Cited by

5/7/13), (“Because the provisions of the Louisiana Constitution are not grants of power, but instead are limitations on the otherwise plenary power of the people of the state, exercised through the legislature, the legislature may enact any legislation that the constitution does not prohibit.”).

5/7/13), )(other internal quotations omitted).

5/7/13), -49 (citations omitted)(“[T]he constitution is the supreme law of this state to which all legislative instruments must yield .

5/7/13), State v. Citizen, 04-1841 (La.

5/7/13), -58 (internal citations omitted).

5/7/13), (observing that “constitutional provisions are never mere technicalities, but are part of the basic, fundamental provisions in our system of laws”).

5/7/13), (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court laid out these principles: [B]ecause it is presumed that the legislature acts within its constitutional authority in promulgating a legislative instrument, this court must construe a legislative instrument so as to preserve its constitutional

5/7/13), , 1048 (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court laid out these principles: [B]ecause it is presumed that the legislature acts within its constitutional authority in promulgating a legislative instrument, this court must construe a legislative instrument so as to preserve its constitutionality when it is reason

5/7/13), , 1048 ; Wooley v. State Farm Fire and Cas.

5/7/13), the majority concluded that “New Type 2 charter schools are not public schools in the sense of the Louisiana Constitution.” Iberville Par.

5/7/13), -49 (emphasis added), and stated: As a general rule, legislative instruments are presumed to be constitutional; therefore, the party challenging the validity of a legislative instrument has the burden of proving its unconstitutionality.

5/7/13), , 1048-49 (emphasis added), and stated: As a general rule, legislative instruments are presumed to be constitutional; therefore, the party challenging the validity of a legislative instrument has the burden of proving its unconstitutionality.

5/7/13), “[u]nder well- established rules of interpretation, the word ‘shall’ excludes the possibility of being ‘optional’ or even subject to ‘discretion,’ but instead ‘shall’ means ‘imperative, of similar effect and import with the word ‘must.’” (Citations omitted.)

5/7/13), , in support of their argument.

See generally Louisiana Fed’n of Teachers v. State, 13-0120 (La.5/7/13), (“statutes exist within the bounds of the Constitution, not vice versa.”) (internal citation omitted); see also M.J.

2 In our per curiam opinion, we stated: Pretermitting the merits of the appeal, we find the parties and the district court did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State of Louisiana, 13-0120, 13-0232, 13-0350 (La.5/7/13), .

Louisiana Fed’n of Teachers v. State, 2013-0120 (La.5/7/13), ; Silver Dollar Liquor Inc. v. Red River Parish Police Jury, 2010-2776 (La.9/7/11), .

See Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State of Louisiana, 2013-0120 (La.5/7/13), .

Therefore, “|w]e begin, as we must, with the applicable constitutional language.” Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State, 13-0120, p. 24 (La.5/7/13), .

Fed’n of Teachers v. State, 2013-0120, p. 15 (La.5/7/13), , 1044 citing Joint Rules of the Louisiana Senate and House, Rule No. 20(A)(1)(b)(iii).

Pretermitting the merits of the appeal, we find the parties and the district court did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State of Louisiana, 13-0120, 13-0232, 13-0350 (La.5/7/13), , 2013 WL 1878913 .