DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitution Revision History and Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitution Revision History and Perspective CONSTITUTION REVISION HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVE The California Constitution Revision Commission 1996 The California Constitution Revision Commission is no longer in existence. Further information on the report of the commission can be found on the world wide web on the California Home Page at www.ca.gov. For future activity on the commission's recommendations, contact the Forum on Government Reform, P.O. Box 22550, Sacramento, CA 95822. The cover includes a representation of the first California Constitution, adopted in 1849. The back of the report are the signatures of some of those who signed the Constitution at the first constitution convention. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION CONSTITUTION REVISION HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVE The purpose of this report is to provide historical perspective to the work and recommendations of the Commission. In most cases the issues studied by the Commission are identified and historical analysis is provided. The primary contributors to this work were Pat Ooley, graduate student of Public History at the University of California at Santa Barbara and Amanda Meeker, graduate student at California State University, Sacramento. As archive researchers for the Secretary of State's California State Archives, they made a substantial contribution to the understanding of the history of the many issues faced by the Commission. Their work was greatly appreciated. Two additional papers have been included: one deals with the fiscal system and the major changes that took place in 1933 and the other deals with the troubled history of the place of cities in California government structure. 1996 Page iii THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP * William Hauck, Chairman Donald Benninghoven, Vice Chairman Larry Arnn Kamala Harris George Babikian Alan Heslop Anne Bakar Elizabeth Hill Andrew Baron Gary Hunt Craig Brown Assemblyman Phil Isenberg Elizabeth Cabraser Senator Lucy Killea Patricia Castillo Senator Bill Leonard Betty Tom Chu Jane Pisano Lewis Coleman Richard Rider Edward Erler Judge Ronald Robie Joel Fox Dr. Chui Tsang Steve Frates Judge Roger Warren Russell Gould Leon Williams COMMISSION STAFF Fred Silva Ellen Moratti Executive Secretary Deputy Executive Secretary Executive Assistants Student Assistant Kelly Zavis Kirk Clark Dede Lind Office Assistant Cindy Dominguiz * The membership list includes all members who served on the Commission. Page v Table of Contents Page State Governance An Overview of the History of Constitutional Provisions Dealing with State Governance ............................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Branch ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Legislative Branch ..................................................................................................................................... 21 The Initiative Process ................................................................................................................................ 35 State Budget and Fiscal Provisions An Overview of the Early Years of the Budget Process ..................................................................... 47 Reform During Crisis: The Transformation of California's Fiscal System During the Great Depression .......................................................................................................... 57 K±12 Education An Overview of the History of Constitutional Provisions Dealing with K±12 Education ................................................................................................................................ 79 Local Government An Overview of the History of Constitutional Provisions Dealing with Local Government ............................................................................................................................. 87 Creatures of State...Children of Trade: The Legal Origins of California Cities ................................................................................................................................. 97 Page vii ∆ STATE GOVERNANCE An Overview of the History of Constitutional Provisions Dealing with State Governance Executive Branch Legislative Branch The Initiative Process ∆ STATE GOVERNANCE by Pat Ooley An Overview of the History of Constitutional Provisions Dealing with State Governance Although California's constitution has established laws of an acquired province must undergone wholesale revision and amendment remain in force until superseded by a formally since its inception in 1849, the work of the enacted state government. The time-tested original framers remains imprinted in the systems of locally governing alcaldes and organic law of the state. Responding to the out-of-court arbitration of disputes had been urgencies of their time, the elected delegates successfully applied in Alta California since the who revised the constitution in 1879 expanded Spanish administration. But what had the document, adding nine new articles and functioned as government for a sparsely some 8,000 words. Between 1966 and 1974, populated territory of Mexico's far northern California voters authorized significant frontier amounted to anarchy for the litigious, constitutional revisions recommended by the land-hungry Americans who were continuously Constitution Revision Commission and arriving in gold-rush California. By the summer proposed by the legislature. Since the of 1849, the situation had become critical.2 introduction of the popular initiative in 1911, California voters have approved over 425 President of the United States Zachary Taylor amendments to the 1879 constitution. After suggested a solution for California: frame a significant revision and substantial amendment, constitution and petition Congress directly for and notwithstanding the inclusion of popular immediate statehood when it next convened. legislation, the fundamental organization of That is what California did. In just nine months state government provided for in (June 1849 to March 1850), Californians elected 1849Ðexecutive, legislative, and judicial delegates to a constitutional convention; framed, division of powersÐremains intact. The distributed, and ratified a constitution; and purpose of this essay is to trace the elected a first legislature, which then elected development of sections of the Executive, two Senators to Congress. With constitutions in Legislative and Initiative articles of the state hand, Senators William M. Gwin and John C. constitution to their historic beginnings in Fremont, along with two popularly elected California, hopefully revealing in the process Representatives, petitioned Congress for the intent of both framers and revisionists.1 statehood.3 The forty-eight men who met in Monterey in Although the Congressional debate over September of 1849 framed a constitution for California's entrance as a free state edged the California in just forty-three days. They were in country closer to civil war and secured a hurry. Congress, embroiled and divided over statehood only through sectionalist compromise slave versus free soil, had repeatedly failed to (Compromise of September 9, 1850), California grant California territorial status. Californians, had at last acquired a constitutional unable to organize a constitutional government government. As provided in Section Six of without such authorization, were living under Article XIII, the constitution would become the the laws existing in California at the time of the organic law of the state when popularly ratified. American annexationÐa frontier application of By November 13, 1849, California voters had Mexican civil law. International law, and the ratified the constitution and installed their first United States Supreme Court, held that the elected Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Governance Ð Page 3 ∆ Legislature, and members of the House of capitalists, such as the ``Big Four'' owners of the Representatives.4 Southern Pacific Railroad in California, determined economic policy. A new corporate Aware of the urgency to get the ratified order had emerged for America, with significant document before Congress in time for its next social and political implications. Capitalist and session, but equally aware of the significance of industrialist expansion produced a large their responsibility to their constituents and to laboring class concurrently with a class of posterity, the 1849 framers worked rapidly and opulent wealth. The depression of 1873±78 diligently. Their principal reference, besides reduced many laborers to poverty. 7 their individual political and legal expertise, was a ``book of constitutions'' containing the Holding to the doctrine that governments ruled constitutions of the thirty United States and the by the consent of the governed, and that people federal constitution. Drawing primarily from the instituted governments for their own benefit, constitutions of Iowa and New York, and citizens looked to government for remedy. But secondarily from the constitutions of Louisiana, people increasingly perceived both federal and Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas, and Mississippi, the local government as corrupt and indecisiveÐthe delegates assembled a new treatise that reflected pawn of corporations and private interests both contemporary political thought and the whose unchecked speculations had triggered the proven practices of other states with similar financial crash
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Missouri Supreme Court ______
    IN THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT ________________________________________________________________________ CAUSE NO. SC87400 ________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS APPELLANT, v. SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. RESPONDENT. ________________________________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DIVISION NO. 5 HONORABLE DAVID L. DOWD ________________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLANT ________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS LAW DEPARTMENT Mark Lawson #33337 Associate City Counselor Room 314, City Hall St. Louis, MO 63103 Phone: (314) 622-3361 Fax: (314) 622-4956 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS . 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . 4 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT . 18 STATEMENT OF FACTS . 19 POINTS RELIED ON . 22 ARGUMENT . 33 POINT I . 33 POINT II . 39 POINT III . 48 POINT IV . 63 POINT V . 77 POINT VI . 88 POINT VII . 94 POINT VIII . 98 POINT IX . 100 POINT X . 103 POINT XI . 110 POINT XII . 116 POINT XIII . 118 CONCLUSION . 122 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . 123 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . 123 APPENDIX . A-0 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases 508 Chestnut, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 389 S.W.2d 823 (Mo. 1965) 111 Airtouch Communications, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 76 P.3d 342 (Wyo. 2003) 38 Airway Drive-In Theatre Co. v. City of St. Ann, 354 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. banc 1962) 115 Armco Steel Corp. v. Dept. of Treasury, 358 N.W.2d 839 (Mich. 1984) 118 Arsenal Credit Union v. Giles, 715 S.W.2d 918 (Mo. banc 1986) 106 Asmus v. Pacific Bell, 999 P.2d 71 (Cal. 2000) 60 B & D Inv. Co., Inc. v. Schneider, 646 S.W.2d 759 (Mo.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Davis Books
    UC Davis Books Title Checklist of Reports Published in the Appendices to the Journals of the California Legislature 1850-1970 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5wj2k3z4 Author Stratford, Juri Publication Date 2018 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 4.0 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Checklist of Reports Published in the Appendices to the Journals of the California Legislature 1850-1970 Revised Edition 2018 Juri Stratford Copyright © 2016, 2018 Juri Stratford 2 Introduction The California Legislature published reports in the Appendices to the Journals from 1850 to 1970. The present Checklist covers the reports published in the Appendices to the Journals from 1850 to 1970. The Checklist is arranged by volume. The Appendices include reports produced by California executive agencies as well as the California Legislature. In a few instances, the reports include work by the United States federal government or the University of California. Each entry gives the volume number for the report in one of two formats: 1909(38th)(1) This first example indicates Appendix to the 1909 Journals, Volume 1, 38th session. The Legislature stopped assigning session numbers after the 57th session, 1947. For later years, the Appendices were published as separate series of Senate and Assembly volumes. For some years, only Senate volumes were published. 1955(S)(1) This second example indicates Appendix to the 1955 Senate Journals, Volume 1. 3 4 1850(1st)(Journal of the Legislature) McDougall, Lieut. Governor and President, &c.. [G] 1850(1st)(Journal of the Legislature) Special Report of Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Ple Sample Sam Ample Sample Sam
    SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SA SAMPLE SAMPLE SA SAMPLE SAMPLE SA MPL SAMPLE SAMPLE SA MPL DEM SAMPLEREP SAMPLE MPLE SA E in the County ofSAMPLE Cass SAMPLE MPLE Vote for ONE SA FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL MPLE SAMPLE DEM SAMPLE SA TERESA HENSLEY REP JOSH HAWLEY SAMPLELIB MPLE DISTRICT 4 SA Write-in OFFICIAL SAMPLE BALLOT DEM Vote for ONE eneral Election will be held REP SAMPLE MPLE SAM CASS COUNTY, MISSOURI FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE SA LIB LIBERTARIAN - (LIB); CONSTITUTION - (CST); GREEN - (GRN); INDEPENDENT - (IND) NOTICE OF ELECTION GRN GORDON CHRISTENSEN REP MPLE SAMPLE GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 8, 2016 SAMPLE LIB IND VICKY HARTZLER SA FOR GOVERNORVote for ONE MARK BLISS IND MPLE SAMPLE SAMPLEWrite-in DISTRICT 31 FOR STATEVote SENATOR for ONE SA CHRIS KOSTER DEM MPLE SAMPLE ERIC GREITENS SAMPLEREP SA LIB CISSE W SPRAGINS ED EMERY DEM DON FITZ SAMPLEGRN LORA YOUNG SA MPLREP E SAMPLE LESTER BENTON (LES) TURILLI, JR. TIM WELLS DEMOCRATIC - (DEM); REPUBLICAN - (REP); Vote for ONE DEM Write-in Write-in DISTRICT 33 SAMPLE Vote for ONE MPLE SAMPLE Notice is hereby given that the November G FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SA FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE REP DEM on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 as certified to this office by the participating entitiesSAMPLERUSS of CARNAHAN Cass County. REP MPLE SAM LIB MIKE PARSON SALIB CHASE LINDER The ballot for the election shall be in substantially the following form: STEVEN R. HEDRICK DONNA PFAUTSCH A vote for candidates forVote President for ONE PAIR and MPLE CST JENNIFER LEACH SAMPLE Vice President is a vote for their Electors.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Consolidation in Missouri, Where Are We After 20 Years?
    Court Consolidation in Missouri, Where Are We After 20 Years? Institute Of Court Management Court Executive Development Program Phase III Project May, 2001 Jerry A. Moyer, Clerk of the Circuit Court Barton County Circuit Court Lamar, Missouri 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: 1. The Honorable C. David Darnold, Senior Judge, State of Missouri; Presiding Circuit Judge, 28th Judicial Circuit, 1979-2000, 2. The Honorable Henry L. Lisle, Associate Circuit Judge, Barton County, Lamar, Missouri, 1967-1982, retired; Member of the Cosgrove Committee, 1974-1976, 3. Mr. David Heumader, Trial Court Administrator, 28th Judicial Circuit, Vernon County, Nevada, Missouri, 1998-present, 4. The Honorable Frank Conley, Presiding Circuit Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, Boone County, Columbia, Missouri, 1970-present, 5. The Honorable Charles D. Curless, Associate Circuit Judge, Barton County, Lamar, Missouri, 1995-present, 6. Dr. Daniel H. Straub, Ph.D., Senior Faculty Member, Institute for Court Management, National Center For State Courts. 7. Mrs. Nancy Griggs, Director of Court Services Division, Office of State Courts Administrator, State of Missouri. 8. Ms. Linda Hope, Evaluation Specialist, Office of State Courts Administrator, State of Missouri. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Note: Page numbers are changed in electronic format) Acknowledgments....................................................................................................i Table of Contents....................................................................................................ii List of Illustrations
    [Show full text]
  • Changemakers: Biographies of African Americans in San Francisco Who Made a Difference
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and McCarthy Center Student Scholarship the Common Good 2020 Changemakers: Biographies of African Americans in San Francisco Who Made a Difference David Donahue Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/mccarthy_stu Part of the History Commons CHANGEMAKERS AFRICAN AMERICANS IN SAN FRANCISCO WHO MADE A DIFFERENCE Biographies inspired by San Francisco’s Ella Hill Hutch Community Center murals researched, written, and edited by the University of San Francisco’s Martín-Baró Scholars and Esther Madríz Diversity Scholars CHANGEMAKERS: AFRICAN AMERICANS IN SAN FRANCISCO WHO MADE A DIFFERENCE © 2020 First edition, second printing University of San Francisco 2130 Fulton Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Published with the generous support of the Walter and Elise Haas Fund, Engage San Francisco, The Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good, The University of San Francisco College of Arts and Sciences, University of San Francisco Student Housing and Residential Education The front cover features a 1992 portrait of Ella Hill Hutch, painted by Eugene E. White The Inspiration Murals were painted in 1999 by Josef Norris, curated by Leonard ‘Lefty’ Gordon and Wendy Nelder, and supported by the San Francisco Arts Commission and the Mayor’s Offi ce Neighborhood Beautifi cation Project Grateful acknowledgment is made to the many contributors who made this book possible. Please see the back pages for more acknowledgments. The opinions expressed herein represent the voices of students at the University of San Francisco and do not necessarily refl ect the opinions of the University or our sponsors.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Constitution Article III Initiative and Referendum Section
    Missouri Constitution Article III Initiative and Referendum Section 49. Reservation of power to enact and reject laws. The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided. Section 50. Initiative petitions--signatures required--form and procedure. Initiative petitions proposing amendments to the constitution shall be signed by eight percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state, and petitions proposing laws shall be signed by five percent of such voters. Every such petition shall be filed with the secretary of state not less than six months before the election and shall contain an enacting clause and the full text of the measure. Petitions for constitutional amendments shall not contain more than one amended and revised article of this constitution, or one new article which shall not contain more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith, and the enacting clause thereof shall be "Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:". Petitions for laws shall contain not more than one subject which shall be expressed clearly in the title, and the enacting clause thereof shall be "Be it enacted by the people of the state of Missouri:". Section 51. Appropriations by initiative--effective date of initiated laws -- conflicting laws concurrently adopted. The initiative shall not be used for the appropriation of money other than of new revenues created and provided for thereby, or for any other purpose prohibited by this constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010-2011 Course Listings
    A n n u a l R e p o r t 2 0 1 UCLA 0 Institute - for Research 2 0 on Labor and 1 Employment 1 Table of Contents Letter from the Director.....................................................................................................................1 About IRLE.........................................................................................................................................2 History................................................................................................................................................3 Governance.........................................................................................................................................5 Governance Structure.......................................................................................................6 IRLE Leadership................................................................................................................8 Department Organization Chart.....................................................................................9 Staff Awards .......................................................................................................................10 Financial Issues .................................................................................................................11 Extramural Support..........................................................................................................12 Academic Activities...........................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 44 Issue 2 60 Years after the Enactment of the Indian Country Statute - What Was, What Is, and What Should Be Winter 2008 The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias William Wood Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William Wood, The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias, 44 Tulsa L. Rev. 317 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol44/iss2/1 This Native American Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wood: The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villa THE TRAJECTORY OF INDIAN COUNTRY IN CALIFORNIA: RANCHERIAS, VILLAGES, PUEBLOS, MISSIONS, RANCHOS, RESERVATIONS, COLONIES, AND RANCHERIAS William Wood* 1. INTRODUCTION This article examines the path, or trajectory,1 of Indian country in California. More precisely, it explores the origin and historical development over the last three centuries of a legal principle and practice under which a particular, protected status has been extended to land areas belonging to and occupied by indigenous peoples in what is now California. The examination shows that ever since the Spanish first established a continuing presence in California in 1769, the governing colonial regime has accorded Indian lands such status.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenge of the Big Trees
    Challenge of the Big Trees Challenge of the Big Trees CHALLENGE OF THE BIG TREES Lary M. Dilsaver and William C. Tweed ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association, Inc. CONTENTS NEXT >>> Challenge of the Big Trees ©1990, Sequoia Natural History Association dilsaver-tweed/index.htm — 12-Jul-2004 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/index.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:17 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Table of Contents) Challenge of the Big Trees Table of Contents COVER LIST OF MAPS LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS FOREWORD PREFACE CHAPTER ONE: The Natural World of the Southern Sierra CHAPTER TWO: The Native Americans and the Land CHAPTER THREE: Exploration and Exploitation (1850-1885) CHAPTER FOUR: Parks and Forests: Protection Begins (1885-1916) CHAPTER FIVE: Selling Sequoia: The Early Park Service Years (1916-1931) CHAPTER SIX: Colonel John White and Preservation in Sequoia National Park (1931- 1947) CHAPTER SEVEN: Two Battles For Kings Canyon (1931-1947) CHAPTER EIGHT: Controlling Development: How Much is Too Much? (1947-1972) CHAPTER NINE: New Directions and A Second Century (1972-1990) APPENDIX A: Visitation Statistics, 1891-1988 APPENDIX B: Superintendents of Sequoia, General Grant, and Kings Canyon National Parks NOTES TO CHAPTERS PUBLISHED SOURCES ARCHIVAL RESOURCES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INDEX (omitted from online edition) ABOUT THE AUTHORS http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/dilsaver-tweed/contents.htm[7/2/2012 5:14:22 PM] Challenge of the Big Trees (Table of Contents) List of Maps 1. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and Vicinity 2. Important Place Names of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The CONSTITUTIONS of CALIFORNIA and the UNITED STATES with Related Documents
    The CONSTITUTIONS of CALIFORNIA and THE UNITED STATES with Related Documents 2017–18 Edition Cover: Spring Flowers (Poppies and Lupine, Goleta Point), n.d. John Marshall Gamble Crocker Art Museum, Melza and Ted Barr Collection, 2008.102 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1879 As Last Amended November 8, 2016 and Related Documents 2017–18 CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE LT. GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM HON. ANTHONY RENDON President of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly HON. KEVIN DE LEÓN HON. KEVIN MULLIN President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker pro Tempore JEAN FULLER HON. CHAD MAYES Minority Floor Leader Republican Leader DANIEL ALVAREZ E. DOTSON WILSON Secretary of the Senate Chief Clerk of the Assembly THE STATE FLAG The Bear Flag was designated California’s State Flag by legislative enactment in 1911. It is patterned after the historic flag flown at Sonoma on June 14, 1846, by a group of American settlers in revolt against Mexican rule in California. This short-lived revolution ended on July 9, 1846. The general design and details of the Bear Flag are set forth in Section 420 of the Government Code. FOREWORD The California Legislature is privileged to present this compilation of historic documents. Taken together, these compacts, treaties, and charters embody the ongoing evolution of our core principles of representative democracy. It is important to note that our state Constitution is a living document. It has been amended over 500 times since its adoption in 1879. Some recent amendments have included a change to California’s Term Limits law through the passage of Proposition 28 (2012), the California Legislature Transparency Act enacted by Proposition 54 (2016) enhances public access to the legislative process, and with the adoption of Proposition 25 (2010), the vote threshold to pass the state budget is now a majority vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems of California Indian Servitude Under US Rule
    ‘‘Unholy Traffic in Human Blood and Souls’’: Systems of California Indian Servitude under U.S. Rule BENJAMIN MADLEY The author teaches in the history department and American Indian Studies Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. From 1846 onward, at least 20,000 California Indians worked in varied forms of bondage under U.S. rule. This essay provides the first article-length survey of the statewide rise and fall of California’s systems of Indian servitude under U.S. rule, including their Russo-Hispanic antecedents, establishment under martial law, expansion under civilian rule, and dismantling by state and federal authorities. Further, this article proposes the first taxonomy of these systems and, in conclusion, discusses how California Indian servitude illuminates the histories of California, the western United States, the nation as a whole, and the western hemisphere while suggesting new analytical methods and research directions. Key words: American Indian labor, American Indian slavery, California Indians, California legal history, indentured servitude, unfree labor The author thanks Stephen Aron, Colin Calloway, Boyd Cothran, Robin Derby, Bruce Duthu, John Faragher, Daniel Lynch, Timothy Macholz, William Marotti, Valerie Mat- sumoto, Preston McBride, Edward Melillo, Aaron O’Connell, Carla Pestana, Jesse Philips, Arthur Rolston, Peter Stacey, Kevin Terraciano, Owen Williams, Craig Yirush, Judy Yung, Natale Zappia, and the Pacific Historical Review’s editors and anonymous reviewers. Michael Magliari provided patient and invaluable guidance. Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 83, No. 4, pages 626–667. ISSN 0030-8684, eISSN 1533-8584 © 2014 by the Pacific Coast Branch, American Historical Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.
    [Show full text]
  • “Chief Justice Roger J. Traynor's Tax Philosophy” Mirit Eyal-Cohen
    PREVENTIVE TAX POLICY: CHIEF JUSTICE ROGER J. TRAYNOR'S TAX PHILOSOPHY ∗ MIRIT EYAL-COHEN © TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 2 II. Incoherent Fiscal Practices and Too Much Law 4 III. Preventive Tax Policy 7 A. Traynor's Tax Education and His Encounter with Stanley Surrey 7 B. Ex Ante Preventive Tax Policy 8 C. Ex Post Tax Policy 9 IV. Preventive Tax Policy – Defeated? 11 A. Traynor’s System of Tax Adjudication 11 B. Today’s Implementation of Preventive Tax Measures 18 V. Conclusion 21 ∗ S.J.D. Candidate, University of California, Los Angeles. I would like to thank Julie Makinen, Kirk Stark, Steven Bank and Ilan Benshalom for their insightful comments on drafts of this paper. I also thank the California Supreme Court Historical Society for choosing this paper as winner of the 2007 Writing Competition. Finally, I am grateful to my family, most especially my husband Tamir for his constant love and support. I. INTRODUCTION Roger J. Traynor was appointed to the Supreme Court of California in 1940 and served as its Chief Justice from 1964 to 1970. He is best known today for his judicial innovations in the fields of conflict of laws, product liability, and civil procedure.1 His decisions on miscegenation, divorce, police searches and product liability were ahead of his time, and led California’s legal system into the future. His most significant opinions included rejecting the legal prohibition of inter-racial marriages, adopting no-fault divorce, restricting police searches and applying a strict standard of liability in product defect cases.2 However, few would trace Roger J.
    [Show full text]