Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 15 - Revision history

Admin at 15:20, June 4, 2024

2024-06-04T15:20:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, June 4, 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 15 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Disrespectful or Disorderly Conduct; Obstruction of Proceedings"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 15 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Disrespectful or Disorderly Conduct; Obstruction of Proceedings"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:

	Each House may punish, by imprisonment, during its sessions, any person not a member, for disrespectful or disorderly conduct in its presence, or for obstructing any of its proceedings; provided, such imprisonment shall not, at any one time, exceed forty-eight hours.		'''Each House may punish, by imprisonment, during its sessions, any person not a member, for disrespectful or disorderly conduct in its presence, or for obstructing any of its proceedings; provided, such imprisonment shall not, at any one time, exceed forty-eight hours.'''

	\|editor=		\|editor=

Admin at 15:18, June 4, 2024

2024-06-04T15:18:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, June 4, 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 15 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Disrespectful or Disorderly Conduct; Obstruction of Proceedings"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 15 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Disrespectful or Disorderly Conduct; Obstruction of Proceedings"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:

	~~'''~~Each House may punish, by imprisonment, during its sessions, any person not a member, for disrespectful or disorderly conduct in its presence, or for obstructing any of its proceedings; provided, such imprisonment shall not, at any one time, exceed forty-eight hours.~~'''~~		Each House may punish, by imprisonment, during its sessions, any person not a member, for disrespectful or disorderly conduct in its presence, or for obstructing any of its proceedings; provided, such imprisonment shall not, at any one time, exceed forty-eight hours.

	\|editor=		\|editor=

Admin: Text replacement - "|seo_image=Texas_Constitution_of_1876_Article_3.jpg" to "|seo_image=mod_Texas_Constitution_of_1876_Article_3.jpg"

2024-06-02T19:43:17Z

Text replacement - "|seo_image=Texas_Constitution_of_1876_Article_3.jpg" to "|seo_image=mod_Texas_Constitution_of_1876_Article_3.jpg"

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, June 2, 2024
Line 20:		Line 20:
	\|seo_keywords=Article 3 Section 15, Texas Legislature, legislative contempt		\|seo_keywords=Article 3 Section 15, Texas Legislature, legislative contempt
	\|seo_description=The legislative power of Texas is vested in a Senate and House of Representatives.		\|seo_description=The legislative power of Texas is vested in a Senate and House of Representatives.
	\|seo_image=~~Texas_Constitution_of_1876_Article_3~~.jpg		\|seo_image=mod_Texas_Constitution_of_1876_Article_3.jpg
	\|seo_image_alt=Article III: Legislative Department		\|seo_image_alt=Article III: Legislative Department

Admin at 23:46, July 30, 2023

2023-07-30T23:46:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, July 30, 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|historic=		\|historic=

	* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. ~~1953~~) ("Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to . . . . The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")		* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1952) ("Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to . . . . The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")

	* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")		* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")

Admin at 19:39, July 30, 2023

2023-07-30T19:39:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, July 30, 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|historic=		\|historic=

	* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) ("Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to . . . . The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")		* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) ("Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to . . . . The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")

	* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")		* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")

Admin at 19:36, July 30, 2023

2023-07-30T19:36:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:36, July 30, 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|historic=		\|historic=

	* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) ("Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to ~~raise the maximum punishment set forth in the Constitution~~. The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")		* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) ("Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to . . . . The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")

	* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")		* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")

Admin at 19:35, July 30, 2023

2023-07-30T19:35:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:35, July 30, 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|historic=		\|historic=

	* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) ("Appellant’s second contention that the Act is unconstitutional is based on the fact that the Constitution of Texas, Section 15 of Article III, provides: '. . . .' while Section 2 of Article 5429a provides for the maximum penalty assessed in this case. Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to raise the maximum punishment set forth in the Constitution. The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")		* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) ("Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to raise the maximum punishment set forth in the Constitution. The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")

	* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")		* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")

Admin at 19:34, July 30, 2023

2023-07-30T19:34:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:34, July 30, 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|historic=		\|historic=

	* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953~~) (citation omitted~~) ("Appellant’s second contention that the Act is unconstitutional is based on the fact that the Constitution of Texas, Section 15 of Article III, provides: '. . . .' while Section 2 of Article 5429a provides for the maximum penalty assessed in this case. Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to raise the maximum punishment set forth in the Constitution. The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")		* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) ("Appellant’s second contention that the Act is unconstitutional is based on the fact that the Constitution of Texas, Section 15 of Article III, provides: '. . . .' while Section 2 of Article 5429a provides for the maximum penalty assessed in this case. Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to raise the maximum punishment set forth in the Constitution. The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")

	* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")		* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")

Admin at 19:33, July 30, 2023

2023-07-30T19:33:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, July 30, 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|historic=		\|historic=

	* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902 ~~???~~] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) (citation omitted) ("Appellant’s second contention that the Act is unconstitutional is based on the fact that the Constitution of Texas, Section 15 of Article III, provides: '. . . .' while Section 2 of Article 5429a provides for the maximum penalty assessed in this case. Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to raise the maximum punishment set forth in the Constitution. The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")		* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902#p590 590] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) (citation omitted) ("Appellant’s second contention that the Act is unconstitutional is based on the fact that the Constitution of Texas, Section 15 of Article III, provides: '. . . .' while Section 2 of Article 5429a provides for the maximum penalty assessed in this case. Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to raise the maximum punishment set forth in the Constitution. The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")

	* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")		* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")

Admin at 19:31, July 30, 2023

2023-07-30T19:31:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, July 30, 2023
Line 12:		Line 12:

	\|historic=		\|historic=

			* ''Ferrantello v. State'', 256 S.W.2d 587, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14436235296233286902 ???] (Tex.Crim.App. 1953) (citation omitted) ("Appellant’s second contention that the Act is unconstitutional is based on the fact that the Constitution of Texas, Section 15 of Article III, provides: '. . . .' while Section 2 of Article 5429a provides for the maximum penalty assessed in this case. Great reliance is had upon Ex parte Youngblood, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 251 S.W. 509, wherein we held that the Legislature was powerless to raise the maximum punishment set forth in the Constitution. The fundamental distinction between the Youngblood case-and the case at bar lies in the identity of the tribunal assessing the punishment. In the Youngblood case, the Legislature sought to impose the punishment; while in the case at bar the court set the punishment upon a verdict of the jury following a trial for the substantive offense of refusing to answer questions propounded by a legislative committee.")

	* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")		* ''Canfield v. Gresham'', 17 S.W. 390, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/017_SW_390.pdf 390-93] (Tex. 1891) ("This suit was brought by appellant against 56 members of the house of representatives of the twentieth legislature and J. C. Carr, its sergeant at arms, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by his unlawful and malicious arrest and imprisonment. . . . The house had unquestionably the right to determine whether or not the acts of plaintiff were an obstruction to its proceedings within the meaning of the constitution, and, having so determined, to cause him to be imprisoned as he was. The command of the house protected the sergeant at arms.")