Talk:Constitution of Texas

Recommendations

It would be nice if this was a little more expansive. – 24.28.64.176 (talk), 20:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC).‎

Agreed. There should be more information regarding why the 1876 constitution was adopted, what differences it has with the 1869 one, and the political climate at the time of its adoption. – Illegitimate Barrister, 11:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

Typo?

In the bill of rights section, the following sentence doesn't make sense. In particular, I think something is wrong at the word "statly." It seems likely that many letters or words are missing after the "t" and before the "ly"... "Most of the article's provisions concern specific fundamental limitations on the power of the statly, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient." (Article 1, Section 2)"

Odd Sentence

Thus, the Texas Constitution functions as a limiting document, as opposed to the U.S. Constitution's purpose as a granting document.

What's the significance of this sentence? The US Constitution was written to grant specific powers to the central authority, including those "necessary and proper" to the explicitly listed ones, and no other powers (see the 10th Amendment). How does that make the federal Constitution a "granting document" in contrast to a "limiting document?" -Kris Schnee (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself; the US Constitution contains a clause that empowers the government to do what is "necessary and proper" to ensure its other powers. Since these powers are not explicit, the clause is generally considered implicit. Because of its broad scope, the powers it may grant in the future may be different than the ones today. One might also consider the motivation behind the constitutions' constructors; the United States constitution was designed after the failure of the Articles of Confederation and its weak central government, so they had it in mind to empower the federal government in the new one. As for the Texas constitution, after governor E. J. Davis' term, the framers of the Texas constitution sought to limit the power of the governor and the state, so they wrote a document that granted the Texas state government only those powers they had explicitly given it. Vocationalzero (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The powers of the Federal government are "explicit", they are specifically listed in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States. The line "the common defence and general welfare" is the PURPOSE of the specific powers listed underneath - it is not some sort of "catch-all" power in its self. Thus the United States Constitution (like the Constitution of the State of Texas) is a "limiting document". This is not astonishing - as the basic philosophy of the authors of the Constitution of the United States and the State of Texas was the same. A very different philosphy from that of most Wikipedia writers.176.25.71.54 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, IP 176.25.71.54, that is incorrect, and it's a fairly common misconception. In Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the power of Congress to "provide for the common defence and general Welfare" is not merely the "purpose" of the "specific powers" listed later in section 8. The power of Congress to "provide" for the "general Welfare" is the power to spend for the general Welfare. There is nothing in section 8 that somehow expressly ties that power or limits its application to the powers listed in clauses 2 through 17 on the list. This very issue was litigated all the way to the United States Supreme Court a very long time ago. It's not a question of the philosophy of "Wikipedia writers." Under the political and legal system of the United States, the interpretation of the Constitution is primarily the job of the courts.

Yes, the U.S. Constitution is a limiting document, in that the powers of the national government are limited. But the power of Congress is not limited in the way you have described. Famspear (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Background: The basic rule in American constitutional law is that Congress may tax for the general welfare and Congress may spend for the general welfare. What Congress may not to is regulate for the general welfare. Clauses 3, 4, 6, etc. of section 8 of Article I relate to the power of Congress to enact laws to regulate. The rule is that Congress may not regulate something unless the power to regulate that thing is provided in that list of things in section 8. But the courts have essentially interpreted the first clause of section 8 (the taxing and spending clause, if you will) to be on an equal par with all the other clauses. In other words, to tax and spend, Congress does not need to find a separate "reason" for doing so in clauses 2 through 18. Clause 1 provides the authority for taxing and spending, and does so very explicitly: "for the general Welfare." A leading court decision on this area of jurisprudence is the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). Famspear (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bill of Rights

I think someone did not correctly comprehend a sentence in the Constitution from this paragraph:

"Section 4 prohibits office holders from the requirements of any religious test, provided they "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being". The latter requirement, as well as similar provisions in several other state constitutions, violates the First Amendment prohibition on establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof (which includes the right to not hold a religious belief), and more particularly violates Article VI, which prohibits any religious test for office. Since it would almost certainly be struck down by the federal courts if challenged, it has not been enforced in modern times."

The actual text states:

"SEC. 4. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. "

From my reading of this, it seems to be IF a person did ever "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" then they cannot be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments. Trentc (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

second paragraph doesn't add up

Texas has had six or seven constitutions depending on how you count them. But in any event, the second paragraph literally doesn't add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlgonline (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the other four?

The article says that 666 amendments to the constitution have been proposed, of which 662 were submitted to voters. Since proposed amendments are required to be submitted to voters, the obvious question is why the other four were not submitted to voters. What happened to them? OnlineAdjunct (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

More contextual information should be added

There should be more information regarding why the 1876 constitution was adopted, what differences it has with the 1869 one, and the political climate at the time of its adoption. – Illegitimate Barrister, 11:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata list

List of Texas constitutions in Wikidata: https://w.wiki/Aus8 -- M2545 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)