Admin at 00:12, August 3, 2023

2023-08-03T00:12:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, August 2, 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas ~~Constitution (~~discussion page)}}Texas ~~Legal Guide (texaslegalguide.com) is currently under construction~~.		{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution–discussion page}}__NOTOC__This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''.

	~~This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''.~~		==add ?==

	== add ? ==

	https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/Housejournals/35CS4/H_35_4.pdf page 25 (cannot veto ratification of us amendment)		https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/Housejournals/35CS4/H_35_4.pdf page 25 (cannot veto ratification of us amendment)
Line 21:		Line 19:
	a newspaper may * * such be published, *.” There is no contention made that this provision of the Constitution was not complied with.		a newspaper may * * such be published, *.” There is no contention made that this provision of the Constitution was not complied with.

	== review ==		==review==

	Rooms with a View, Inc. v. Private Nat'/ Mortg. Ass'n, Inc., 7		Rooms with a View, Inc. v. Private Nat'/ Mortg. Ass'n, Inc., 7
Line 29:		Line 27:
	the voters will be familiar with the amendment and its purposes when they cast their ballots." R.R.		the voters will be familiar with the amendment and its purposes when they cast their ballots." R.R.
	Comm'n v. Sterling Oil & Ref Co., 218 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1949)		Comm'n v. Sterling Oil & Ref Co., 218 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1949)

	~~== review ==~~

	Grigsbr v. Peak, 57 Tex. 142, 146 (1882)		Grigsbr v. Peak, 57 Tex. 142, 146 (1882)
Line 36:		Line 32:
	Wilson v. State, 15 App. 150		Wilson v. State, 15 App. 150

	~~== review ==~~

	Hurchinron v. Parching, l26 S.W. 1107, 1108 (Tex. 1910) (holding a statute constitutional when it was expressly ratified by a constitutional amendment)		Hurchinron v. Parching, l26 S.W. 1107, 1108 (Tex. 1910) (holding a statute constitutional when it was expressly ratified by a constitutional amendment)

	== add ? ==		==add ?==

	It seems to be then argued that if it was necessary to amend the Constitution in the instances above mentioned, to enable the Legislature to pass laws to accomplish their purposes, it is necessary to amend the Constitution to enable the Legislature to accomplish the purposes of this Act. To express ourselves in a homely way, the above constitutional amendments constitute grist already ground. We are not called upon, and will never be called upon, to pass on the necessity for the above amendments, and we expressly do not do so here, one way or the other. We will say, however, that the history of the submission of constitutional amendments in this State will prove that not all of them have been submitted in order to create a legislative power. Some few have undoubtedly been submitted to ascertain the will of the people, and to enable them to express such will regarding a governmental policy.		It seems to be then argued that if it was necessary to amend the Constitution in the instances above mentioned, to enable the Legislature to pass laws to accomplish their purposes, it is necessary to amend the Constitution to enable the Legislature to accomplish the purposes of this Act. To express ourselves in a homely way, the above constitutional amendments constitute grist already ground. We are not called upon, and will never be called upon, to pass on the necessity for the above amendments, and we expressly do not do so here, one way or the other. We will say, however, that the history of the submission of constitutional amendments in this State will prove that not all of them have been submitted in order to create a legislative power. Some few have undoubtedly been submitted to ascertain the will of the people, and to enable them to express such will regarding a governmental policy.

	Friedman v. American Sur. Co. of New York, 137 Tex. 149, 151 S.W.2d 570, (1941)		Friedman v. American Sur. Co. of New York, 137 Tex. 149, 151 S.W.2d 570, (1941)

imported>Admin at 22:43, January 1, 2023

2023-01-01T22:43:57Z

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution (discussion page)}}Texas Legal Guide (texaslegalguide.com) is currently under construction.

This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page ''{{PAGENAME}} of the Texas Constitution''.

== add ? ==

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/Housejournals/35CS4/H_35_4.pdf page 25 (cannot veto ratification of us amendment)

Whiteside v. Brown, 214 S.W.2d 844, 847 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1948, writ dism'd)
(concluding that substantial compliance with article XVII, section 1 of the Texas Constitution,
relating to notices of elections, satisfied the constitutional demand).

https://cite.case.law/pdf/2333822/Railroad%20Commission%20v.%20Sterling%20Oil%20&%20Refining%20Co.,%20147%20Tex.%20547,%20218%20S.W.2d%20415%20(1949).pdf

Article XVII of the Constitution provides the method by
which amendments to the Constitution are to be adopted. That
provides Legislature * * * article that, “The may proposé amendments to the Constitution, to be voted upon by the qualified elec- * * * tors which proposed amendments shall be duly published
once a week for four weeks, commencing at least three months
before an election, the time of which shall be specified by the
Legislature, in one weekly newspaper of each county, in which
a newspaper may * * such be published, *.” There is no contention made that this provision of the Constitution was not complied with.

== review ==

Rooms with a View, Inc. v. Private Nat'/ Mortg. Ass'n, Inc., 7
S.W.3d 840, 850 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, pet. denied). The Texas Supreme Court has said that
"[t]he Constitution requires that certain publicity shall be given a proposed amendment prior to an
election. This is done to identify the amendment and to show its character and purposes, so that
the voters will be familiar with the amendment and its purposes when they cast their ballots." R.R.
Comm'n v. Sterling Oil & Ref Co., 218 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1949)

== review ==

Grigsbr v. Peak, 57 Tex. 142, 146 (1882)

Wilson v. State, 15 App. 150

== review ==

Hurchinron v. Parching, l26 S.W. 1107, 1108 (Tex. 1910) (holding a statute constitutional when it was expressly ratified by a constitutional amendment)

== add ? ==

It seems to be then argued that if it was necessary to amend the Constitution in the instances above mentioned, to enable the Legislature to pass laws to accomplish their purposes, it is necessary to amend the Constitution to enable the Legislature to accomplish the purposes of this Act. To express ourselves in a homely way, the above constitutional amendments constitute grist already ground. We are not called upon, and will never be called upon, to pass on the necessity for the above amendments, and we expressly do not do so here, one way or the other. We will say, however, that the history of the submission of constitutional amendments in this State will prove that not all of them have been submitted in order to create a legislative power. Some few have undoubtedly been submitted to ascertain the will of the people, and to enable them to express such will regarding a governmental policy.

Friedman v. American Sur. Co. of New York, 137 Tex. 149, 151 S.W.2d 570, (1941)

Texas Constitution talk:Article XVII, Section 1 - Revision history

Admin at 00:12, August 3, 2023

imported>Admin at 22:43, January 1, 2023