their proposal with empty (and probably unfunded) promises. Results could range fr e our State and is prohibited by our constitution. The potential and temptations for creative logrolling have few limits. Our constitution, read properly, forbids embracing two subjects in one bill whether the subjects are operative or not. I agree with the majority that mere “policy fluff’ does not create a second subject. But this case is not about mere policy fluff, or broad statements of purpose. This case is not about preambles, and we have no occasion to consider whether truly precatory language, properly constrained to a preamble, can create a second subject. I am inclined to think it would not. Cf. State ex rel. Berry v. Superior Court for Thurston County, 92 Wash. 16, 30-32, 159 P. 92 (1916) (<HOLDING>). Preambles, at their best, are eloquent
holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language holding that when language is exactly the same in two statutory provisions the meaning of that language is also identical holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district court holding that liability for negligently entrusting a vehicle to an unlicensed driver is part of the law of bailments but not part of the law of sales or gifts holding nonbinding language in a preface or preamble is no part of the law