that will not render the statute’s application absurd, u s that “[a]ll persons are born equally free, have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.” The scope of the right to enjoy life and pursue happiness stated in Article II, Section 4 of the New Mexico Constitution, and whether violation of that section’s provisions gives rise to a cause of action under the Tort Claims Act, has not been determined. Cf. California First Bank v. State, 111 N.M. 64, 76, 801 P.2d 646, 658 (1990) (refusing to reach issue because not properly raised). But see Oldfield v. Benavidez, 116 N.M. 785, 790, 867 P.2d 1167, 1172 (1994) (<HOLDING>). It is clear, however, that mere references to
holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution holding defendant to a preference action has a right to a jury trial pursuant to the seventh amendment of the united states constitution but that right can be waived by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings recognizing the fourteenth amendment to the united state constitution embodies a right to familial integrity but stating the parameters of the right have never been clearly established and the right is not absolute or unqualified holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel