Слике страница
PDF
ePub

CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA.

ADOPTED BY THE CONVENTION, OCTOBER TENTH, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINE; RATIFIED BY THE PEOPLE, NOVEMBER THIRTEENTH, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINE; PROCLAIMED, DECEMBER TWENTIETH, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINE; AND AMENDED, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED

AND SIXTY-TWO.

PREAMBLE.

WE, the People of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

NOTE. The term "sovereignty" expresses the supreme political authority of an independent State or Nation, and whatever rights are essential to the existence of this authority are sovereign rights-such are the rights to declare war, to make treaties of peace, to levy taxes, to take private property for public use, and the like. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and its authority is exercised through the Federal and State Governments. To the Federal Government has been delegated certain rights of sovereignty, and the exercise of all other sovereign rights is reserved by the people of the States, or vested by them in their local governments. To say that a State of the Union is sovereign, is but to say that such a State possesses all the rights and powers essential to the existence of an independent political organization, except as they are withdrawn by the provisions of the Federal Constitution.— Moore vs. Smaw, and Fremont vs. Flower, 17 Cal., p. 199. At common law the right to the mines of precious

47-VOL. II.-POL.

metals was not an incident of sovereignty, but a personal prerogative of the King, which could be alienated at his pleasure. The ownership of the precious metals found in public or private lands stands in no different relation to the sovereignty of a State than any other property which is the subject of barter and sale.-Moore vs. Smaw; Fremont vs. Flower, 17 Cal., p. 199. The State Constitution is not a grant of power nor an enabling Act to the Legislature. It is a limitation on the general powers of a legislative character, and restrains only so far as the restriction, either by express terms or by necessary implication.-Bourland vs. Hildreth, 26 Cal.. p. 183; Smith vs. Judge Twelfth District Court, 17 Cal., p. 547; People vs. Rogers, 13 Cal., p. 159; People vs. Coleman, 4 Cal., p. 46; Hobart vs. Supervisors of Butte, 17 Cal., p. 30; People vs. Bigler, 5 Cal., p. 23; People vs. Seymour, 16 Cal., p. 332; Bourland vs. Hildreth, 26 Cal., p. 162. The legislative department of our State Government is not like the "Congress of the United States," restricted in its sphere of action by a fixed chart of delegated powers. Its power represents the independent sovereignty of the people of the State, and is supreme and unlimited in all legitimate subject matters of legislation, and controlled only by such restrictions as are imposed by the organic law of the State.-Beals vs. Amador County, 35 Cal., p. 630. As the State Constitution is not a grant of power, an express enumeration of legislative powers is not an exclusion of others not named, unless the enumeration is accompanied by negative terms.-Ex Parte McCarthy, 29 Cal., p. 396. The Constitution is a law, and the judiciary, from the very nature of the powers given it, must construe it.-Nougues vs. Douglass, 7 Cal., p. 65. Courts may declare the action of the Legislature unconstitutional, when that action violates the supreme

law; but Courts have no means to avoid the effects of non-action. Myers vs. English, 9 Cal., p. 341. In the exposition of Constitutions as of inferior laws, the solemn, deliberate, and long settled precedents of Courts, and the practice and acquiescence of governments and people, should possess controlling weight.—Ferris vs. Coover, 11 Cal., p. 178. Judicial interpretation of a constitutional provision made near the time of its adoption is strong evidence that the people in adopting it understood and intended it to be as interpreted.Knowles vs. Yeates, 31 Cal., p. 82. When the convention, in framing the organic law of the State, thought proper to borrow provisions from the Constitutions of other States, which provisions had already received judi

cial interpretation, it is safe to presume that they were adopted in view of such interpretation.-People vs. Coleman, 4 Cal., p. 46. Constitutions, like statutes, must be construed, if possible, to give some force and effect to each of their provisions.-French vs. Teschemaker, 24 Cal., p. 539. An Act of the Legislature may be constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part.— People vs. Hill, 7 Cal., p. 104; People vs. Burbank, 12 Cal., p. 393; Lathrop vs. Mills, 19 Cal., p. 513; Robinson vs. Bidwell, 22 Cal., p. 397. A law which cannot take effect as to one part of its subject matter because it is unconstitutional as to such part, may take effect as to another part of its subject matter not obnoxious to the Constitution.-Mills vs. Sargent, 36 Cal., p. 379. A section of an Act which is unconstitutional but independent, and which does not enter in the general object and scope of the Act, may be stricken out, and will not vitiate the portions which are constitutional.-French vs. Teschemaker, 24 Cal., p. 545; Robinson vs. Bidwell, 22 Cal., p. 379; Lathrop vs. Mills, 19 Cal., p. 513. A clause in an Act containing an unconstitutional provision, if the clause enter so entirely into the scope and design of the whole Act that it would be impossible to maintain it with the obnoxious provision, will vitiate the whole Act.-Reed vs. Omnibus R. R. Co., 33 Cal., p. 212. When Courts declare retrospective laws void, their action is based upon the ground that such laws are in conflict with some vested right secured by some constitutional guaranty, or protected by principles of universal justice.-Galland vs. Lewis, 26 Cal., p. 47. An Act of the Legislature should not be declared unconstitutional unless there is a clear repugnance between the Act and the Constitution. If there is a reasonable doubt whether the Act is repugnant to the Constitution, the Courts will sustain the validity of the Act.-Bourland vs. Hildreth, 26 Cal., p. 162. An Act of the Legislature must be clearly and manifestly repugnant to some provision of the Constitution, or a Court will not declare it invalid.-People vs. Sassovich, 29 Cal., p. 480.

ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
II. RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE.

III. DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS.
IV. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.
V. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.

VI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

ARTICLE VII. MILITIA.

VIII. STATE DEBTS.

IX. EDUCATION.

X. MODE OF AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTI

TUTION.

XI. PROMISCUOUS PROVISIONS.

XII. BOUNDARY.

SCHEDULE.

Inalienable rights.

ARTICLE I.

SECTION 1. Inalienable rights.

2. Popular government.

3. Jury trial.

4. Religious worship, and liberty of conscience.

5. Habeas corpus.

6. Excessive bail, fines, and punishments.

7. All offenses bailable-one exception.

8. Personal rights, and rights of property.

9. Liberty of speech and press, and law of libel.

10. Popular assemblies.

11. Uniformity of general laws.

12. Military power.

13. Quartering of soldiers.

14. Representation.

15. Imprisonment for debt.

16. Laws prohibited.

17. Rights of foreigners.

18. Slavery prohibited.

19. Search warrants.

20. Treason defined, and how punished.

21. Popular rights retained by the people.

SECTION 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

NOTE.-In Ex Parte Newman, 9 Cal., p. 502, the "Sunday Law" of April 10th, 1858, was held to be in violation of this section, but in Ex Parte Andrews, 18 Cal., p. 678, the "Sunday Law" of May 20th was held constitutional. In May, 1868, the Trustees of the City of Sacramento passed the following ordinance:

« ПретходнаНастави »