Texas Legal Guide - Recent Changes [en]

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 3

Admin — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 14:51:04 GMT

Texas Constitution talk:Article I, Section 3

Admin — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 23:21:33 GMT

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:21, October 14, 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
(No difference)

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 3

Admin — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 20:00:24 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, October 14, 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 39:		Line 39:
	The first Florida Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1838. The first section read: "[A]ll freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness." And the twenty-fifth read: "[N]o hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this State." No section addressed "exclusive" or "separate" public emoluments or privileges.		The first Florida Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1838. The first section read: "[A]ll freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness." And the twenty-fifth read: "[N]o hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this State." No section addressed "exclusive" or "separate" public emoluments or privileges.

	The State of Texas's first Bill of Rights was adopted in 1845. The second section read: "All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights; and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive, separate, public emoluments or privileges, but in consideration of public services." No section directly addressed titles of nobility or hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors. Note that the ~~journal~~ of the convention ~~does~~ not contain any discussion or other information regarding the origin or substance of Section 2. However, a floor amendment, ~~which was~~ rejected ~~by the convention~~ without ~~any~~ recorded debate or vote, proposed ~~changing~~ Section 2 to read: "All citizens have equal rights, and no man, or class of men is entitled to exclusive, separate emoluments or privileges."		The State of Texas's first Bill of Rights was adopted in 1845. The second section read: "All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights; and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive, separate, public emoluments or privileges, but in consideration of public services." No section directly addressed titles of nobility or hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors. Note that the journals of the convention do not contain any discussion or other information regarding the origin or substance of Section 2. However, a floor amendment, rejected without recorded debate or vote, proposed that Section 2 read: "All citizens have equal rights; and no man, or class of men, is entitled to exclusive, separate emoluments or privileges." See ''Debates of the Texas Convention'' [https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/imgs/constitutions/files/debates1845/1845_07_16_dbt.pdf#page=17 96] (Wm. Weeks, Houston 1846).

	In ''Williams v. Cammack'', 27 Miss. 209, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Miss_209.pdf#page=10 218] (1854), the Mississippi Supreme Court opined: "The principle here announced is that of equality in political rights, and a denial of all title to individual privileges, honors, and distinctions from the community but for public services. It was directed against superiority of personal and political rights . . . . But it has no reference to the private relations of the citizens, nor to the action of the legislature in passing laws regulating the domestic policy and business affairs of the people, or any portion of them. Such matters are left, with but few limitations, to the discretion of the legislature." As construed by the state's highest court, Section 1 of the Mississippi Declaration of Rights prevented social elites from obtaining unearned political emoluments or privileges from the state but it did not govern whether ordinary citizens received equal treatment under the remaining multitude of state governmental decisions.		In ''Williams v. Cammack'', 27 Miss. 209, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Miss_209.pdf#page=10 218] (1854), the Mississippi Supreme Court opined: "The principle here announced is that of equality in political rights, and a denial of all title to individual privileges, honors, and distinctions from the community but for public services. It was directed against superiority of personal and political rights . . . . But it has no reference to the private relations of the citizens, nor to the action of the legislature in passing laws regulating the domestic policy and business affairs of the people, or any portion of them. Such matters are left, with but few limitations, to the discretion of the legislature." As construed by the state's highest court, Section 1 of the Mississippi Declaration of Rights prevented social elites from obtaining unearned political emoluments or privileges from the state but it did not govern whether ordinary citizens received equal treatment under the remaining multitude of state governmental decisions.

Texas Constitution talk:Article I, Section 6

Admin — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 14:27:11 GMT

add !

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, October 8, 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 8:		Line 8:

	DR 2 "That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings; and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to or against his own free will and consent, and that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul the right of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship."		DR 2 "That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings; and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to or against his own free will and consent, and that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul the right of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship."

			== add ! ==

			After the latter lauso of Article 4th, Mr. Lipscomb proposed to add:
			but it shall be the duty of the General Assembly, to pass such laws as
			shall be necessary to protect every denotninltion of christians in the
			peaceable enjoymcnt of their own,mode of worship"
			KMr. tan Zandt thought the subject was amplv pro'dded for in the
			fit t part of the Article. 'He conceived that religious denominations
			need no protection except that of the Almighty: it left free to worship
			Goeaccording to the dictates of their pwn conscirtnces.
			Mr. Lipscomb replid, that he had often see the solemnnities of public worship interrupted by the light and fiivolous. Without laws for this purpose, they will b- at all times liabe to interruption. Amendment made.

			page 13
			https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/imgs/constitutions/files/debates1845/1845_07_15_dbt.pdf [[User:Admin\|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin\|talk]]) 09:08, October 8, 2026 (CDT)

			The following was adopted, as an addition to the 4th article: "but it
			shall bt the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as shall be necessary to protect every denomination of Christians, in the peaceable enjoyment of their own mode of public worship."

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 3

Admin — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 15:51:36 GMT

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:51, October 20, 2026
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 9:		Line 9:
	However, Texas courts have always treated it as simply an "equal rights" provision. Cf. Steven Calabresi et al., ''On Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment: The Original Understanding of the Lockean Natural Rights Guarantees'', 93 Tex. L. Rev. 1299, [https://texaslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Calabresi-93-6.pdf#page=17 1315] (2014) ("Historians agree that these changes were intended to reassure slaveholders that the Guarantee would not be interpreted as abolishing slavery in Virginia in 1776.").		However, Texas courts have always treated it as simply an "equal rights" provision. Cf. Steven Calabresi et al., ''On Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment: The Original Understanding of the Lockean Natural Rights Guarantees'', 93 Tex. L. Rev. 1299, [https://texaslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Calabresi-93-6.pdf#page=17 1315] (2014) ("Historians agree that these changes were intended to reassure slaveholders that the Guarantee would not be interpreted as abolishing slavery in Virginia in 1776.").

	And, for at least the last thirty-five years, Texas courts have uniformly held that the substance of this section and the federal equal protection clause are identical. Cf. 1 ''~~The~~ Constitution of the ~~State of~~ Texas~~: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis~~'' [https://~~texaslegalguide~~.com/~~images/opt_tex_const_3_and_3-a.pdf~~#~~page=7 19~~] ("In the ~~light of judicial equating of Section 3 and~~ the ~~Equal Protection Clause, it would seem sensible~~ to ~~rewrite Sections 3 and 3a along these lines: No person may be denied the~~ equal protection of the ~~laws or discriminated against by law because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin~~.").		And, for at least the last thirty-five years, Texas courts have uniformly held that the substance of this section and the federal equal protection clause are identical. Cf. ''Marfil v. City of New Braunfels'', 178 F.4th 941, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=358556907381869862#p948 948] (5th Cir. 2026) (cleaned up) ("Because the federal analytical approach applies to equal protection challenges under the Texas Constitution, we do not address separately the Appellants' claim under the Texas Constitution."); ''Reid v. Rolling Fork Pub. Util. Dist.'', 979 F.2d 1084, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14225699397135994464#p1089 1089] (5th Cir. 1992) ("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.").

	It's improbable that the foregoing interpretation will be departed from by the Texas judiciary in the future. Cf. ''~~Marfil v. City~~ of ~~New Braunfels~~''~~, 178 F.4th 941,~~ [https://~~scholar.google~~.com/~~scholar_case?case~~=~~17244835170252418787#p??? 948~~] ~~(5th Cir. 2026)~~ ("~~'Because '~~the ~~federal analytical approach applies~~ to equal protection ~~challenges under~~ the ~~Texas Constitution~~,~~' we do not address separately the [Appellants'] claim under the Texas Constitution.'"); ''Reid v. Rolling Fork Pub. Util. Dist.''~~, ~~979 F.2d 1084~~, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14225699397135994464#p1089 1089] (5th Cir. 1992) ("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.").		It's improbable that the foregoing interpretation will be departed from by the Texas judiciary in the future. Cf. 1 ''The Constitution of the State of Texas: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis'' [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/opt_tex_const_3_and_3-a.pdf#page=7 19] ("In the light of judicial equating of Section 3 and the Equal Protection Clause, it would seem sensible to rewrite Sections 3 and 3a along these lines: No person may be denied the equal protection of the laws or discriminated against by law because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.").

	Nonetheless, for completeness, the origin of this section's unique text is ~~outlined~~ below. Cf. ''Garofolo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC'', 497 S.W.3d 474, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=230463052788030019#p477 477] (Tex. 2016) ("We strive to give constitutional provisions the effect their makers and adopters intended."); Robert Forbes, ''Grating the Nutmeg: Slavery and Racism in Connecticut from the Colonial Era to the Civil War'', 52.2 Conn. Hist. Rev. 101, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Connecticut_History_52.2.pdf#page=18 118-19] (2013) ("As in Virginia, the Mississippi delegates adopted the Lockean language of 'social compact' explicitly to evade attributing rights to slaves, who by law and custom were considered aliens.").		Nonetheless, for completeness, the origin of this section's unique text is detailed below. Cf. ''Garofolo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC'', 497 S.W.3d 474, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=230463052788030019#p477 477] (Tex. 2016) ("We strive to give constitutional provisions the effect their makers and adopters intended."); Robert Forbes, ''Grating the Nutmeg: Slavery and Racism in Connecticut from the Colonial Era to the Civil War'', 52.2 Conn. Hist. Rev. 101, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Connecticut_History_52.2.pdf#page=18 118-19] (2013) ("As in Virginia, the Mississippi delegates adopted the Lockean language of 'social compact' explicitly to evade attributing rights to slaves, who by law and custom were considered aliens.").

	The first Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted in June 1776. The first section read: "[A]ll men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." And the fourth read: "[N]o man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary." The declaration of rights reported by the committee assigned to draft ~~the state~~'s new constitution did not contain the "when they enter into a state of society" language. That text was added on the convention floor after objections were raised that the committee's version of Section 1 would undermine the state's system of chattel slavery. See ''The Virginia Declaration of Rights'' at [https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/sources/revolutionary-documents/the-virginia-declaration-of-rights/ 1] ("This addition, which the convention accepted, was understood to exclude enslaved people from the document's expansive promises of natural rights.").		The first Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted in June 1776. The first section read: "[A]ll men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." And the fourth read: "[N]o man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary." The declaration of rights reported by the committee assigned to draft Virginia's new constitution did not contain the "when they enter into a state of society" language. That text was added on the convention floor after objections were raised that the committee's version of Section 1 would undermine the state's system of chattel slavery. See ''The Virginia Declaration of Rights'' at [https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/sources/revolutionary-documents/the-virginia-declaration-of-rights/ 1] ("This addition, which the convention accepted, was understood to exclude enslaved people from the document's expansive promises of natural rights.").

	The first Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights was adopted in September 1776. The first section read: "[A]ll men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." And the fifth read in part: "[G]overnment is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or set of men, who are a part only of that community."		The first Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights was adopted in September 1776. The first section read: "[A]ll men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." And the fifth read in part: "[G]overnment is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or set of men, who are a part only of that community."
Line 39:		Line 39:
	The first Florida Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1838. The first section read: "[A]ll freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness." And the twenty-fifth read: "[N]o hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this State." No section addressed "exclusive" or "separate" public emoluments or privileges.		The first Florida Declaration of Rights was adopted in 1838. The first section read: "[A]ll freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness." And the twenty-fifth read: "[N]o hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this State." No section addressed "exclusive" or "separate" public emoluments or privileges.

	The State of Texas's first Bill of Rights was adopted in 1845. The second section read: "All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights; and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive, separate, public emoluments or privileges, but in consideration of public services." No section directly addressed titles of nobility or hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors. Note that the journals of the convention do not contain any discussion or other information regarding the origin or substance of Section 2. However, a floor amendment, rejected without recorded debate or vote, proposed that ~~Section 2~~ read: "All citizens have equal rights; and no man, or class of men, is entitled to exclusive, separate emoluments or privileges." See ''Debates of the Texas Convention'' [https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/imgs/constitutions/files/debates1845/1845_07_16_dbt.pdf#page=17 96] (Wm. Weeks, Houston 1846).		The State of Texas's first Bill of Rights was adopted in 1845. The second section read: "All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights; and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive, separate, public emoluments or privileges, but in consideration of public services." No section directly addressed titles of nobility or hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors. Note that the journals of the convention do not contain any discussion or other information regarding the origin or substance of Section 2. However, a floor amendment, rejected without recorded debate or vote, proposed that the section read: "All citizens have equal rights; and no man, or class of men, is entitled to exclusive, separate emoluments or privileges." See ''Debates of the Texas Convention'' [https://tarltonapps.law.utexas.edu/imgs/constitutions/files/debates1845/1845_07_16_dbt.pdf#page=17 96] (Wm. Weeks, Houston 1846).

	In ''Williams v. Cammack'', 27 Miss. 209, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Miss_209.pdf#page=10 218] (1854), the Mississippi Supreme Court opined: "The principle here announced is that of equality in political rights, and a denial of all title to individual privileges, honors, and distinctions from the community but for public services. It was directed against superiority of personal and political rights . . . . But it has no reference to the private relations of the citizens, nor to the action of the legislature in passing laws regulating the domestic policy and business affairs of the people, or any portion of them. Such matters are left, with but few limitations, to the discretion of the legislature." As construed by the state's highest court, Section 1 of the Mississippi Declaration of Rights prevented social elites from obtaining unearned political emoluments or privileges from the state but it did not govern whether ordinary citizens received equal treatment under the remaining multitude of state governmental decisions.		In ''Williams v. Cammack'', 27 Miss. 209, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Miss_209.pdf#page=10 218] (1854), the Mississippi Supreme Court opined: "The principle here announced is that of equality in political rights, and a denial of all title to individual privileges, honors, and distinctions from the community but for public services. It was directed against superiority of personal and political rights . . . . But it has no reference to the private relations of the citizens, nor to the action of the legislature in passing laws regulating the domestic policy and business affairs of the people, or any portion of them. Such matters are left, with but few limitations, to the discretion of the legislature." As construed by the state's highest court, Section 1 of the Mississippi Declaration of Rights prevented social elites from obtaining unearned political emoluments or privileges from the state but it did not govern whether ordinary citizens received equal treatment under the remaining multitude of state governmental decisions.

	In the State of Texas's second Bill of Rights adopted in 1861 due to it joining the Confederacy and its third Bill of Rights adopted in 1866 due to it leaving the Confederacy, the relevant constitutional language remained exactly the same.		In the State of Texas's second Bill of Rights adopted in 1861 due to it joining the Confederacy and its third Bill of Rights adopted in 1866 due to it leaving the Confederacy, the relevant constitutional language remained exactly the same. Note that the journal of neither the 1861 convention nor the 1866 convention contain any discussion or other information regarding the origin or substance of Section 2.

	The State of Texas's fourth Bill of Rights was adopted in 1869 due to the demands of Congressional Reconstruction. The second section read: "All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments or privileges." And the twenty-first read: "The equality of all persons before the law is herein recognized and shall ever remain inviolate, nor shall any citizen ever be deprived of any right, privilege or immunity, nor be exempted from any burden or duty, on account of race, color or previous condition."		The State of Texas's fourth Bill of Rights was adopted in 1869 due to the demands of Congressional Reconstruction. The second section read: "All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments or privileges." And the twenty-first read: "The equality of all persons before the law is herein recognized and shall ever remain inviolate, nor shall any citizen ever be deprived of any right, privilege or immunity, nor be exempted from any burden or duty, on account of race, color or previous condition."