Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6 and Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 8: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Freedom of Worship"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Freedom of Speech"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=Adopted February 15, 1876:


'''All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.'''
'''Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the conduct of officers, or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the Court, as in other cases.'''


|editor=
|editor=


Sections 4 through 7 of Article I, including the recently adopted Section [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6-a|6-a]], concern religion. This section is the most expansive of those sections. Among other things, it guarantees individual religious freedom and prohibits discrimination between religious denominations. Despite its breadth, the section has been the subject of relatively few court decisions. Moreover, since roughly the 1950s, Texas state courts have routinely relied on the federal constitution rather than the state constitution when resolving suits involving the interaction of state government and religion. However, it should be noted that the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence in this area of the law has been heavily criticized.
As reflected by the decisions referenced below, the shift from Democratic to Republican control of the Texas Supreme Court in the 1990s resulted in a different approach to cases brought under this section.


Due either to the plain language of the provision or to state court decisions interpreting the provision, the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the state constitution sometimes differs from the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the federal constitution. For example, "opening exercises" in public school classrooms that include the reading of a Bible passage and the recital of the Lord's Prayer do not violate this section. However, such practices violate the federal constitution. See ''Abington School District v. Schempp'', 374 U.S. 203, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2708202356121821143#p225 225] (1963) ("They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment . . . .").
|recent=
 
This section is derived from the 1845 Texas Constitution, which provided: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies or mode of worship; but it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of their own mode of public worship."
 
And also note that it is substantively similar to provisions concerning religion contained in the early state constitutions of Pennsylvania (1790), Tennessee (1796), and Kentucky (1799). For example, the Kentucky Declaration of Rights provided: "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; that no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies or modes of worship."


|recent=
* ''Lilith Fund for Reprod. Equity v. Dickson'', 662 S.W.3d 355, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6590065115020791341#p357 357-58] (Tex. 2023) (footnote omitted) ("We hold that the challenged statements are protected opinion about abortion law made in pursuit of changing that law, placing them at the heart of protected speech under the United States and Texas Constitutions. Such opinions are constitutionally protected even when the speaker applies them to specific advocacy groups . . . . In our state and nation, an advocate is free 'to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject,' perhaps most especially on controversial subjects like legalized abortion.")


* ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. CONST. amend. I; see also TEX. CONST. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.")
* ''Kinney v. Barnes'', 443 S.W.3d 87, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2106112559284451539#p90 90] (Tex. 2014) (footnotes omitted) ("Enshrined in Texas law since 1836, this fundamental right recognizes the 'transcendent importance of such freedom to the search for truth, the maintenance of democratic institutions, and the happiness of individual men.' Tex. Const. art. I, § 8 interp. commentary (West 2007). Commensurate with the respect Texas affords this right is its skepticism toward restraining speech. While abuse of the right to speak subjects a speaker to proper penalties, we have long held that 'pre-speech sanctions' are presumptively unconstitutional.")


* ''HEB Ministries, Inc. v. Texas Higher Educ. Coordinating Bd.'', 235 S.W.3d 627, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=517806966840097315#p642 642] (Tex. 2007) (footnotes omitted) ("The Establishment Clause prohibits . . . . Correspondingly, article I, section 6 of the Texas Constitution states that 'no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society'. We have referred to this provision and article I, section 7 as 'Texas' equivalent of the Establishment Clause.' The parties do not argue that there is any difference in the application of these federal and state constitutional provisions to this case, and we will assume for present purposes that they are coextensive.")
* ''Operation Rescue-Nat'l v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas'', 975 S.W.2d 546, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6111617783851769215#p559 559] (Tex. 1998) (footnote omitted) ("To define the protections of Article I, Section 8 simply as one notch above First Amendment protections is to deny state constitutional guarantees any principled moorings whatever. We reject this approach. The text, history, and purposes of Article I, Section 8 have been thoroughly examined by this Court. We know of nothing to suggest that injunctions restricting speech should be judged by a different standard under the state constitution than the First Amendment.")


|historic=
|historic=


* ''State v. Corpus Christi People's Baptist Church'', 683 S.W.2d 692, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9335125298661201719#p696 696-97] (Tex. 1984) ("[T]he State has a compelling interest of the highest order in protecting the children in child-care facilities from physical and mental harm. . . . We have considered all of People's Baptist's remaining arguments: that state licensing and regulation of these homes would violate the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; 42 U.S.C. 1983; article I, sections 3a, 6 and 19; article II, section 1; and article III, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. We conclude that the State's regulatory scheme does not violate these provisions.")
* ''Davenport v. Garcia'', 834 S.W.2d 4, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15525942258909638995#p11 11-12] (Tex. 1992) ("Having found that the trial court's gag orders violate article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution, this court need not consider whether the United States Constitution has also been violated. . . . We decline to limit the liberties of Texans to those found in the Federal Constitution when this court is responsible for the preservation of Texas' own fundamental charter. When a state court interprets the constitution of its state merely as a restatement of the Federal Constitution, it both insults the dignity of the state charter and denies citizens the fullest protection of their rights.")
 
* ''Ex parte Luehr'', 266 S.W.2d 375, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10688224872471884201#p376 376] (Tex.Crim.App. 1954) ("The [City of Cuero] ordinance in question reads as follows: '. . . .' Appellant is a missionary evangelist preaching from house to house by soliciting and taking orders for subscriptions to the magazine The Watchtower, under the directions of the Victoria Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, as his way of worship. Under many authorities the above ordinance when properly construed and applied does not cover such preaching activities, and if it does so the ordinance is in conflict with the Constitutions of the United States and of This [sic] State.")
 
* ''City of New Braunfels v. Waldschmidt'', 207 S.W. 303, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/207_SW_303.pdf#page=3 305] (Tex. 1918) ("The ordinance [requiring students attending school to be vaccinated against the smallpox virus] does not in any way undertake to control or interfere with any rights of conscience in matters of religion. As pointed out in Chief Justice Waite's opinion in Reynolds v. United States . . . . No more does section 6 of the Bill of Rights in our state Constitution relieve one from obedience to reasonable health regulations, enacted under the police power of the state, because such regulations happen not to conform to one's religious belief.")


* ''Church v. Bullock'', 109 S.W. 115, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/109_SW_115.pdf#page=3 117-18] (Tex. 1908) ("Did the exercises which the evidence shows the teachers engaged in convert the schoolroom into a 'place of worship,' within the intent and meaning of [this section]? . . . An annual appropriation is made for a chaplain for the penitentiary; in fact, Christianity is so interwoven with the web and woof of the state government that to sustain the contention that the Constitution prohibits reading the Bible, offering prayers, or singing songs of a religious character in any public building of the government would produce a condition bordering upon moral anarchy.")
* ''Ex parte Tucker'', 220 S.W. 75, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/220_SW_75.pdf#page=2 76] (Tex. 1920) ("The theory of the provision is that no man or set of men are to be found, so infallible in mind and character as to be clothed with an absolute authority of determining what other men may think, speak, write or publish; that freedom of speech is essential to the nature of a free state; that the ills suffered from its abuse are less than would be imposed by its suppression; and, therefore, that every person shall be left at liberty to speak his mind on all subjects, and for the abuse of the privilege be responsible in civil damages and subject to the penalties of the criminal law.")


* ''Gabel v. City of Houston'', 29 Tex. 335, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/029_Tex_335.pdf#page=13 347] (1867) ("It does not enjoin upon any person the duty of conforming his conduct to the rites of his church; but it does prevent him from following a tippling occupation in the city on Sunday, by which crowds of persons may be congregated at a public house, and, under the influence of intoxication, may commit riots and breaches of the peace, to the great annoyance . . . . That there is nothing in the constitution of the United States or of this state to prevent the legislature from forbidding the pursuit of worldly business upon Sunday, has been decided in a number of states.")
* ''McArthur v. State'', 57 S.W. 847, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/057_SW_847.pdf#page=3 849] (Tex.Crim.App. 1900) ("We do not understand this article of our Code to contravene the provisions of our constitution on this subject (see Bill of Rights, § 8) . . . . This provision makes the jurors simply the judges of the law under the direction of the court, as in other cases. In other cases the jury take the law from the court, and are required to be governed thereby; and we understand the constitution and the statute to mean the same thing, and it was never intended that the jury, with reference to libel, should construe the law for themselves and without direction from the court.")


* ''Blair v. Odin'', 3 Tex. 288, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/003_Tex_288.pdf#page=13 300] (1848) ("But the revolution, and the constitution formed by the people as the fundamental system of the new government, materially affected these pretensions of the church, and with justice and humanity resolved, that, as man is an accountable being, he should be permitted to worship his maker according to the dictates of his own conscience. The third article of the Declaration of Rights is, that '. . . .' This declaration reduced the Roman Catholic church from the high privilege of being the only national church, to a level and an equality with every other denomination of religion.")
* ''A. H. Belo & Co. v. Wren'', 63 Tex. 686, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/063_Tex_686.pdf#page=37 722] (1884) ("The publisher of defamatory matter is exempted from responsibility in such cases, because the demands of public policy for the publication outweigh all considerations requiring the protection of private reputation in the particular case. The public are not regarded as having such an interest in proceedings embodying defamatory matter as will outweigh the necessity of protecting the character of individuals, unless they are proceedings of a legislative or judicial character. Cooley's Const. Law, 568; Townshend on Libel, 411; Sanford ''v''. Bennett, 24 N.Y. 20.")


|seo_title=Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution ("Freedom of Worship")
|seo_title=Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution ("Freedom of Speech")
|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, freedom of religion, school prayer
|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 8, free speech, free press
|seo_description=All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
|seo_description=Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege.
|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights
|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights


Line 41: Line 33:


[[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]]
[[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]]
[[Category:Media Law]]
[[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]]
[[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]]