Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 3: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 3 (view source)

Revision as of 09:01, July 18, 2023

No change in size ,  July 18, 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 23: Line 23:
The first Mississippi Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1817. The first section read: "[A]ll freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal in rights, and [] no man or set of men, are entitled to exclusive, separate, public emoluments or privileges, from the community, but in consideration of public services." And the twenty-sixth read: "[N]o hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honors shall ever be granted or conferred in this State."
The first Mississippi Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1817. The first section read: "[A]ll freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal in rights, and [] no man or set of men, are entitled to exclusive, separate, public emoluments or privileges, from the community, but in consideration of public services." And the twenty-sixth read: "[N]o hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honors shall ever be granted or conferred in this State."


The first Connecticut Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1818. The first section read: "[A]ll men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and [] no man, or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community." And the twentieth read: "No hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this state."
The first Connecticut Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1818. The first section read: "[A]ll men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and [] no man, or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community." And the twentieth read: "No hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this State."


The first Alabama Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1819. The first section read: "[A]ll freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and [] no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive, separate public emoluments or privileges, but in consideration of public services." And the twenty-sixth read in part: "No title of nobility, or hereditary distinction, privilege, honor, or emolument, shall ever be granted or conferred in this State."
The first Alabama Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1819. The first section read: "[A]ll freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and [] no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive, separate public emoluments or privileges, but in consideration of public services." And the twenty-sixth read in part: "No title of nobility, or hereditary distinction, privilege, honor, or emolument, shall ever be granted or conferred in this State."
Line 41: Line 41:
Without any recorded debate, section twenty-one was dropped by the Constitutional Convention of 1875 from the State of Texas's fifth and current Bill of Rights. Cf. ''Reid v. Rolling Fork Pub. Util. Dist.'', 979 F.2d 1084, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14225699397135994464#p1089 1089] (5th Cir. 1992) ("Reid also urges that even if his federal constitutional claim is defeated, his claim under the Texas Constitution's equal protection clause survives. . . . There is ample support in Texas case law for the District's contention that the same requirements are applied to equal protection challenges under the Texas Constitution as to those under the United States Constitution.").
Without any recorded debate, section twenty-one was dropped by the Constitutional Convention of 1875 from the State of Texas's fifth and current Bill of Rights. Cf. ''Reid v. Rolling Fork Pub. Util. Dist.'', 979 F.2d 1084, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14225699397135994464#p1089 1089] (5th Cir. 1992) ("Reid also urges that even if his federal constitutional claim is defeated, his claim under the Texas Constitution's equal protection clause survives. . . . There is ample support in Texas case law for the District's contention that the same requirements are applied to equal protection challenges under the Texas Constitution as to those under the United States Constitution.").


The courts and commentators routinely insert the term "free men" rather than "freemen" when quoting the text of this section. Because it appears in the enrolled version of the state constitution, "freemen" is used here. Cf. Joshua Morrow, ''There Is Only One Texas Constitution'', 52 St. Mary's L.J. 765, [https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=thestmaryslawjournal&#page=72 835-36] (2021) ("One constitution governs Texas: the manuscript constitution that the delegates to the Convention of 1875 signed and enrolled. . . . No longer should any court cite a pre-ratification copy as law, although courts can use those copies to help dispel any ambiguities that appear in the ratified text.").
The courts and commentators routinely insert the term "free men" rather than "freemen" when quoting the text of this section. Because it appears in the enrolled version of the Texas Constitution, "freemen" is used here. Cf. Joshua Morrow, ''There Is Only One Texas Constitution'', 52 St. Mary's L.J. 765, [https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=thestmaryslawjournal&#page=72 835-36] (2021) ("One constitution governs Texas: the manuscript constitution that the delegates to the Convention of 1875 signed and enrolled. . . . No longer should any court cite a pre-ratification copy as law, although courts can use those copies to help dispel any ambiguities that appear in the ratified text.").


Finally, note that no published appellate court decision has ever detailed the origin or otherwise discussed the history of this section's unique text. Cf. ''State v. Webb'', 238 Conn. 389, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7451084436936559118#p409 409] (1996) (citation omitted) ("Thus, as the defendant acknowledges, the concepts of the social compact and of natural law as sources of unenumerated constitutional rights are intertwined. Indeed, we have treated the two as functionally the same. We now, therefore, reaffirm . . . that neither the social compact clause nor its counterpart, natural law, constitutes a source of unenumerated rights under our constitutional scheme.").
Finally, note that no published appellate court decision has ever detailed the origin or otherwise discussed the history of this section's unique text. Cf. ''State v. Webb'', 238 Conn. 389, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7451084436936559118#p409 409] (1996) (citation omitted) ("Thus, as the defendant acknowledges, the concepts of the social compact and of natural law as sources of unenumerated constitutional rights are intertwined. Indeed, we have treated the two as functionally the same. We now, therefore, reaffirm . . . that neither the social compact clause nor its counterpart, natural law, constitutes a source of unenumerated rights under our constitutional scheme.").
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/4843"

Navigation menu