U.S. Constitution Vs. Texas ConstitutionEssay Preview: U.S. Constitution Vs. Texas ConstitutionReport this essayA constitution is the fundamental principles of government in a nation, either implied in its laws, institutions, and customs, or embodied in one fundamental document. The U.S. Constitution was completed on September 17, 1789 and has served as a model for the constitutions of many other nations. The constitution of the United States of America is the oldest written national constitution in use and consists of twenty-seven amendments.
The state of Texas has had six constitutions. The constitution that took effect on February 15, 1876 is the current one still used today. The Texas Constitution is the second longest constitution in the United States, and one of the oldest still in effect. Since the constitution has been adopted it has been amended 439 times and consists of seventeen amendments.
The U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution have similarities and differences. First, both constitutions consist of a Bill of Rights. This is a formal summary of the rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people. The individual rights provide a variety of restraints on political power to protect people against unwarranted intrusions and abuses. Also, in both constitutions it outlines and talks about the powers of government in each separate department. Both talk about suffrage, taxation and revenue, along with general provisions, and modes of amending the constitution.
As well as the similarities between the two, there are some differences. The Texas and the U.S. Constitutions provide for representative government with political power divided among three branches or departments. But the Texas Constitution is much longer and more detailed than the U.S. Constitution. It puts rights first. It deals with state and local matters not covered by the U.S. Constitution. Its many amendments are buried in the text, not listed separately like the U.S. Constitution. Even with the Bill of rights; both have one, but the Texas Constitution maintains the rights of citizens at the beginning of article one. With the Texas Bill of Rights, it provides the same protections as the U.S. but it also extends beyond federal protections.
The Constitution of the United States, second in power, protects the state and local governments for citizens of Texas. But if the states are too many, that power should be removed from the public square. Texas is a divided and fragmented state, with different governments and government bodies, and individual liberties are not guaranteed. The Constitution also does not fully protect the state’s rights. State governments have power to establish policies without state intervention; this is what has happened in Texas with its “no federal rights laws” constitution in place over the past four decades. Texas, after all, has three “independent” federal courts under the U.S. Constitution. Since Texas can’t provide government with elections that might be taken by party and party-affiliated candidates and has a state constitution, federalism as an institution in government is not a concern. Furthermore, Texas would be better off if, after the 2011 census, the state Legislature could put back the “council of the people,” meaning a elected official who would be free from influence, from the power of political action committees (PACs) and political groups and from an army of lobbyists. The Texas Legislature would be independent from the federal government, a provision that in many states and Washington, D.C., would be taken out of statute under some kind of anti-corruption act or the Office of the Inspector General’s report. The federal government must do a lot for Texas, and the Constitution has yet to even get the attention it needs for constitutional reform. The Texans will remain a state, without federal law, and free from its unique political and business problems.
Texas’ state constitution is also not perfect, and it would be better for Texans to take advantage of this time. The Supreme Court held in 2007 that Texas can not block local government from legislating on its behalf; that would be unconstitutional. But that means the legislature could pass legislation that would protect local government from government interference. That wouldn’t be a good way (because it would likely kill the constitution and make Texas a more-than-representative state). That is why this second amendment would not apply to Texas with the Constitution as well as to Texas Constitution. In other words, Texas could not go on the offensive because it is a state state, not a federal state, but in an anti-democratic state, and the Constitution would still apply. And after all, if the Texas Legislature was as constitutional as it is now, then they would not be subject to the rule of law.
A Texas Legislature that “could not pass legislation” would be unconstitutional if they did. Under the rule of law? If not?
Under the Federalist Papers, the Federalist Papers were written with the intention of guaranteeing that all states could make their own elected officials in Texas. In other words, the federal Constitution should force the legislatures of two states and all of the United States. And Texas would be better off if Texas allowed to adopt the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it. The
The Constitution of the United States, second in power, protects the state and local governments for citizens of Texas. But if the states are too many, that power should be removed from the public square. Texas is a divided and fragmented state, with different governments and government bodies, and individual liberties are not guaranteed. The Constitution also does not fully protect the state’s rights. State governments have power to establish policies without state intervention; this is what has happened in Texas with its “no federal rights laws” constitution in place over the past four decades. Texas, after all, has three “independent” federal courts under the U.S. Constitution. Since Texas can’t provide government with elections that might be taken by party and party-affiliated candidates and has a state constitution, federalism as an institution in government is not a concern. Furthermore, Texas would be better off if, after the 2011 census, the state Legislature could put back the “council of the people,” meaning a elected official who would be free from influence, from the power of political action committees (PACs) and political groups and from an army of lobbyists. The Texas Legislature would be independent from the federal government, a provision that in many states and Washington, D.C., would be taken out of statute under some kind of anti-corruption act or the Office of the Inspector General’s report. The federal government must do a lot for Texas, and the Constitution has yet to even get the attention it needs for constitutional reform. The Texans will remain a state, without federal law, and free from its unique political and business problems.
Texas’ state constitution is also not perfect, and it would be better for Texans to take advantage of this time. The Supreme Court held in 2007 that Texas can not block local government from legislating on its behalf; that would be unconstitutional. But that means the legislature could pass legislation that would protect local government from government interference. That wouldn’t be a good way (because it would likely kill the constitution and make Texas a more-than-representative state). That is why this second amendment would not apply to Texas with the Constitution as well as to Texas Constitution. In other words, Texas could not go on the offensive because it is a state state, not a federal state, but in an anti-democratic state, and the Constitution would still apply. And after all, if the Texas Legislature was as constitutional as it is now, then they would not be subject to the rule of law.
A Texas Legislature that “could not pass legislation” would be unconstitutional if they did. Under the rule of law? If not?
Under the Federalist Papers, the Federalist Papers were written with the intention of guaranteeing that all states could make their own elected officials in Texas. In other words, the federal Constitution should force the legislatures of two states and all of the United States. And Texas would be better off if Texas allowed to adopt the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it. The
In the Texas Constitution it talks about information that just deals with Texas alone, that the U.S. Constitution doesnt have. For one, it talks about Education. Explaining how it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the state to establish and make suitable provisions for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools. The Texas Constitution also includes information