Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 24 and Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 11: Difference between pages

From TLG
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replacement - ")↵↵}}" to ") |seo_title= |seo_keywords= |seo_description= |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights }}")
 
m (Text replacement - ")↵↵}}" to ") |seo_title= |seo_keywords= |seo_description= |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights }}")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 24 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Military Subordinate to Civil Authority"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 11 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Bail"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:


'''The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.'''
'''All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences [sic], when the proof is evident; but this provision shall not be so construed as to prevent bail after indictment found upon examination of the evidence, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.'''


|editor=
|editor=


The Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776, read in part: "[I]n all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Sections [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 11a|11a]], [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 11b|11b]], [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 11c|11c]], and [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 13|13]] of Article I also directly address bail for those accused of criminal offenses.
 
The Declaration of Rights of the Republic of Texas, adopted in 1836, read in part: "The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power."
 
The constitutions of most of the other states contain a provision similar to this section expressly establishing the supremacy of civil authority over military authority.


|other=
|other=
Line 21: Line 17:
|historic=
|historic=


* ''Cole v. Texas Army Nat'l Guard'', 909 S.W.2d 535, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11648280779067171254#p538 538] n.3 (Tex.App.–Austin 1995, denied) ("So long as the courts are open and able to act effectively, the fundamental rule is this: 'The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.' Tex. Const. art. I, § 24. The powers and duties of the Adjutant General of Texas 'are derived from, they must be found in, the ''civil'' law. At no time and under no conditions are [his] actions above court inquiry or court review.' . . . Thus, there can be no question of the district court's power to inquire whether a military officer's administrative order exceeds his or her authority. ''See'', ''e.g.'', ''State v. Sparks'', 27 Tex. 627 (1864).")
* ''Ex parte Varnado'', 215 S.W.2d 165, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/215_S.W.2d_165.pdf#page=2 166] (Tex.Crim.App. 1948) ("[T]he omission of the words 'or the presumption great' materially changed the rights of a prisoner in the question of bail. . . . Since the opinion in Ex parte Smith, supra, the rule seems never to have been departed from, that if the evidence is clear and strong, leading a well-guarded and dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been committed; that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he would probably be punished capitally if the law is properly administered, bail should be refused, otherwise bail should be granted.")


* ''State v. Sparks'', 27 Tex. 627, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/27_Tex._627.pdf#page=7 633] (1864) ("But the high position of this officer and the important duties with which he . . . . Better far would it have been, for the prisoners who are in custody of the court, though doubly guilty beyond all that has been charged against them, to go unwhipped of justice than for the civil authorities of the state to be subordinated to military control, and made dependent upon the consent of the latter for the exercise of their legitimate functions. The one, though to be deprecated, would be of comparatively little importance, but the other would be a vital blow at the constitution, and the principle upon which our government is organized.")
* ''Ex parte Ezell'', 40 Tex. 451, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/40_Tex._451.pdf#page=9 459] (1874) ("In all of the first constitutions of the several American states many provisions for the protection of personal rights and liberties were inserted, most of which related to freedom from illegal restraint and the insurance of a speedy and impartial trial for alleged offenses. They were for the most part extracted from the . . . . If we look back through the long struggle against the tyranny and oppressions by which these great rights were secured, it will be found that the grievances complained of related to the treatment of prisoners before trial and conviction, and not after.")


|seo_title=
|seo_title=
Line 33: Line 29:


[[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]]
[[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]]
[[Category:Military Law]]
[[Category:Criminal Procedure]]
[[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]]
[[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]]

Revision as of 10:56, July 3, 2023

Adopted February 15, 1876:

All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences [sic], when the proof is evident; but this provision shall not be so construed as to prevent bail after indictment found upon examination of the evidence, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.

Editor Comments

Sections 11a, 11b, 11c, and 13 of Article I also directly address bail for those accused of criminal offenses.

—Attorney Steve Smith

Recent Decisions

None.

Historic Decisions

  • Ex parte Varnado, 215 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Tex.Crim.App. 1948) ("[T]he omission of the words 'or the presumption great' materially changed the rights of a prisoner in the question of bail. . . . Since the opinion in Ex parte Smith, supra, the rule seems never to have been departed from, that if the evidence is clear and strong, leading a well-guarded and dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been committed; that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he would probably be punished capitally if the law is properly administered, bail should be refused, otherwise bail should be granted.")
  • Ex parte Ezell, 40 Tex. 451, 459 (1874) ("In all of the first constitutions of the several American states many provisions for the protection of personal rights and liberties were inserted, most of which related to freedom from illegal restraint and the insurance of a speedy and impartial trial for alleged offenses. They were for the most part extracted from the . . . . If we look back through the long struggle against the tyranny and oppressions by which these great rights were secured, it will be found that the grievances complained of related to the treatment of prisoners before trial and conviction, and not after.")

Library Resources

Online Resources

Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_24&oldid=4178"