California Constitution Excerpts
[ English is the official language of the State of California ]
[ Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 ]
[ The next time a peace officer in California calls you a Constitutionalist, give them a copy of the Oath of Office. ]
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
SEC. 2.
(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.
(b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person . . . shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information . . .
SEC. 3. The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.
SEC. 5. The military is subordinate to civil power. A standing army may not be maintained in peacetime. Soldiers may not be quartered in any house in wartime except as prescribed by law, or in peacetime without the owner’s consent.
SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.
SEC. 10. Witnesses may not be unreasonably detained. A person may not be imprisoned in a civil action for debt or tort, or in peacetime for a militia fine.
SEC. 11. Habeas corpus may not be suspended unless required by public safety in cases of rebellion or invasion.
SEC. 12. A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties, except for:
(a) Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great;
(b) Felony offenses involving acts of violence on another person, or felony sexual assault offenses on another person, when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person’s release would result in great bodily harm to others; or
(c) Felony offenses when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and convincing evidence that the person has threatened another with great bodily harm and that there is a substantial likelihood that the person would carry out the threat if released.
Excessive bail may not be required. In fixing the amount of bail, the court shall take into consideration the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at the trial or hearing of the case.
A person may be released on his or her own recognizance in the court’s discretion.
SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.
SEC. 17. Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.
SEC. 18. Treason against the State consists only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort. A person may not be convicted of treason except on the evidence of two witnesses to the same overt act or by confession in open court.
SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.
This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
(c) Right to Safe Schools. All students and staff of public primary, elementary, junior high and senior high schools have the inalienable right to attend campuses which are safe, secure and peaceful.
SEC. 3. The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution.
SEC. 5. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as shall be directed by law.
SEC. 6. (a) Purpose.
English is the common language of the people of the United States of America and the State of California. This section is intended to preserve, protect and strengthen the English language, and not to supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution.
(b) English as the Official Language of California.
English is the official language of the State of California.
The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the State of California is preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the State of California.
Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of California shall have standing to sue the State of California to enforce this section, and the Courts of record of the State of California shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable and appropriate limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this section.
SEC. 8.
(a) Every person shall be disqualified from holding any office of profit in this State who shall have been convicted of having given or offered a bribe to procure personal election or appointment.
(b) Laws shall be made to exclude persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes from office or serving on juries. The privilege of free suffrage shall be supported by laws regulating elections and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influence thereon from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practice.
SEC. 8. No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian or denominational school, or any school not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools; nor shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted, directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of this State.
[ Required Oath of Office ]
[ Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20 ]
SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
“I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
(If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of
______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.
“Public officer and employee” includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
Also see the California’s Resolution to support
the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Asserting State’s Rights under the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights
This bill was approved and chartered.
The original was found at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sjr_44&sess=9394&house=S
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44
INTRODUCED BY STATE SENATOR DON ROGERS
April 13, 1994
WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and
WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 1994, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the California Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sjr_44&sess=9394&house=S
INTRODUCED BY Senators Rogers, Ayala, Bergeson, Beverly, Boatwright, Campbell, Dills, Hill, Hurtt, Johannessen, Kelley, Kopp, Leonard, Leslie, Lewis, Maddy, McCorquodale, Mello, Peace, Presley, Wright, and Wyman (Coauthors: Assembly Members Aguiar, Alby, Allen, Andal, Baca, Boland, Bowen, Bowler, Brulte, Cannella, Conroy, Cortese, Costa, Epple, Ferguson, Frazee, Goldsmith, Harvey, Hauser, Haynes, Hoge, Honeycutt, Horcher, Johnson, Jones, Katz, Knight, Knowles, McPherson, Morrow, Mountjoy, Murray, Pringle, Rainey, Richter, Statham, Takasugi, Tucker, Weggeland, and Woodruff)
APRIL 14, 1994
Senate Joint Resolution No. 44 Relative to the 10th Amendment.
SJR 44, as introduced, Rogers. 10th Amendment.
This measure would declare the state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and demand that the federal government cease and desist mandates that are beyond the scope of constitutionally delegated powers.
Fiscal committee: no.
[This bill was approved and chartered.]
Yes, it was approved. The text of the final approved version should be on the web site, too. Resolution chapters are published as part of the Statutes of California and are available at county law libraries. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us again if we can be of additional assistance.
Genevieve Troka
California State Archives
1020 “O” Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 653-7715
[This copy distributed by Forest Glen Durland, 14675 ˝ Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081.
(408)867-4410. Fax (408)868-9446. Email: forest@uhuh.com Web site: http://www.uhuh.com ]
[Credit for posting goes to Captain Nemo at <http://home.rica.net/CaptainNemo/index.htm> ]
by Bernadine Smith
Federal ‘change agents’ have been inserting military command and control techniques into America’s civilian law enforcement system with the objective of enhancing global management. Transforming America from a constitutional republic into a segment of socialist world government required many changes, one of which is the elimination of the sheriff. There are those of us who consider the American state, the sheriff and his traditional office as vital.
Already laid over the nation is a militarized infrastructure: the Homeland Security Agency. It is the foundation upon which a worldwide regional system of total command and control can be applied to operate what was once meant to be a republic. Very little will be left to local autonomy. This is a violation of the principles of the Constitution: the Supreme Law of the Land. The ridiculous excuse for this installation is that we may have to give up some of our rights for safety and security. What it is really saying is that we must co-operate in the overthrow of our own government in order to provide protection for ourselves and our government! It does not make sense!
The county sheriff is being introduced to a maneuver that will gradually eliminate him by a merger with federal marshals. Already under threat by an Advisory group, the traditional American constitutional sheriff will be divested of his authority. He will lose his control over the jails and the courts, and all civilian law enforcement will be consolidated on the federal regional government level.
The first intent is to demote the sheriff and his deputies down to the functions of a beat officer where they can be managed by the Homeland Security Agency as a non-elective county police system.
If the sheriff disappears, good citizens will lose the only opportunity they have to vote for a representative in law enforcement of their own choosing who is endowed with special powers to deal with special crimes. The assault on the sheriff had its beginning as far back as the Wickersham Report, done under Herbert Hoover’s administration.
The work of the Hoover Commission was to make studies, gather statistics, and make recommendations which the Roosevelt administration was later to use in an effort to install regional government over the nation. Roosevelt was all set to eliminate the states in 1935. The Wickersham Report’s critical remark was: “The sheriff is an elective office and any force under him is almost sure to be a makeshift affair....If protection is to be given our rural districts we cannot rely upon the sheriff-constable system to supply it.”
The intent and purpose of regional government is not only to eliminate the states but to operate the nation with metropolitan-trained non-elective appointees. Elective representation was strongly criticized by Roosevelt’s advisors.
A world government thesis under the League of Nations was openly expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1920 as he made 26 campaign speeches for the vice-presidency, with James Cox as the presidential hopeful. Their effort was unsuccessful and Roosevelt did not surface again until after his attack by polio at which time he took over the presidency during the Depression years beginning in 1932.
The outgoing governor in Colorado in his Farewell Speech to the state legislature exposed Roosevelt’s machinations to the extent that his National Resources Planning Board was ordered to be shut down. Congress cut off all the funding and gave him six months to wind up all the paper work.
In the 1970’s, when the threat to eliminate the sheriff was openly before California supervisors, Supervisor William Johnson of El Dorado County persuaded two California State representatives to join him in getting an initiative qualified for the California ballot which stated in print in the state’s Constitution that the sheriff must be an elective office. The proposition on the ballot passed easily and it was entered into California’s constitution.
At that time Supervisor Johnson declared that it “was an attempt to put a road block in the way” of the ‘change agents’. It gave the people more time to find ways to protect themselves against the ‘change agents’.
‘Change agents’ are still processing their techniques and altering the concepts of how our traditional and proper constitutional system is supposed to operate. They use clandestine methodologies and persuasive techniques so that the public will never suspect the damage that is being done to them or what their losses will be. They are moving with “in perpetuity” formats.
Who is there to speak of the dangers of merging the sheriffs with federal marshals? The answer is YOU whether you are an individual or if you are the sheriff himself. The curtain has not yet dropped!
In states where the sheriff is being merged with federal marshals, federal funding being supplied from Washington, D.C. will speed up the eventual superiority of the assigned marshal over the elected sheriff. The sheriff will then more easily be lowered down with no more power or authority than that of a beat officer and he will be nothing more than a policeman in the county. That is the objective!
Marshals are appointed. The sheriff swears to an oath to the Constitution. Marshals do not. Their pledge is to obey their superiors but no written document is required of marshals to support and defend the Constitution.
In Connecticut the people have already voted in favor of a proposition to eliminate sheriffs and replace them with federal marshals. Passage of this proposition became known as Public Act #00-99 (House Bill #5832 entitled “An Act Reforming the Sheriff System). The phone call to verify this action was connected to a representative in the Connecticut General Assembly who said: “There are no sheriffs left! They are all marshals now!” The bill itself ran 74 pages, but there were documents available on this subject which ran between 600 - 700 pages. Most likely, financial savings was the basis for persuading the voters to pass such a measure! Sometimes the sales pitch is “to eliminate duplication”; “to consolidate”.
In Ohio, one resident had a conversation with the Homeland Security office, and he was told by that office that the sheriffs in Ohio will be replaced by marshals in the near future. Later this statement was denied. Someone slipped up!
The California direction began to change when Governor Pete Wilson signed into law on October 11, 1993 Assembly Bill 1587 authored by Assemblyman Richard Katz (D -Sylmar), which allowed the Los Angeles Supervisors to consolidate the sheriff’s department and the marshal’s department together using the reason that it would save an estimated $10 - 15 million a year. The bill is chaptered and this type of merger exists in many other counties in California.
Replacing elected officials (responsible to the people) with non-elected officials (which are not responsible to the people, but only to the federal administration) is an unworthy action because appointive representatives can not be voted out or recalled by the people. It contributes to the effort to militarize law enforcement for international command and control.
In one California county where the sheriff has lost his control over the jails in his county, they wear different uniforms and have new badges. Jack McLamb’s office has reported that Las Vegas, Nevada has no sheriff’s department any more in Clark County. They now have what is called the Las Vegas Metropolitan police. In about 1993 in Washington State two counties accepted “appointed” sheriffs. They are King County in the Seattle area and Pearce County in the Tacoma area.
To further desecrate the people’s protectors, plans are being considered to divest all divisions of civilian law enforcement of their firearms. The idea is that only the global government (with its world army) will be allowed to possess firearms.
The reason behind these changes is not just supposed financial savings, it is because the “change agents” cannot put over an international policing system if different departments of law enforcement are working independently of the other. The militarization of civilian law enforcement under a worldwide command requires unified command. The communist-oriented United Nations is now demanding control of our police systems for its “rapid response mechanism”.
Once the ‘change agents’ finalize this work, and their internal security system is well in place, the federal government will be in a position to enforce all the other regional administrative systems, aided by the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (the P.P.B.S.), which is already in force, known as Management by Objectives, Total Quality Management, etc. The nation is undergoing implementation of total systems, viz-a-viz “total federal international regional management and control”.
Sheriff Tom Brown was correct when he said back in 1982:
“Public office today is run more and more by bureaucrats and bureaucracy than it is by elected officials. Elected officials are held responsible...but many times {they} have no control over changing things, because it filters all the way down from the president of the United States to the governor, etc. Bureaucracy is so widespread and there are so many restrictions on the elected official that there is no way that he can change things.”
Consequently, the federal government has turned some of our sheriffs into WIMPS. Why? Because they have accepted federal funding in exchange for federal reorganization of their offices. Yet, they fear the loss of federal funding! Pleas from many concerned citizens went unheard, when they once tried to warn sheriffs of the dangers inherent in accepting the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration’s (L.E.A.A.) Regional Rural Law Enforcement Programs and the funding that was attached. Being in charge of the funding, the L.E.A.A. put the county sheriff in the crosshairs of the high caliber long gun of the regional international police movement.
We do have some sheriffs with the courage to tell the federal government to stay out of their counties and not enter unless they clear with the sheriff first. The sheriff is not a part of the federal judicial system. He holds executive powers.
Have some sheriffs forgotten that the traditional purpose for having a sheriff is a major part of the ‘check and balance system’? Once it was the king that needed watching, and then it moved to public officials who needed watching. It is all about control over tyranny! There are plenty of tyrants and traitors now, whose actions are causing the Constitution to be overthrown. While the city police are content to allow the metropolitan-trained city manager to manage them, the sheriff is supposed to be a different breed of a man. The city manager can hire and fire the chief of police, as well as any police officer, but that authority does not apply to the role of the sheriff! The sheriff is the supposed to be the first man over the whole county! The sheriff is the people’s most trusted representative.
As we witness the merger of Canada, Mexico and the United States into one government system, many patriotic writers are blasting open the devastation this North American Community will bring to the Constitution. It means the end of our states, our sovereignty, and our Bill of Rights! The police officer will not help against this criminal act because most likely his city manager will be a regional government appointee!
The law-abiding citizens have trusted the sheriff to maintain good government. Can we convince the sheriff that he has a responsibility to traditional constitutional government, and to those who have voted for him, to resist the federal pressure and directives that will eventually wipe him out as well as the whole Constitutional system? The sheriffs has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The sheriff is a necessary office! Why, then, do we not find hundreds of sheriffs all over the nation coming forth to fulfill their primary duty?
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Washington, D.C.
Refer to the New York Times Magazine article dated April 21, 1935 entitled “Nine Departments Instead of the 48 States”.
It is a matter of history that the effort to continue Roosevelt’s internationalization of the United States was re-established. When the United Nations Charter was signed, the U.S. presidential administrations moved from theory to implementation of global government.
The United Nations sets the standards for control of the jails in the United States.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged Vol. 3 Page 3058 states: “It is the sheriff’s duty to preserve the peace within his bailiwick or county. To this end he is the first man within the county, and may apprehend and commit to prison all persons who break or attempt to break the peace, or may bind them over in a recognizance to keep the peace. He is bound, ex officio, to pursue and take all traitors, murderers, felons, and rioters; has the safekeeping of the county jail, and must defend it against all rioters; and for this, as well as for any other purpose, in the execution of his duties he may command the inhabitants of the county to assist him, which is called the posse comitatus. And this summons every person over fifteen years of age is bound to obey, under pain of fine and imprisonment; Dalt. Sheriff 355; 2d Inst. 454.
In his ministerial capacity he is bound to execute, within his county, all processes that issue from the courts of justice, except where he is a party to the proceeding, in which case the coroner acts in his stead. On mesne process he is to execute the writ, to arrest and take bail; when the cause comes to trial he summons and returns the jury, and when it is determined, he carries into effect the judgment of the court.”
Lots of information at www.joycerosenwald.com