1004€(La.€Ct.€App.Ï1984);€òòJenkins€v.€Canaan€Mun.€Court,óó€366€A.2d€208,€209€(N.H.€1976);€òòPeopleÏv.€Charles€F.,óó€458€N.E.2d€801,€802€(N.Y.€1983);€òòCommonwealth€v.€Ô_ÔDessusÔ_Ô,óóÏ396€A.2d€1254,€1260„61€(Pa.€Super.€Ct.€1978);€òòState€v.€Duncan,óó€238€S.E.2dÏ205,€209€(S.C.€1977);€òòÔ_ÔMasqueletteÔ_Ô€v.€State,óó€579€S.W.2d€478,€480€(Tex.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.ÏApp.€1979);€òòYoung€v.€Ô_ÔKonzÔ_Ô,óó€558€P.2d€791,€793„94€(Wash.€1977),€òòaffððd€enÏbancóó,€588€P.2d€1360,€1364„66€(1979);€òòState€ex€rel.€Collins€v.€Ô_ÔBedellÔ_Ô,óó€460ÏS.E.2d€636,€643„45€(W.€Va.€1995);€òòÔ_ÔCanadyÔ_Ô€v.€State,óó€687€P.2d€897,€898„901Ï(Wyo.€1984).Ô_Ôœ× ƒ; ××  ×›Ô_Ô€€ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€is€the€final€arbiter€of€federalÏconstitutional€rights.€€Accordingly,€persons€desiring€to€find€that€due€processÏrequires€the€use€of€lawyer€judges€in€all€adult€criminal€adjudicatoryÏproceedings€must€look€to€their€state€constitutions€for€greater€due€processÏprotections€than€those€found€in€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€In€this€case,€theseÏexpanded€protections€can€exist€only€if€differences€in€the€wording,€history,€orÏconstruction€of€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€support€the€conclusion€that€its€dueÏprocess€protections€are€more€expansive€than€those€in€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.€€The€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.€Mitchellóó€decision€does€not€delineateÏclearly€how€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€differs€from€the€Fourteenth€AmendmentÏand,€legal€scholars€have€criticized€it€accordingly.€€Frederic€S.€Le€Ô_ÔClercqÔ_Ô,€òòTheÍConstitutional€Policy€That€Judges€Be€Learned€in€the€Law,óó€47€Tenn.€L.€Rev.Ï689,€729„32€(1980).€€ÌÌà àMany€of€our€most€fundamental€rights€and€liberties€receive€protectionÏfrom€both€the€Tennessee€and€federal€constitutions.€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€has€often€noted€that€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€a€basic€levelÏof€protection€and€€that€state€constitutions€may€provide€greater€protection€orÏmay€even€protect€rights€that€are€not€protected€by€their€federal€counterpart.€ÏòòBurford€v.€State,óó€845€S.W.2d€204,€207€(Tenn.€1992);€òòDavis€v.€Davis,óó€842ÏS.W.2d€588,€600€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMiddlebrooksÔ_Ô,óó€840€S.W.2d€317,€338Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€The€court€has€even€found€broader€protections€in€theÏConstitution€of€Tennessee€in€a€number€of€circumstances.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.ÏMarshall,óó€859€S.W.2d€289,€290„91,€294„95€(Tenn.€1993)€(holding€that€theÏstate€constitution€provides€greater€protection€for€free€comment€than€the€FirstÏand€Fourteenth€Amendments);€òòState€v.€Black,óó€815€S.W.2d€166,€189,€192„193Ï(Tenn.€1991)€(holding€that€the€state€constitution€provides€different€standardsÏfor€determining€what€constitutes€cruel€and€unusual€punishment);€òòState€v.ÏÔ_ÔJacuminÔ_Ô,óó€778€S.W.2d€430,€435„36€(Tenn.€1989)€(holding€that€Tenn.€Const.Ïart.€I,€ðð€7€requires€different€standards€for€obtaining€a€search€warrant€thanÏdoes€the€Fourth€Amendment);€òòMiller€v.€State,óó€584€S.W.2d€758,€760€(Tenn.Ï1979)€(holding€that€the€ex€post€facto€clause€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€11Ïprovides€greater€protection€than€the€ex€post€facto€clause€in€U.€S.€Const.€art.€I,Ïðð€10,€cl.€1).€€ÌÌà àThe€decisions€construing€the€ð ðlaw€of€the€landðð€clause€in€Tenn.€Const.Ïart.€I,€ðð€8€follow€a€similar€path.€€Even€though€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÍhas€noted€that€it€could€find€expanded€due€process€protections€in€the€stateÏconstitution,€òòState€v.€Barnett,óó€909€S.W.2d€423,€430€n.6€(Tenn.€1995);€òòBurfordÏv.€State,óó€845€S.W.2d€at€207;€òòDoe€v.€Norris,óó€751€S.W.2d€834,€838€(Tenn.Ï1988),€the€court€has€consistently€equated€the€due€process€protections€in€Tenn.ÏConst.€art.€I,€ðð€8€with€the€Due€Process€Clauses€in€the€Fifth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments.€€òòRiggs€v.€Ô_ÔBursonÔ_Ô,óó€941€S.W.2d€44,€51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòDavis€v.ÏState,óó€912€S.W.2d€689,€696€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòÔ_ÔNaleÔ_Ô€v.€Robertson,óó€871€S.W.2dÏ674,€680€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€ex€rel.€Ô_ÔAnglinÔ_Ô€v.€Mitchell,óó€596€S.W.2d€at€786;ÏòòÔ_ÔDearborneÔ_Ô€v.€State,óó€575€S.W.2d€259,€262€(Tenn.€1978);€òòÔ_ÔHarbisonÔ_Ô€v.€KnoxvilleÏIron€Co.,óó€103€Tenn.€421,€431,€53€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€955,€957€(1899).€ÌÌà àTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€and€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€FourteenthÏAmendment€share€similar€values€and€spring€from€common€constitutionalÏmilieus.€€Neither€the€court€nor€the€State€has€pointed€to€differences€in€theÏwording,€history,€or€construction€of€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€that€requireÏconstruing€it€differently€from€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€constructionÏof€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€in€òòNorth€v.€Russellóó.€€Accordingly,€since€theÏrule€of€law€followed€by€the€state€and€federal€courts€should,€whenever€possible,Ïbe€consistent,€òòState€v.€Jones,óó€598€S.W.2d€208,€219€(Tenn.€1980);€òòMiller€v.ÏStateóó,€584€S.W.2d€at€763€(Harbison,€J.,€dissenting),€I€would€hold€that€Tenn.ÏConst.€art.€I,€ðð€8€does€not€require€the€use€of€lawyer€judges€in€municipal€courtsÏexercising€concurrent€jurisdiction€with€the€general€sessions€courts€in€casesÏinvolving€the€violation€of€state€law€within€the€territorial€limits€of€theÏmunicipality.€€ÌÌà àJudicial€proceedings€have€changed€markedly€during€our€two€hundredÏyears€of€statehood.€€Common„law€pleadings€have€given€way€to€newÏprocedures;€some€proceedings€are€substantively€more€complex;€and€there€is€noÏlonger€a€shortage€of€lawyers€similar€to€the€one€existing€when€TennesseeÏbecame€a€state.Ô_Ô× ƒ< ××  ×Ô_Ô€€Thus,€public€convenience€and€sound€judicial€administrationÏmay€very€well€favor€providing€for€judges€who€are€trained€lawyers.€€However,Ïthe€courtsðð€response€to€this€issue€must€be€tempered€by€the€doctrine€of€theÏseparation€of€powers€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€II,€ðððð€1€&€2€and€by€the€recognitionÏthat€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€does€not€require€judges€to€be€lawyers.Ô_Ô× ƒ= ××  ×Ô_Ô€€ÌÌà àThe€General€Assembly€has€substantial€authority€over€the€organization€ofÏthe€judicial€department.€€òòSummers€v.€Thompson,óó€764€S.W.2d€182,€193€(Tenn.Ï1988)€(Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€J.,€concurring).€€It€may€prescribe€qualifications€for€judges€inÏaddition€to€those€contained€in€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€4,€and,€in€fact,€the€GeneralÏAssembly€has€enacted€legislation€requiring€all€state€judges€of€courts€of€recordÏto€be€licensed€lawyers.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„1„106(a)€(1994).€€While€thereÏare€no€similar€general€requirements€for€general€sessions€or€municipal€courtÏjudges,Ô_Ô× ƒ> ××  ×Ô_Ô€the€General€Assembly€has€enacted€statutes€requiring€certainÍmunicipal€court€judges€to€be€licensed€lawyers.× ƒ? ××  ×€€The€question€of€whether€theÏGeneral€Assembly€has€exercised€its€power€to€prescribe€the€qualifications€ofÏmunicipal€court€judges€in€a€responsible,€even„handed€manner€is€not€before€usÏin€this€case.× ƒ@ ××  ×€€Accordingly,€the€question€of€the€qualification€of€TennesseeððsÏmunicipal€court€judges€must€be€resolved€by€the€General€Assembly,€not€by€theÏcourts.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEœ