Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 1: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 1 (view source)

Revision as of 16:28, July 17, 2023

1 byte removed ,  July 17, 2023
Undo revision 4830 by Admin (talk)
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
(Undo revision 4830 by Admin (talk))
Tag: Undo
 
Line 13: Line 13:
* ''Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. PHI Air Medical, LLC'', 610 S.W.3d 839, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13299155594589376873#p855 855] (Tex. 2020) ("If the Federal Government does not like state regulation of a subject that also falls within Congress's enumerated powers . . . . But nowhere in the Constitution did the States give the Federal Government the power to order them to change their own laws, as the Tenth Amendment confirms. ''See'' U.S. Const. amend. X ('The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.').")
* ''Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. PHI Air Medical, LLC'', 610 S.W.3d 839, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13299155594589376873#p855 855] (Tex. 2020) ("If the Federal Government does not like state regulation of a subject that also falls within Congress's enumerated powers . . . . But nowhere in the Constitution did the States give the Federal Government the power to order them to change their own laws, as the Tenth Amendment confirms. ''See'' U.S. Const. amend. X ('The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.').")


* ''King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party'', 521 S.W.3d 729, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=892587947312060586#p742 742-743] (Tex. 2017) (footnotes omitted) ("Only the Supreme Court has the 'prerogative . . . to overrule one of its precedents.' Thus even if ''Beaumont'''s rationale is in doubt, we are bound to follow it unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it. Our unanimous acknowledgment that ''Beaumont'' is binding Supreme Court precedent terminates our inquiry. As the Supreme Court has admonished, any further examination is 'wrong,' even querying whether subsequent authority impugns its continued vitality.")
* ''King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party'', 521 S.W.3d 729, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=892587947312060586#p742 742-43] (Tex. 2017) (footnotes omitted) ("Only the Supreme Court has the 'prerogative . . . to overrule one of its precedents.' Thus even if ''Beaumont'''s rationale is in doubt, we are bound to follow it unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it. Our unanimous acknowledgment that ''Beaumont'' is binding Supreme Court precedent terminates our inquiry. As the Supreme Court has admonished, any further examination is 'wrong,' even querying whether subsequent authority impugns its continued vitality.")


|historic=
|historic=
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/4831"

Navigation menu