(concurring specially).
I agree with the joint conclusion of my colleagues that Mr. Teigen is not a person “learned in the law” and therefore lacks the requisite constitutional qualifications to be a candidate for the Supreme Court. However, I reach this result by a different course. I have grave reservations about endorsing the proposition set out in the majority opinion that “learned in the law” is the same as “admitted to the practice of law.”
The constitutional provision with which we are here concerned reads as follows:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of judge of the supreme court unless he be learned in the law * * * ” Section 94, Constitution of North Dakota.
Unless “admitted to practice law” is an exact synonym, it should not be used as the sole measure of “learned in the law.” I believe that if its concept differs in any degree, it may not constitute the only standard under the constitution.
The majority opinion holds that one may not be learned in the law without being admitted to the Bar. However, a law student does not suddenly become learned in the law by his admission to practice. The learning precedes the examination. It exists beforehand. Success in the examination merely confirms the legal learning. Thus there is a lack of identity of concept in the two terms. To require admission to the Bar in addition to legal learning is to add a new qualification to those set out in the constitution. The opinion of the majority seems to operate to supplement explicit constitutional language, which judicial interpretation should be cautious not to do.
In this case the result need not rest upon the question of admission to the Bar. The record before us conclusively shows that, irrespective of such issue, Mr. Teigen is not a person learned in the law. His return, as set forth in full in the majority opinion, confirms a woeful lack of legal knowledge. The unprofessional, artless cast of this singular document is alone ruinous to the cause of its author.
His oral presentation to the Court gave added dimension to his legal shortcomings. His argument disclosed he was a stranger *101to even the law and precedents affecting his own case.
His return, and his argument, effectively demonstrate his want of the most elementary knowledge or skill in the juridical art. He is therefore without eligibility under the language of the constitution to run for the post he seeks.