4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 3 (view source)
Revision as of 19:34, July 3, 2023
, July 3, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
* ''Glasgow v. Terrell'', 102 S.W. 98, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/102_SW_98.pdf#page=2 99] (Tex. 1907) ("Every state has of necessity dual functions to perform—first, its political functions, which affect the public; second, its private functions, such as the acquisition of private property and the disposition of property already acquired. The latter are not in our opinion affected by the provision of the Constitution in question. It was so held in the case of ''Williams v. Cammack'', 27 Miss. 209, 61 Am. Dec. 508, in which a provision of the Constitution of Mississippi couched in substantially the same language was in question. . . . We have found no other case in which the words 'public emoluments and privileges' have been construed.") | * ''Glasgow v. Terrell'', 102 S.W. 98, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/102_SW_98.pdf#page=2 99] (Tex. 1907) ("Every state has of necessity dual functions to perform—first, its political functions, which affect the public; second, its private functions, such as the acquisition of private property and the disposition of property already acquired. The latter are not in our opinion affected by the provision of the Constitution in question. It was so held in the case of ''Williams v. Cammack'', 27 Miss. 209, 61 Am. Dec. 508, in which a provision of the Constitution of Mississippi couched in substantially the same language was in question. . . . We have found no other case in which the words 'public emoluments and privileges' have been construed.") | ||
* ''Gustafson v. State'', 48 S.W. 518, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Gustafson v. State'', 48 S.W. 518, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/048_SW_518.pdf#page=2 519] (Tex.Crim.App. 1898) ("Our constitution provides (section 3, art. 1): . . . . Mr. Cooley says on this subject (Cooley, Const. Lim. 485): 'Equality of rights, privileges, and capacities unquestionably should be the aim of the law; and if special privileges are granted or special burdens or restrictions imposed, in any case, it must be presumed that the legislature designed to depart as little as possible from this fundamental maxim of government. The state, it is to be presumed, has no favors to bestow, and designs to inflict no arbitrary deprivation of rights. Special privileges are always obnoxious, and discrimination against persons or classes is still more so.'") | ||
* ''Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Chowning'', 26 S.W. 982, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_026_SWR_982.pdf#page=3 984] (Tex. 1894) ("Appellant's counsel assert that the article in question is in conflict with article 1, § 3, of the constitution of the state of Texas, which is in these words: '. . . .' It is not shown just how the law violates this section, and, indeed, it would be difficult to imagine how a corporation which has no natural rights could be said to be entitled to such rights and privileges as grow out of the formation of a social compact. It is the creature of law, and entitled to just such rights as the law grants to it. When granted, such rights are protected from invasion the same as the rights of any natural person.") | * ''Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Chowning'', 26 S.W. 982, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_026_SWR_982.pdf#page=3 984] (Tex. 1894) ("Appellant's counsel assert that the article in question is in conflict with article 1, § 3, of the constitution of the state of Texas, which is in these words: '. . . .' It is not shown just how the law violates this section, and, indeed, it would be difficult to imagine how a corporation which has no natural rights could be said to be entitled to such rights and privileges as grow out of the formation of a social compact. It is the creature of law, and entitled to just such rights as the law grants to it. When granted, such rights are protected from invasion the same as the rights of any natural person.") | ||