not exercise judicial power is astonishing. That proposition is contrary to the Constitution, case law, and common sense. ¶ 60 This “new extrinsic evidence” cannot be used to contradict the plain language in both Article V, section 1, and Article VIII, section 13. “ ‘The rule which should be applied is that laws, and especially foundational laws such as our Constitution, should be interpreted and applied according to the plain import of their language as it would be understood by persons of ordinary intelligence and experience.’ ” Ohms, 881 P.2d at 850 n. 14 (quoting State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 938 (Utah 1975), disavowed on other grounds, State v. Taylor, 664 P.2d 439, 448 n. 4 (Utah 1983)) (citing University of Utah v. Board of Examiners, 4 Utah 2d 408, 295 P.2d 348, 361 (1956) (<HOLDING>); Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead,
holding that if precise issue is not clear in statute reviewing court must not simply impose its own construction but must determine whether agencys construction is permissible recognizing that the constitutional right to appeal must be given a practical construction holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious holding that if constitutional provision is clear then extraneous or contemporaneous construction may not be resorted to holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them