particularly because they singled out the South Dakota approach and copied it virtually verbatim into the Arizona Constitution. See, e.g., Barrows v. Garvey, 67 Ariz. 202, 209, 193 P.2d 913, 917 (1948) (presuming that “the framers of our constitution were conversant with and intended to adopt also the construction that had been placed upon [a] provision” by the courts of the jurisdiction from which the provision was taken “prior to its incorporation into the Arizona Constitution”). ¶ 27 In addition, between the time that South Dakota construed its provision and the time Arizona adopted its constitution, several other jurisdictions had given corresponding constructions to parallel constitutional provisions. See, e.g., State ex rel. McClurg v. Powell, 77 Miss. 543, 27 So. 927, 932 (1900) (<HOLDING>); see also People ex rel. Elder v. Sours, 31
recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution holding that there were at least four amendments submitted to the people in a single proposition and for that reason the amendments were not submitted in accordance with  the constitution and notwithstanding the action of the legislature in inserting them in the constitution are null and void and form no part of said constitution holding that the execution of individuals who were under 18 years of age at the time they committed capital crimes violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitution holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution recognizing that provisions of the colorado constitution should be construed in the context of the constitution as a whole