norml17 - Page 21

 The history of the adoption of a particular state constitutional provision may
 reveal an intention that will support reading the provi_;ion independently of
 federal lawo ''77
 The constitutional history of Section 32 remains somewhat of a
 mystery° The original proposed constitution by W. Lair Hill contained only
 31 sections to Article I. The Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Illinois
 constitutions contained '_similar" clauses 78 (references to fftmdamental
 principles) but Washingtoffs connection of fundamental principles to
 individual rights was vmique. 79 Section 32 was proposed by George Turner,
 whose later speeches as a U.S. Senator leads to the conclusion that Turner,
 like others of his day, believed that constitutional interpretation often required
 a return to natural law principles beyond the four comers of the constitution, so
 The common law history involving Section 32 provides more solid
 ammunition -- at least, the history of Section 32 as incorporated in common
 law since 1889. Section 32 has been used by judges to advocate expansion
 of the scope of constitutional protections of individual liberties against
 intrusions of private actors. 8_ It has also been cited to overcome the inerda of
 1stare decisi_ to reject 19th century precedents as outmoded for determining
 twentieth century disputes -- automobiles should not be governed by horse
 and buggy laws. _2
 Likewise, laws passed against drugs during an era when the therapeutic
 values were unknown should not cause preventable suffering today.
 "Previously established bodies of state law, including statutory law,
 may also bear on the granting of distinctive state constitutional rights. State
 law may be responsive to concerns of its citizens long before they are
 77 .Cgm_vc_LL _ note 50 at 61.
 7s "Sources of Washington Constitution" section, 1991-92 Legislative Matured, page 370.
 79 Snure, sup_ra, page 676.
 8o $nure, _ page 674, citing 32 Cong. ReCo 783, 785, 789 (1899) (statement of Sen. Turner against
 United States imperialism in the Philippines.)
 8I S_o_u_thcenter Joint Veil_rut, _ "
 "- "
 , Justice Utter concurring in result
 only, 113 Wn.2d 413 at 439-40, 780 Po2d 1282 at 1286-87 (1989).
 82 Footev. Grant. 55 Wn.2d 797 at g06-807, 350 P.2d 870 at 876 (Foster, ,I._ dissenting).
 21