DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitution The Te CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTIONS of CALIFORNIA and THE UNITED STATES with Related Documents 2019–20 EDITION Published by THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE Published by Published 2019–20 EDITION C over: Votes for Women (The image is on the cover of a publication by the College Equal Suffrage League of Northern California) Bertha Margaret Boye California State Library, Women’s Suffrage Collection, 1911 (JK1911 C2 C65 1913) CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1879 As Last Amended November 6, 2018 and Related Documents 2019–20 CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE LT. GOVERNOR ELENI KOUNALAKIS HON. ANTHONY RENDON President of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly HON. TONI G. ATKINS HON. KEVIN MULLIN President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker pro Tempore HON. SHANNON GROVE HON. MARIE WALDRON Republican Leader Republican Leader ERIKA CONTRERAS E. DOTSON WILSON Secretary of the Senate Chief Clerk of the Assembly 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 1 7/2/2019 1:56:29 PM THE STATE FLAG The Bear Flag was designated California’s State Flag by legislative enactment in 1911. It is patterned after the historic fag fown 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. 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 2 7/2/2019 1:56:29 PM FOREWORD The California Legislature is honored to present this compilation of historic documents. The 2019–20 Legislative Session marks the centennial of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave women the right to vote. Women’s right to vote led to their pursuit of elected offce. In California, the campaign for equal suffrage took on a spirited and innovative approach. Support for women’s right to vote spread to other states and set a new standard for “progressive” politics in the United States. This proactive strategy eventually led to the passage of the 19th Amendment, enfranchising women nationally. In 1918, the frst four women sworn into offce in the California Legislature were Esto B. Broughton, Grace S. Dorris, Elizabeth Hughes, and Anna Saylor. Their election eventually opened the door for more women to be included in public discourse about an ever-expanding state as it relates to public policy. In the past 100 years, 165 women have served as State Senators and Assembly Members. Constitutional term limits enacted by Proposition 28 (2012) was a major factor that opened even more elected positions, paving the way for the diverse Legislature that California enjoys today. The inclusion of women in politics eventually provided the opportunity for other groups to participate in government and elected offce. This ever-growing trend of inclusion, championed by the Golden State, continues to reverberate to other states throughout the nation and the world. This sense of progress and purpose is highlighted in the historical documents featured in this publication. It is in this spirit that the California Legislature presents the Constitutions of the United States and California that shape our collective ideals and values as we strive for a more perfect union. ERIKA CONTRERAS Secretary of the Senate E. DOTSON WILSON Chief Clerk of the Assembly June 2019 i 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 1 7/2/2019 1:56:29 PM 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 2 7/2/2019 1:56:29 PM The design for the Great Seal of the State of California was adopted at the Constitutional Convention in 1849. Thirty-one stars are displayed, one for each state which comprised the Union following the admission of California September 9, 1850. Beneath these stars appears the motto, Eureka (in Greek, ‘‘I have found it!’’). The peaks of the Sierra Nevada stand for the grandeur of nature. Shipping on San Francisco Bay typifes commerce. A miner laboring with pick, rocker, and pan represents industry. Agricultural wealth is seen in a sheaf of wheat and clusters of grapes. Keeping watch over this tableau is the armored fgure of Minerva who, in classical Roman mythology, was the goddess of wisdom. Like the political birth of California, she was born full grown from the brain of Jupiter, father of the gods and guardian of law and order. At her feet stands a grizzly bear, independent and formidable, symbolizing the State of California. iii 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 3 7/2/2019 1:56:30 PM THE SEAL OF THE SENATE The Senate Seal is circular in shape, and the border bears the phrase ‘‘Seal of the Senate of the State of California.’’ The center features a quill pen placed diagonally across an open scroll. On the top of the scroll is inscribed ‘‘LEGIS’’ (law) and the Roman numerals MDCCCL, designating 1850, the year California was admitted to the Union. Surrounding the pen and scroll is a cluster of California live oak leaves and acorns. The Senate adopted the seal in 1967. iv 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 4 7/2/2019 1:56:30 PM Senator Toni G. Atkins President pro Tempore Senator Robert M. Hertzberg Senator Shannon Grove Majority Floor Leader Republican Leader THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE From left to right: Senator Richard D. Roth, Scott Wilk (Vice Chair), Toni G. Atkins (Chair), Patricia C. Bates, William W. Monning Published June 2019 v 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 5 7/2/2019 1:56:32 PM THE ASSEMBLY SEAL The Seal of the Assembly of the State of California was proposed by the Honorable Leo J. Ryan, Assemblyman from the 27th District in San Mateo County, and adopted by the full Assembly in 1967. The offcial state colors, blue and gold, were used as a background. The ‘‘Golden Poppy,’’ the State fower, and the California Grizzly Bear, which are traditional emblems of California, also appear on the Assembly Seal. The gavel in the upper left- hand corner and the Corinthian column in the lower right-hand corner are symbolic of the legislative power of the state. The palm tree and the mountains are representative of the southern and northern parts of our state, respectively. The motto of the California State Assembly is emblazoned on the Seal, ‘‘LEGISLATORUM EST JUSTAS LEGES CONDERE’’ and indicates ‘‘It is the duty of the Legislature to make just laws.’’ vi 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 6 7/2/2019 1:56:32 PM Anthony Rendon Marie Waldron Speaker of the Assembly Republican Leader ASSEMBLY RULES COMMITTEE—2019 From left to right: M. Levine; S. Quirk-Silva; R. Rivas; J. Ramos; T. Grayson; W. Carrillo; Chief Clerk E.D. Wilson; Committee Secretary N. Willis; Chair K. Cooley; Chief Administrative Offcer D. Gravert; Sergeant at Arms R. Desmond; Vice Chair J. Cunningham; S. Kamlager-Dove; H. Flora; B. Wicks; D. Mathis; B. Maienschein; and T. Diep Published June 2019 vii 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 7 7/2/2019 1:56:39 PM 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 8 7/2/2019 1:56:39 PM CONTENTS Page Magna Carta........................................................................................ 3 Mayfower Compact............................................................................ 13 Declaration of Rights of 1765............................................................. 14 Declaration of Rights of 1774............................................................. 16 Declaration of Independence .............................................................. 20 Articles of Confederation of 1778 ...................................................... 24 Constitution of the United States—1787 ............................................ 33 Amendments ................................................................................... 54 Index to United States Constitution ................................................ 65 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.............................................................. 75 Act for the Admission of California Into the Union ........................... 91 Constitutional History of California ................................................... 95 The California Constitution Revision Commission............................ 131 Constitution of the State of California—1879.................................... 147 Constitutional Amendments Approved at Statewide Elections June 2018–November 2018 ............................................................ 149 Index to California Constitution ......................................................... 353 Appendix............................................................................................. 433 ix 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 9 7/2/2019 1:56:39 PM 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 10 7/2/2019 1:56:39 PM Magna Carta 1215 Mayfower Compact 1620 Declarations of Rights 1765 and 1774 The Declaration of Independence 1776 Articles of Confederation 1778 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 1 7/2/2019 1:56:39 PM 146692_00_Constitution_Txt_2019_r1.indd 2 7/2/2019 1:56:39 PM Magna Carta—1215 THE GREAT CHARTER OF ENGLISH LIBERTY, GRANTED BY KING JOHN AT RUNNYMEDE, JUNE 15, A. D. 1215 (From “Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,” as translated from “Stubb’s Charters” by Ernest F. Henderson.) John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Nor- mandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou: to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, prevosts, serving men, and to all his bailiffs and faithful subjects, greeting. Know that we, by the will of God and for the safety of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Emergency in the Constitutional Law of the United States William B
    University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications 1990 Emergency in the Constitutional Law of the United States William B. Fisch University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation William B. Fisch, Emergency in the Constitutional Law of the United States,38 Am. J. Comp. L. Supp. 389 (1990) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. TOPIC IV.B.1 WILLIAM B. FISCH Emergency in the Constitutional Law of the United States In the following report I shall concentrate on the law as pro- nounced by the United States Supreme Court, which has, within the sphere of judicial competence, the last say on the interpretation of the Constitution. The volume of significant litigation on the subject which stops below the Supreme Court has been relatively light, and the constitutional law declared by the lower courts has played a less significant role than is the case in many other issues. Indeed, as we shall see, the Supreme Court itself has had less to say on the topic than might be hoped for. I shall try to indicate the main lines of scholarly debate, which is vast in quantity, if not always in insight; but it must be said that in constitutional law as a whole, and in this area in particular, the influence of scholarly opinion on the behavior of governments and courts has been less than may be observed in other fields of American law.
    [Show full text]
  • From Master Plan to Mediocrity: Higher Education Performance & Policy in California
    ~ Perin,],'J ,!,., ,,, ,, I INSTITUTE for RESEARCH on HIGHER EDUCATION From Master Plan to Mediocrity: Higher Education Performance & Policy in California Joni E. Finney, Christina Riso, Kata Orosz, and William Casey Boland Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania April 2014 0 INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON HIGHER EDUCATION Contents Preface 2 Introduction 4 The Golden State: Its People, Economy, & Politics 5 The People of California 5 The California Economy 5 The Political Environment of California 6 The State’s Higher Education Structure 6 University of California 7 California State University 7 California Community Colleges 7 Gubernatorial and Legislative Powers over California’s Higher Education System 8 California Higher Education Performance 9 Preparation 9 Participation 9 Affordability 10 Completion 10 Research 11 Gaps in Performance 12 What Policies Explain Higher Education Performance Over Time? 13 The Complex Political Environment and Political Indifference 14 The Indirect Costs of a “Direct Democracy” 14 The Limitations of Term Limits 15 The Cost of Political Indifference and Short-Term Fixes 15 Absence of Statewide Higher Education Goals 16 Absence of Statewide Finance Strategy for Higher Education 18 State Appropriations Are Not Targeted to Performance 18 Tuition Setting Is Not Tied to Finance Policy 20 Financial Aid Is Increasingly Not Meeting Student Needs 21 Easing Student Transitions 23 Alignment Concerns between K-12 and Higher Education 23 College Transfer: The Unfulfilled Mission of the Master Plan 25 Inadequate Incentives for Improving the Career-Technical Education Pathway 27 Conclusion 27 Notes 29 References 36 About the Authors 48 1 FROM MASTER PLAN TO MEDIOCRITY: HIGHER EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY IN CALIFORNIA Preface From Master Plan to Mediocrity: Higher Education Performance and Policy in California is the result of the hard work and persistence of nine graduate students enrolled in my Advanced Public Policy Seminar at the University of Pennsylvania in the spring semester of 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill of Rights
    The Bill of Rights Handout 1: The Address and reasons of dissent of the minority of the convention, of the state of Pennsylvania, to their constituents (excerpt) December 12, 1787 Source: Library of Congress http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/bdsdcc.c0401 This address was signed by 21 of the 23 members of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention who voted against ratification of the Constitution. It was circulated at the time as a representation of Anti-Federalist views on the Constitution. First. The right of conscience shall be held inviolable; and neither the legislative, executive nor judicial powers of the United States, shall have authority to alter, abrogate, or infringe any part of the constitution of the several states, which provide for the preservation of liberty in matters of religion. Second. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury shall remain as heretofore, as well in the federal courts, as in these of the several states. Third. That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man has a right to demand that cause and nature of this accusation, as well in the federal courts, as in those of the several states; to be heard by himself and his counsel; to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses; to all for evidence in his favor, and a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent, he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; and that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Over Lands Ownedy by the United States Within the State of Washington: Part I, the Subject in General
    Washington Law Review Volume 14 Number 1 1-1-1939 Jurisdiction Over Lands Ownedy by the United States Within the State of Washington: Part I, The Subject in General John N. Rupp Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation John N. Rupp, Jurisdiction Over Lands Ownedy by the United States Within the State of Washington: Part I, The Subject in General, 14 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J. 1 (1939). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol14/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW and STATE BAR JOURNAL VOLUME XIV. JANUARY, 1939 NUMBER 1 JURISDICTION OVER LANDS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JOHN N. RUPP* PART I THE SUBJECT IN GENERAL Among the unique characteristics of our federal system of gov- ernment is the concept of the dual sovereignty of the national and state governments over land, things, and persons located within the boundaries of the states. In addition to its position and rights as ultimate sovereign over all territory within its borders, the United States is also a corporate body politic and as such can make con- tracts, and can hold property, both real and personal.1 Under this power to own property in its own right the United States has be- come a great landed proprietor, owning many tracts of land within the exterior boundaries of the states, and it is this fact which gives rise to the problems of jurisdiction and control with which this paper is concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Constitution Article I ARTICLE II
    Preamble We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution. ARTICLE I. STATE BOUNDARIES 1. Designation of boundaries The boundaries of the State of Arizona shall be as follows, namely: Beginning at a point on the Colorado River twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers, as fixed by the Gadsden Treaty between the United States and Mexico, being in latitude thirty-two degrees, twenty-nine minutes, forty-four and forty-five one- hundredths seconds north and longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, forty-eight minutes, forty-four and fifty-three one -hundredths seconds west of Greenwich; thence along and with the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico in a southeastern direction to Monument Number 127 on said boundary line in latitude thirty- one degrees, twenty minutes north; thence east along and with said parallel of latitude, continuing on said boundary line to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred nine degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one-hundredths seconds west, being identical with the southwestern corner of New Mexico; thence north along and with said meridian of longitude and the west boundary of New Mexico to an intersection with the parallel of latitude thirty-seven degrees north, being the common corner of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico; thence west along and with said parallel of latitude and the south boundary of Utah to an intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred fourteen degrees, two minutes, fifty-nine and twenty-five one- hundredths seconds west, being on the east boundary line of the State of Nevada; thence south along and with said meridian of longitude and the east boundary of said State of Nevada, to the center of the Colorado River; thence down the mid-channel of said Colorado River in a southern direction along and with the east boundaries of Nevada, California, and the Mexican Territory of Lower California, successively, to the place of beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • Hosmer Family
    GENEALOGY OF THE HOSMER FAMILY. BY JAMES B. HOSMER. HARTFORD. STEAM PRESS OF ELIHU GEER. 1861. GENEALOGY CONNECTICUT BRA.NCH. THOMAS HOSMER, son of Stephen and Dorothy Hosmer of Hawhhurst, County of Kent, England, settled in Newtown, now Cambridge, Mass., as early as 1632, and was admitted freeman in 1635. He removed to Hartford, Conn., in June, 1636. He was one of the original settlers of Hartford, and in the first record of Town proprietors of land, January 14th, 1639, there is set to him tiO acres. His first wife, Frances, died February 15th, 1675, aged 73 years. He married for his second wife Mrs. Katherine Wilton, (now spelt Wilson) widow of Lieut. David Wilton of Northamp­ ton, formerly of Windsor. The record of the minister of Windsor at that time, is as follows: May 6th, '79, Goodman Osmer of Hartford, and the widow Wilton, that had been wife to David Wilton, were to be married at Hartford. Mr. Hosmer died at Northampton and was buried there ; his tombstone has this inscrip­ tion upon it:- THOMAS HOSMER, AGED 83 YEARS. HE DYED APRIL 12. 1687. Mr. Hosmer's daughter, Clemence, married Dea. Jonathan Hunt of Northampton. Graves of the Hunt family are on each side of his. 4 FIRST GENERATION. THOMAS HOSMER, born December 1603, died April 12th, 1687. FRANCES, his wife, born 1602, died February 15th, 1675. CHILDREN. Stephen, b. 1645, d. Nov. 4th, 1693. Clemence mar. Dea. Jonathan Hunt of Northampton, Mass.; died in 1698. Hannah mar. first Josiah Willard, March 20th, 1657; second Mr. Maltby; died July 167 4.
    [Show full text]
  • New Member Pictorial Directory
    NEW MEMBER PICTORIAL DIRECTORY PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION Candice S. Miller, Chairman | Robert A. Brady, Ranking Minority Member NEW MEMBER PICTORIAL DIRECTORY As of November 7, 2014, the Clerk of the House had not received certificates of election for any of the individuals listed in this directory. At the time this publication was sent to press, the following races had not been finally determined: Arizona 2nd California 7th California 9th California 16th California 17th California 26th California 52nd Louisiana 5th Louisiana 6th New York 25th Washington 4th Profiles of candidates from these districts begin on page 33. PREpaRED BY THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION Candice S. Miller, Chairman | Robert A. Brady, Ranking Minority Member TABLE OF CONTENTS Adams, Alma .........................23 Katko, John...........................21 Abraham, Ralph .......................36 Khanna, Ro...........................35 Aguilar, Pete ...........................4 Knight, Steve ..........................4 Allen, Rick ............................9 Lawrence, Brenda......................15 Amador, Tony.........................34 Lieu, Ted..............................5 Ashford, Brad .........................17 Loudermilk, Barry ......................9 Assini, Mark ..........................38 Love, Mia ............................26 Babin, Brian ..........................26 MacArthur, Tom.......................19 Beyer, Don ........................... 27 Mayo, Jamie ..........................37 Bishop, Mike .........................14
    [Show full text]
  • 7.30.2021 Motion and BRIEF for Amici Curiae
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, Plaintiff, v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF as President of the United States; et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 1:21-cv-00243-LEK-RT WATER PROTECTOR LEGAL COLLECTIVE Charles M. Heaukulani, Esq. (No. 5556) Natali Segovia, Esq., (AZ 033589)* LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES M. HEAUKULANI Joseph Chase, Esq., (CO 55122)* P.O. Box 4475 P.O. Box 37065 Hilo, HI 96720-0475 Albuquerque, NM 87176 (808) 466-1511 (701) 566-9108 [email protected] [email protected] NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF Jeanne Mirer, Esq. DEMOCRATIC LAWYERS 132 Nassau Street, Suite 922 1 Whitehall Street, 16th floor New York, New York 10038 New York, New York 10031 (212) 739-7583 (212) 231-2235 * Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending Counsel for Amici Curiae MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH EXPERTISE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Counsel for amici curiae International Association for Democratic Lawyers, National Lawyers Guild, and the Water Protector Legal Collective—non- governmental organizations with expertise in International Law and Human Rights Law, hereby move this Court for an order allowing it to file the attached amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiff, the Hawaiian Kingdom. In support of this motion, the movant states: 1. The nongovernmental organizations whose views are represented in this brief have expertise in public international law, international human rights, humanitarian law, and norms regarding statehood, sovereignty, and self- determination. 2. Movants submit this brief to ensure a proper understanding and application of the international law and historical precedent relevant to this case regarding Article II occupation courts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Candidates, State and Local Ballot Measures, Political
    2011 Corporate Political Contributions The following candidates, state and local ballot measures, political parties and other committees received corporate campaign contributions from Sempra Energy in 2011: Candidate/ Committee/ Organization Party Office Sought Total Abed, Sam N/A Mayor, City of Escondido $530.00 Achadjian, Katcho REP California State Assembly $3,000.00 Adams, Steve N/A City Council, City of Riverside $500.00 Aguinaga, Louie N/A Mayor, City of South El Monte $300.00 Alejo, Luis DEM California State Assembly $1,000.00 Allen, Michael DEM California State Assembly $1,000.00 Anderson, Joel REP California State Senate $1,500.00 Arakawa, Alan N/A Mayor, County of Maui $1,000.00 Atkins, Toni DEM California State Assembly $3,000.00 Azevedo, Kathy N/A Mayor Pro Tem, City of Norco $300.00 Bates, Pat N/A County Supervisor, County of Orange $500.00 Berryhill, Bill REP California State Senate $2,000.00 Berryhill, Tom REP California State Senate $3,000.00 Block, Marty DEM California State Assembly $3,900.00 Block, Marty DEM California State Senate $1,000.00 Blumenfield, Bob DEM California State Assembly $2,000.00 Bocanegra, Raul DEM California State Assembly $1,950.00 Bonilla, Susan DEM California State Assembly $2,600.00 Botts, Bob N/A City Council, City of Banning $99.00 Bradford, Steven DEM California State Assembly $7,800.00 Brandman, Jordan N/A City Council, City of Anaheim $250.00 Bric, Gary N/A City Council, City of Burbank $250.00 Broome, Sharon DEM Louisiana State Senate $500.00 Buchanan, Joan DEM California State Assembly
    [Show full text]
  • Grievance 19 State of New California (Pdf)
    State of New California NOTICE TO ALL CALIFORNIANS! Grievance 19 May 29, 2018 New California is a new state in development exercising its Constitutional Right to form from the State of California. The process to form New California is authorized and codified in Article IV Sections 3 & 4 of the United States Constitution. Article IV Section 3 United States Constitution states: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. Statement of Intent The Citizens of New California have decided to remedy the abuse of power by the government of California by exercising their right to form a new state provided in United States Constitution Article IV Sections 3 and Section 4. “We are determined to live under a State Government in the United States of America and under the Constitution of the United States”. New California Declaration of Independence of January 15, 2018 states: “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. When a long train of abuses and acts to seize and hold the people’s power without legal authority and pursuing invariably the same Object that clearly demonstrates a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    [Show full text]
  • September 14, 2016 To: Senator Kevin De Leon, President Pro
    September 14, 2016 To: Senator Kevin De Leon, President pro Tempore, California State Senate Senator Jean Fuller, Republican Leader, California State Senate Assembly Member Anthony Rendon, Speaker, California State Assembly Assembly Member Chad Mayes, Republican Leader, California State Assembly cc: Governor Jerry Brown The 2015-16 Biennial Session of the Legislature has come and gone. This past year, legislators have acted on health reform, addressed issues of poverty and assistance for the developmentally disabled community and moved forward to increase the state’s minimum wage. A balanced budget was approved and substantial dollars set aside for a rainy day fund. Greenhouse Gas Emission targets and overtime pay for farmworkers were the latest issues that were tackled. We appreciate these significant 2016 accomplishments. However, the Legislature has yet to respond to one of our state’s most important issues, California’s transportation fiscal crisis. Every year for the past two legislative sessions, transportation advocates, stakeholders and the general public have worked to find a solution to this crisis and each year the problem has gone unresolved. Just before the Legislature adjourned, business leaders from across the state joined other transportation stakeholders in Sacramento to hear from Legislators and Administration officials regarding the status of legislation on transportation funding and reform. What we were told was not good news. While there are some leaders willing to talk about the crisis and even offer solutions, consensus has been stymied by differences of opinion and no real engagement among the principal parties. Everyone in California seems to recognize that our transportation system is in terrible shape and the cost of repairs are going up each year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essential Guide to California Legislation
    THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION politicopro.com/california TABLE OF CONTENTS 03 Introduction 04 How Legislation is Passed 08 Legislative Glossary 2 Over the course of a year, hundreds of bills are enacted into California state law⁠— but initial legislation proposed by lawmakers in the Assembly and Senate can number in the thousands. With California’s bicameral legislative process consisting of two houses, bills can originate from either the Assembly or Senate. With so much proposed legislation flowing through the standard processes in both houses, tracking bills can become difficult and time-consuming. Our guide breaks down each step of the legislation proposal process in the Assembly and Senate, the steps that can result in changes to the legislation before it becomes law, as well as how the two houses resolve legislative differences. WHO MAKES UP THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY AND SENATE? The California State Assembly is comprised of 80 members, each elected to serve two-year terms. Assembly members are only allowed to serve a lifetime maximum of six years or three terms. The California State Senate has 40 members, each elected to serve a four-year term. A senator can serve a maximum of two terms or eight years. 3 HOW LEGISLATION IS PASSED In California, the process by which bills are considered, passed and enacted into law is commonly referred to as the legislative pro- cess. California legislature can originate in either the Assembly or the Senate, and a legislative calendar tracks the introduction and processing of measures during a regular two-year session. AN IDEA IS BORN All legislation starts with a concept or idea.
    [Show full text]