Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 35 - Revision history

Admin at 15:29, June 9, 2024

2024-06-09T15:29:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, June 9, 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Historically, this section has been one of the most heavily litigated in the state constitution. Subsection (a) of the section sets forth the prohibition known in Texas as the "one-subject" rule.		Historically, this section has been one of the most heavily litigated in the state constitution. Subsection (a) of the section sets forth the prohibition known in Texas as the "one-subject" rule.

	The Republic of Texas constitution (1836), patterned in large part on the federal constitution, did not contain a similar provision. However, a substantively similar "one-object" rule was included in Texas's first state constitution (1845) (Art. VII, § 24: "Every law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title.") and each of the following three constitutions (1861, 1866, & 1869). Cf. Michael Gilbert, ''Single Subject Rules and the Legislative Process'', 67 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 803, [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Gilbert-8/publication/46294745_Single_Subject_Rules_and_the_Legislative_Process/links/5caf95c5a6fdcc1d498e0f7d/Single-Subject-Rules-and-the-Legislative-Process.pdf#page=11 812] (2005~~-2006~~) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) ("The first general single subject rule appeared in New Jersey in 1844, followed by Louisiana and ''Texas in 1845'', and New York and Iowa in 1846. By 1959, some version of the rule had been adopted in forty-three states. The provision in the Nebraska Constitution is typical: 'No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the subject shall be clearly expressed in the title.'").		The Republic of Texas constitution (1836), patterned in large part on the federal constitution, did not contain a similar provision. However, a substantively similar "one-object" rule was included in Texas's first state constitution (1845) (Art. VII, § 24: "Every law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title.") and each of the following three constitutions (1861, 1866, & 1869). Cf. Michael Gilbert, ''Single Subject Rules and the Legislative Process'', 67 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 803, [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Gilbert-8/publication/46294745_Single_Subject_Rules_and_the_Legislative_Process/links/5caf95c5a6fdcc1d498e0f7d/Single-Subject-Rules-and-the-Legislative-Process.pdf#page=11 812] (2005) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) ("The first general single subject rule appeared in New Jersey in 1844, followed by Louisiana and ''Texas in 1845'', and New York and Iowa in 1846. By 1959, some version of the rule had been adopted in forty-three states. The provision in the Nebraska Constitution is typical: 'No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the subject shall be clearly expressed in the title.'").

	As adopted in 1876, this section read: "No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed." It has been amended once.		As adopted in 1876, this section read: "No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed." It has been amended once.

Admin at 15:24, June 9, 2024

2024-06-09T15:24:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, June 9, 2024
Line 13:		Line 13:
	The Republic of Texas constitution (1836), patterned in large part on the federal constitution, did not contain a similar provision. However, a substantively similar "one-object" rule was included in Texas's first state constitution (1845) (Art. VII, § 24: "Every law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title.") and each of the following three constitutions (1861, 1866, & 1869). Cf. Michael Gilbert, ''Single Subject Rules and the Legislative Process'', 67 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 803, [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Gilbert-8/publication/46294745_Single_Subject_Rules_and_the_Legislative_Process/links/5caf95c5a6fdcc1d498e0f7d/Single-Subject-Rules-and-the-Legislative-Process.pdf#page=11 812] (2005-2006) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) ("The first general single subject rule appeared in New Jersey in 1844, followed by Louisiana and ''Texas in 1845'', and New York and Iowa in 1846. By 1959, some version of the rule had been adopted in forty-three states. The provision in the Nebraska Constitution is typical: 'No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the subject shall be clearly expressed in the title.'").		The Republic of Texas constitution (1836), patterned in large part on the federal constitution, did not contain a similar provision. However, a substantively similar "one-object" rule was included in Texas's first state constitution (1845) (Art. VII, § 24: "Every law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title.") and each of the following three constitutions (1861, 1866, & 1869). Cf. Michael Gilbert, ''Single Subject Rules and the Legislative Process'', 67 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 803, [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Gilbert-8/publication/46294745_Single_Subject_Rules_and_the_Legislative_Process/links/5caf95c5a6fdcc1d498e0f7d/Single-Subject-Rules-and-the-Legislative-Process.pdf#page=11 812] (2005-2006) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) ("The first general single subject rule appeared in New Jersey in 1844, followed by Louisiana and ''Texas in 1845'', and New York and Iowa in 1846. By 1959, some version of the rule had been adopted in forty-three states. The provision in the Nebraska Constitution is typical: 'No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the subject shall be clearly expressed in the title.'").

	As adopted in 1876, this section read: "No ~~bills~~, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed." It has been amended once.		As adopted in 1876, this section read: "No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed." It has been amended once.

	Due to the 1986 amendment, a person negatively affected by a law may no longer challenge it in court on the basis of an insufficient title. However, such a person may still litigate whether the underlying legislation violated the one-subject rule. Cf. ''Texas Legislative Council Drafting Manual'' at [https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/draftingmanual-88.pdf#page=156 147] ("A bill containing more than one subject is subject to a point of order. A law enacted in violation of the rule is also subject to attack in court ~~. . . .~~").		Due to the 1986 amendment, a person negatively affected by a law may no longer challenge it in court on the basis of an insufficient title. However, such a person may still litigate whether the underlying legislation violated the one-subject rule. Cf. ''Texas Legislative Council Drafting Manual'' at [https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/draftingmanual-88.pdf#page=156 147] ("A bill containing more than one subject is subject to a point of order. A law enacted in violation of the rule is also subject to attack in court").

	\|recent=		\|recent=

Admin at 15:12, June 9, 2024

2024-06-09T15:12:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:12, June 9, 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Featured Article]]<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Subjects and Titles of Bills"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=As amended November 4, 1986:		[[Category:Featured Article]]<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Subjects and Titles of Bills"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=As amended November 4, 1986:

	(a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.		'''(a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.'''

	(b) The rules of procedure of each House shall require that the subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the Legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The Legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the rule.		'''(b) The rules of procedure of each House shall require that the subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the Legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The Legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the rule.'''

	(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title.		'''(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title.'''

	\|editor=		\|editor=
Line 13:		Line 13:
	The Republic of Texas constitution (1836), patterned in large part on the federal constitution, did not contain a similar provision. However, a substantively similar "one-object" rule was included in Texas's first state constitution (1845) (Art. VII, § 24: "Every law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title.") and each of the following three constitutions (1861, 1866, & 1869). Cf. Michael Gilbert, ''Single Subject Rules and the Legislative Process'', 67 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 803, [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Gilbert-8/publication/46294745_Single_Subject_Rules_and_the_Legislative_Process/links/5caf95c5a6fdcc1d498e0f7d/Single-Subject-Rules-and-the-Legislative-Process.pdf#page=11 812] (2005-2006) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) ("The first general single subject rule appeared in New Jersey in 1844, followed by Louisiana and ''Texas in 1845'', and New York and Iowa in 1846. By 1959, some version of the rule had been adopted in forty-three states. The provision in the Nebraska Constitution is typical: 'No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the subject shall be clearly expressed in the title.'").		The Republic of Texas constitution (1836), patterned in large part on the federal constitution, did not contain a similar provision. However, a substantively similar "one-object" rule was included in Texas's first state constitution (1845) (Art. VII, § 24: "Every law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title.") and each of the following three constitutions (1861, 1866, & 1869). Cf. Michael Gilbert, ''Single Subject Rules and the Legislative Process'', 67 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 803, [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Gilbert-8/publication/46294745_Single_Subject_Rules_and_the_Legislative_Process/links/5caf95c5a6fdcc1d498e0f7d/Single-Subject-Rules-and-the-Legislative-Process.pdf#page=11 812] (2005-2006) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) ("The first general single subject rule appeared in New Jersey in 1844, followed by Louisiana and ''Texas in 1845'', and New York and Iowa in 1846. By 1959, some version of the rule had been adopted in forty-three states. The provision in the Nebraska Constitution is typical: 'No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the subject shall be clearly expressed in the title.'").

	As adopted in 1876, this section read: "No ~~bill~~, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed." It has been amended once.		As adopted in 1876, this section read: "No bills, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed." It has been amended once.

	Due to the 1986 amendment, a person negatively affected by a law may no longer challenge it in court on the basis of an insufficient title. However, such a person may still litigate whether the underlying legislation violated the one-subject rule. Cf. ''Texas Legislative Council Drafting Manual'' at [https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/draftingmanual-88.pdf#page=156 147] ("A bill containing more than one subject is subject to a point of order. A law enacted in violation of the rule is also subject to attack in court . . . .").		Due to the 1986 amendment, a person negatively affected by a law may no longer challenge it in court on the basis of an insufficient title. However, such a person may still litigate whether the underlying legislation violated the one-subject rule. Cf. ''Texas Legislative Council Drafting Manual'' at [https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/draftingmanual-88.pdf#page=156 147] ("A bill containing more than one subject is subject to a point of order. A law enacted in violation of the rule is also subject to attack in court . . . .").

Admin at 15:05, June 9, 2024

2024-06-09T15:05:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:05, June 9, 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Category:Featured Article]]<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Subjects and Titles of Bills"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=As amended November 4, 1986:		[[Category:Featured Article]]<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Subjects and Titles of Bills"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=As amended November 4, 1986:

	~~'''~~(a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.~~'''~~		(a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.

	~~'''~~(b) The rules of procedure of each House shall require that the subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the Legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The Legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the rule.~~'''~~		(b) The rules of procedure of each House shall require that the subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the Legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The Legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the rule.

	~~'''~~(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title.~~'''~~		(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title.

	\|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"

2024-06-02T19:40:23Z

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 14:40, June 2, 2024
Line 52:		Line 52:
	\|seo_keywords=Article 3 Section 35, one-subject rule, insufficient title		\|seo_keywords=Article 3 Section 35, one-subject rule, insufficient title
	\|seo_description=Under the one-subject rule, no legislative bill (other than a general appropriation bill) may contain more than one subject.		\|seo_description=Under the one-subject rule, no legislative bill (other than a general appropriation bill) may contain more than one subject.
	\|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 16:41, August 3, 2023

2023-08-03T16:41:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, August 3, 2023
Line 27:		Line 27:
	* ''Strake v. Court of Appeals for First Supreme Judicial Dist.'', 704 S.W.2d 746, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4403312184714639640#p748 748] (Tex. 1986) ("This Unity-in-Subject Clause has been construed to mean that appropriations is a single subject and that any rider to an appropriations bill must relate to the appropriation of funds. Any rider dealing with a different subject is general legislation and prohibited by the Unity-in-Subject Clause. ''See'' ''Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock'', 531 S.W.2d 593, 600-01 (Tex. 1975); ''Moore v. Sheppard'', 192 S.W.2d 559, 561-62 (Tex. 1946). A rider which attempts to alter existing substantive law is a general law which may not be included in an appropriations act.")		* ''Strake v. Court of Appeals for First Supreme Judicial Dist.'', 704 S.W.2d 746, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4403312184714639640#p748 748] (Tex. 1986) ("This Unity-in-Subject Clause has been construed to mean that appropriations is a single subject and that any rider to an appropriations bill must relate to the appropriation of funds. Any rider dealing with a different subject is general legislation and prohibited by the Unity-in-Subject Clause. ''See'' ''Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock'', 531 S.W.2d 593, 600-01 (Tex. 1975); ''Moore v. Sheppard'', 192 S.W.2d 559, 561-62 (Tex. 1946). A rider which attempts to alter existing substantive law is a general law which may not be included in an appropriations act.")

	* ''Ex parte Crisp'', 661 S.W.2d 944, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4181451425255070076#p947 947] (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) ("The State concedes that the purpose of Tex. Const. Art. III, § 35 is to give 'fair notice' of the contents of the bill, but argues that we should apply that standard more restrictively by giving notification as to the body of the Act in a way not misleading or fraudulent. The State then argues that regardless of the standard applied, a liberal construction of the statute must be made in order to uphold the law, protect the legislature from ~~embarrassment~~, and allow the benefits for which the statute was adopted to continue. . . . We find these arguments to be unpersuasive.")		* ''Ex parte Crisp'', 661 S.W.2d 944, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4181451425255070076#p947 947] (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) ("The State concedes that the purpose of Tex. Const. Art. III, § 35 is to give 'fair notice' of the contents of the bill, but argues that we should apply that standard more restrictively by giving notification as to the body of the Act in a way not misleading or fraudulent. The State then argues that regardless of the standard applied, a liberal construction of the statute must be made in order to uphold the law, protect the legislature from embarassment [sic], and allow the benefits for which the statute was adopted to continue. . . . We find these arguments to be unpersuasive.")

	* ''Ex parte Jimenez'', 317 S.W.2d 189, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2903465177156079732#p194 194] (Tex. 1958) ("But Art. 9.02, supra, does not violate either the latter provision nor the one requiring that the subject be 'expressed in its title'. Since the legislature undoubtedly has as much power to enact a code as it does a single law of narrowest scope, and since any sort of 'code' necessarily involves many different kinds of individual provisions, none of these latter will violate the 'one subject' restriction, if it has any logical relationship to the general subject. . . . The latter is merely one of the many different means stipulated in the code to insure a more pure and orderly conduct of elections.")		* ''Ex parte Jimenez'', 317 S.W.2d 189, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2903465177156079732#p194 194] (Tex. 1958) ("But Art. 9.02, supra, does not violate either the latter provision nor the one requiring that the subject be 'expressed in its title'. Since the legislature undoubtedly has as much power to enact a code as it does a single law of narrowest scope, and since any sort of 'code' necessarily involves many different kinds of individual provisions, none of these latter will violate the 'one subject' restriction, if it has any logical relationship to the general subject. . . . The latter is merely one of the many different means stipulated in the code to insure a more pure and orderly conduct of elections.")

Admin at 16:39, August 3, 2023

2023-08-03T16:39:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, August 3, 2023
Line 49:		Line 49:
	* ''Cannon v. Hemphill'', 7 Tex. 184, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/007_Tex_184.pdf#page=13 208] (1851) ("The 24th section of article 7 . . . . The consequences of such a restriction on legislative discretion and power, of the application of such a test of the validity of special provisions, years, nay ages, after their passage, and after rights under them have accrued, may be very inconvenient and destructive. But such results were for the consideration of the convention; and, in their wisdom, such restriction was deemed salutary and proper. It would be irrational to suppose that this provision of the Constitution is merely a directory one, which may be obeyed or disregarded at the will and caprice of the Legislature.")		* ''Cannon v. Hemphill'', 7 Tex. 184, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/007_Tex_184.pdf#page=13 208] (1851) ("The 24th section of article 7 . . . . The consequences of such a restriction on legislative discretion and power, of the application of such a test of the validity of special provisions, years, nay ages, after their passage, and after rights under them have accrued, may be very inconvenient and destructive. But such results were for the consideration of the convention; and, in their wisdom, such restriction was deemed salutary and proper. It would be irrational to suppose that this provision of the Constitution is merely a directory one, which may be obeyed or disregarded at the will and caprice of the Legislature.")

	\|seo_title=Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution ("Subjects and Titles of Bills")		\|seo_title=Featured Article: Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution ("Subjects and Titles of Bills")
	\|seo_keywords=Article 3 Section 35, one-subject rule, insufficient title		\|seo_keywords=Article 3 Section 35, one-subject rule, insufficient title
	\|seo_description=Under the one-subject rule, no legislative bill (other than a general appropriation bill) may contain more than one subject.		\|seo_description=Under the one-subject rule, no legislative bill (other than a general appropriation bill) may contain more than one subject.

Admin at 16:36, August 3, 2023

2023-08-03T16:36:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:36, August 3, 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Subjects and Titles of Bills"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=As amended November 4, 1986:		[[Category:Featured Article]]<indicator name="featured">[[File:Featured_article_star.svg\|25px]]</indicator>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Subjects and Titles of Bills"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution\|text=As amended November 4, 1986:

	'''(a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.'''		'''(a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.'''

Admin at 16:31, August 3, 2023

2023-08-03T16:31:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:31, August 3, 2023
Line 33:		Line 33:
	* ''Jones v. Anderson'', 189 S.W.2d 65, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/189_SW2_65.pdf#page=2 66] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1945, ref'd) ("The Legislature, by the enactment of said Article 52-161, created for Bexar County the constitutional office of Criminal District Attorney, and this being so Section 21 of Article 5 of our Constitution, in effect, provides that in such a county no County Attorney shall be elected. Appellant contends that said Article 52-161 is unconstitutional because it allegedly violates the provisions of Section 35 of Article 3 . . . . All of these things were inter-related, necessary and proper to the one main object of the bill, which was to create a Criminal District Court for Bexar County.")		* ''Jones v. Anderson'', 189 S.W.2d 65, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/189_SW2_65.pdf#page=2 66] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1945, ref'd) ("The Legislature, by the enactment of said Article 52-161, created for Bexar County the constitutional office of Criminal District Attorney, and this being so Section 21 of Article 5 of our Constitution, in effect, provides that in such a county no County Attorney shall be elected. Appellant contends that said Article 52-161 is unconstitutional because it allegedly violates the provisions of Section 35 of Article 3 . . . . All of these things were inter-related, necessary and proper to the one main object of the bill, which was to create a Criminal District Court for Bexar County.")

	* ''Gulf Ins. Co. v. James'', 185 S.W.2d 966, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/185_SW2_966.pdf#page=5 970] (Tex. 1945) ("The purpose of [this section] is to require that the bill shall advise both the Legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, such purpose being stated in [cited case] as follows: 'To advise the legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, so as to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which otherwise might be ingrafted on it and become the law, and to obviate legislation through the combination upon a composite bill, of the votes of the proponents of different measures included in it, some of which would not pass upon their merits if separately considered.'")		* ''Gulf Ins. Co. v. James'', 185 S.W.2d 966, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/185_SW2_966.pdf#page=5 970] (Tex. 1945) ("The purpose [of this section] is to require that the bill shall advise both the Legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, such purpose being stated in [cited case] as follows: 'To advise the legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, so as to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which otherwise might be ingrafted on it and become the law, and to obviate legislation through the combination upon a composite bill, of the votes of the proponents of different measures included in it, some of which would not pass upon their merits if separately considered.'")

	* ''Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State'', 113 S.W. 916, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/113_SW_916.pdf#page=2 917] (Tex. 1908) ("A title is not bad merely because of comprehensiveness; but it is bad if it is so indefinite as to express no subject, or if it does not express the particular subject of the act. The title must not only express a subject, but must express that which is dealt with in the body of the act. No authority but the plain language of the Constitution is needed for that proposition. But the authorities recognize, as they must, that a title may be so indefinite as not to express any subject of legislation sufficiently, or that it may fail to express the subject of the body of the act.")		* ''Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State'', 113 S.W. 916, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/113_SW_916.pdf#page=2 917] (Tex. 1908) ("A title is not bad merely because of comprehensiveness; but it is bad if it is so indefinite as to express no subject, or if it does not express the particular subject of the act. The title must not only express a subject, but must express that which is dealt with in the body of the act. No authority but the plain language of the Constitution is needed for that proposition. But the authorities recognize, as they must, that a title may be so indefinite as not to express any subject of legislation sufficiently, or that it may fail to express the subject of the body of the act.")

Admin at 16:24, August 3, 2023

2023-08-03T16:24:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, August 3, 2023
Line 33:		Line 33:
	* ''Jones v. Anderson'', 189 S.W.2d 65, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/189_SW2_65.pdf#page=2 66] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1945, ref'd) ("The Legislature, by the enactment of said Article 52-161, created for Bexar County the constitutional office of Criminal District Attorney, and this being so Section 21 of Article 5 of our Constitution, in effect, provides that in such a county no County Attorney shall be elected. Appellant contends that said Article 52-161 is unconstitutional because it allegedly violates the provisions of Section 35 of Article 3 . . . . All of these things were inter-related, necessary and proper to the one main object of the bill, which was to create a Criminal District Court for Bexar County.")		* ''Jones v. Anderson'', 189 S.W.2d 65, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/189_SW2_65.pdf#page=2 66] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1945, ref'd) ("The Legislature, by the enactment of said Article 52-161, created for Bexar County the constitutional office of Criminal District Attorney, and this being so Section 21 of Article 5 of our Constitution, in effect, provides that in such a county no County Attorney shall be elected. Appellant contends that said Article 52-161 is unconstitutional because it allegedly violates the provisions of Section 35 of Article 3 . . . . All of these things were inter-related, necessary and proper to the one main object of the bill, which was to create a Criminal District Court for Bexar County.")

	* ''Gulf Ins. Co. v. James'', 185 S.W.2d 966, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/185_SW2_966.pdf#page=5 970] (Tex. 1945) ("The purpose of ~~Section 35 of Article III~~ [] is to require that the bill shall advise both the Legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, such purpose being stated in [cited case] as follows: 'To advise the legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, so as to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which otherwise might be ingrafted on it and become the law, and to obviate legislation through the combination upon a composite bill, of the votes of the proponents of different measures included in it, some of which would not pass upon their merits if separately considered.'")		* ''Gulf Ins. Co. v. James'', 185 S.W.2d 966, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/185_SW2_966.pdf#page=5 970] (Tex. 1945) ("The purpose of [this section] is to require that the bill shall advise both the Legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, such purpose being stated in [cited case] as follows: 'To advise the legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, so as to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which otherwise might be ingrafted on it and become the law, and to obviate legislation through the combination upon a composite bill, of the votes of the proponents of different measures included in it, some of which would not pass upon their merits if separately considered.'")

	* ''Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State'', 113 S.W. 916, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/113_SW_916.pdf#page=2 917] (Tex. 1908) ("A title is not bad merely because of comprehensiveness; but it is bad if it is so indefinite as to express no subject, or if it does not express the particular subject of the act. The title must not only express a subject, but must express that which is dealt with in the body of the act. No authority but the plain language of the Constitution is needed for that proposition. But the authorities recognize, as they must, that a title may be so indefinite as not to express any subject of legislation sufficiently, or that it may fail to express the subject of the body of the act.")		* ''Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State'', 113 S.W. 916, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/113_SW_916.pdf#page=2 917] (Tex. 1908) ("A title is not bad merely because of comprehensiveness; but it is bad if it is so indefinite as to express no subject, or if it does not express the particular subject of the act. The title must not only express a subject, but must express that which is dealt with in the body of the act. No authority but the plain language of the Constitution is needed for that proposition. But the authorities recognize, as they must, that a title may be so indefinite as not to express any subject of legislation sufficiently, or that it may fail to express the subject of the body of the act.")