(a)
Restrictions
on State Powers. The California Constitution, like other
state constitutions, is generally a restriction upon the powers of the
state. Summary of California Law, vol 7,
Constitutional Law, p. 9
...the state Constitution, as distinguished from the federal
Constitution, does not constitute a grant of power, or an enabling act,
to the legislature, but
rather constitutes a limitation upon the powers of that body....we
do not look to the Constitution to determine whether the legislature is
authorized to do an act, but only to see if it is
prohibited. In other words, unless
restrained by constitutional provision,
the legislature is vested with the whole of the legislative power of
the state. (Macmillan Co. v. Clarke, 184 Cal. 491 [194 P. 1030, 17
A.L.R. 288]; Mitchell v. Winnek, 117 Cal. 520, 525 [49 P. 579]; Jensen
v. McCullough, 94 Cal.App. 382, 394 [271 P. 568]; People v. Rinner, 52
Cal.App. 747, 749 [199 P. 1066].) Fitts v. Superior
Court, 6 Cal.2d 230
[L. A. No. 15256. In Bank. April 30, 1936.]
...the fact that our
Constitution is not a grant of power but rather a limitation or
restriction upon the powers of the Legislature
(In re Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296 [28 P. 272, 675, 29 Am.St.Rep.
106, 14 L.R.A. 755]; Macmillan Co. v. Clarke, 184 Cal. 491 [194 P.
1030, 17 A.L.R. 288]; People ex rel. Smith v. Judge of the Twelfth
District, 17 Cal. 547; Sheehan v. Scott, 145 Cal. 684 [79 P. 350];
Fitts v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.2d 230 [57 P.2d 510]; Mitchell v.
Winnek, 117 Cal. 520 [49 P. 579]) and "that we do not look to the
Constitution to determine whether the Legislature is authorized to do
an act, but only to see if it is prohibited." (Fitts v. Superior Court,
supra.) Collins v. Riley,
24 Cal.2d 912
[S. F. No. 17019. In Bank. Oct. 2, 1944.
...unlike the federal Constitution, "[t]he Constitution of this State
is not to be considered as a grant of power, but
rather as a restriction upon the powers of the Legislature;
and that it is competent for the Legislature to exercise all powers not
forbidden by the Constitution of the State, or delegated to the
[federal] government, or prohibited by the Constitution of the United
States." (People v. Coleman (1854) 4 Cal. 46, 49; see, e.g., Sheehan v.
Scott (1905) 145 Cal. 684, 686-687 [79 P. 350]; Collins v. Riley (1944)
24 Cal.2d 912, 915-916 [152 P.2d 169]; Dean v. Kuchel (1951) 37 Cal.2d
97, 100 [230 P.2d 811].) City and County of
San Francisco v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 22 Cal.3d 103
[S.F. No. 23338. Supreme Court of California. September 13, 1978.]
"We the
people..." have the secured inalienable right to acquire
property. The State Constitution limits what the
employees of State government are permitted to do, and something they are not permitted to do is LIEN or
ENCUMBER a secured inalienable right. This is property:
"We
the people..." are not
obligated or required to have a license or government employee
permission, to acquire any of those items of property, and our
government employees have no authority to place a lien or other
encumbrance or deny our inalienable rights. Notice the word
LIEN in the middle of inaLIENable.
WHO ARE "We the
people..."?
[2] The people of the State of
California are supreme and have the undoubted right to protect
themselves and to preserve the form of government... Steiner v. Darby
(1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 481
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
11120.
It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid
in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public
agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.
In enacting this article the Legislature finds and
declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state
agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted
openly.
The people of this state do not yield their
sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people,
in delegating
authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what
is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to
know.
The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control
over the instruments they have created.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
54950 DECLARATION OF
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the
public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies
in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's
business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be
taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their
sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people,
in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to
decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so
that they may retain control over the instruments they have
created".
"A
citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government
..." Kitchens v. Steele
(1953) 112 F.Supp 383, United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W.
D.
TRANSLATION:
A US citizen or United States citizen is a member of a company not
unlike COSTCO membership.
As everybody knows, corporations and companies don't have citizens,
they have employees and assets.
“There
are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of
citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”. Gardina v. Board of
Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
“The governments of the United
States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one
another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite
different from those which he has under the other”. Colgate v. Harvey,
296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
“...rights of national
citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent
in state citizenship”. Madden v. Kentucky,
309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
“There is a difference between
privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United
States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as
such”. Ruhstrat v. People,
57 N.E. 41 (1900)
“...he was not a citizen of the
United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One
may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States”. McDonel v. The State,
90 Ind. 320 (1883)
“That there is a citizenship of
the United States and citizenship of a state”,... Tashiro v. Jordan
(1927) 201 Cal. 236
"We the people..." are state Citizens. The state
Citizens created the flow of government power:
They created local government first, then colonial/state government,
then the federal government. The federal government was created
to primarily deal with foreign affairs, not state affairs.
