Language - Revision history

Sysop: /* Cal. Const. Art. III, §6 */

2023-10-10T02:14:59Z

Cal. Const. Art. III, §6

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 10 October 2023
Line 40:		Line 40:
	THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: LINGUISTIC SEPARATISM AND NATIONAL UNITY		THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: LINGUISTIC SEPARATISM AND NATIONAL UNITY
	41 EMORYLJ 223 Frank M. Lowrey, IV		41 EMORYLJ 223 Frank M. Lowrey, IV

			While section 6 may conceivably have some concrete application to official government communications, if and when the measure is appropriately implemented by the state legislature, it appears otherwise to be primarily a symbolic statement concerning the importance of preserving, protecting, and strengthening the English language.


			Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of Southeast Judicial Dist., Los Angeles County (9th Cir. 1988) 838 F.2d 1031, 1044, cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Municipal Court of Southeast Judicial Dist., County of Los Angeles v. Gutierrez (1989) 490 U.S. 1016 [109 S.Ct. 1736, 104 L.Ed.2d 174]

Sysop: /* Cal. Const. Art. III, §6 */

2023-10-10T02:03:37Z

Cal. Const. Art. III, §6

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:03, 10 October 2023
Line 31:		Line 31:
	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.		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.

	(Added by ~~Initiative Measure~~, Nov. 4, 1986.)		(Added by Prop 63, Nov. 4, 1986.)


			George E. Mowry, The California Progressives

			Elisabeth R. Gerber et al., Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to Direct Democracy 4 (2001).

			THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: LINGUISTIC SEPARATISM AND NATIONAL UNITY
			41 EMORYLJ 223 Frank M. Lowrey, IV

Sysop: /* Cal. Const. Art. III, §6 */

2023-10-10T01:45:56Z

Cal. Const. Art. III, §6

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:45, 10 October 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Sec. 6. (a) Purpose.		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 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.

	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.		(b) English as the Official Language of California.

Sysop at 01:45, 10 October 2023

2023-10-10T01:45:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:45, 10 October 2023
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Correa 9th circuit on hearsay		Correa 9th circuit on hearsay

			==Cal. Const. Art. III, §6==

			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.

			(c) Enforcement.

			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.

			(d) Personal Right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts.

			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.

			(Added by Initiative Measure, Nov. 4, 1986.)

Sysop at 13:27, 28 May 2021

2021-05-28T13:27:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 28 May 2021
Line 6:		Line 6:

	In Aguilar, we stressed the importance of the presence of an interpreter throughout the proceedings for those who do not understand English. An interpreter is necessary so that a defendant can understand and fully participate in the proceedings when he is charged with a crime. There are three roles which an interpreter may play: (1) interpreting the questions to and answers of non-English-speaking witnesses; (2) advancing the "`non-English-speaking defendant's understanding of the colloquy between the attorneys, the witness, and the judge;'" and (3) enabling the non-English-speaking defendant to consult with his English-speaking attorney. (People v. Aguilar, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 790, quoting Chang & Araujo, Interpreters for the Defense: Due Process for the Non-English-Speaking Defendant (1975) 63 Cal. L.Rev. 801, 802.) Deprivation of an interpreter may cause the proceedings in significant part to be incomprehensible to a defendant.		In Aguilar, we stressed the importance of the presence of an interpreter throughout the proceedings for those who do not understand English. An interpreter is necessary so that a defendant can understand and fully participate in the proceedings when he is charged with a crime. There are three roles which an interpreter may play: (1) interpreting the questions to and answers of non-English-speaking witnesses; (2) advancing the "`non-English-speaking defendant's understanding of the colloquy between the attorneys, the witness, and the judge;'" and (3) enabling the non-English-speaking defendant to consult with his English-speaking attorney. (People v. Aguilar, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 790, quoting Chang & Araujo, Interpreters for the Defense: Due Process for the Non-English-Speaking Defendant (1975) 63 Cal. L.Rev. 801, 802.) Deprivation of an interpreter may cause the proceedings in significant part to be incomprehensible to a defendant.

			People v. rioz 1984 161 Cal.App.3d 905

			People v. nieblas 1984 161 Cal.App.3d 527

			Correa 9th circuit on hearsay

Sysop: Created page with "Cal. Const. art. I. S. 14 People v. aguilar People v. rodeigueZ In Aguilar, we stressed the importance of the presence of an interpreter throughout the proceedings for tho..."

2021-05-28T13:24:34Z

Created page with "Cal. Const. art. I. S. 14 People v. aguilar People v. rodeigueZ In Aguilar, we stressed the importance of the presence of an interpreter throughout the proceedings for tho..."

New page

Cal. Const. art. I. S. 14

People v. aguilar

People v. rodeigueZ

In Aguilar, we stressed the importance of the presence of an interpreter throughout the proceedings for those who do not understand English. An interpreter is necessary so that a defendant can understand and fully participate in the proceedings when he is charged with a crime. There are three roles which an interpreter may play: (1) interpreting the questions to and answers of non-English-speaking witnesses; (2) advancing the "`non-English-speaking defendant's understanding of the colloquy between the attorneys, the witness, and the judge;'" and (3) enabling the non-English-speaking defendant to consult with his English-speaking attorney. (People v. Aguilar, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 790, quoting Chang & Araujo, Interpreters for the Defense: Due Process for the Non-English-Speaking Defendant (1975) 63 Cal. L.Rev. 801, 802.) Deprivation of an interpreter may cause the proceedings in significant part to be incomprehensible to a defendant.