Texas Constitution talk:Article I, Section 37: Difference between revisions

From TLG
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
(→‎TLC: new section)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{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''.
{{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''.


==Amendments 2025==
==2025==


This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR34 SJR 34], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.
This section, proposed by [https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SJR34 SJR 34], will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.


==add==
==Tribune ==


* ''State v. Loe'', 692 S.W.3d 215, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9682881558926563485#p230 230-31] (Tex. 2024)("But neither our society's history and legal traditions nor this Court's precedents support a view of the scope of parents' constitutionally protected interest in directing their children's care, custody, and control that would place any action a parent may undertake outside the government's authority to regulate. See J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d at 195; De Witt, 182 S.W.2d at 690. This plays out in various contexts, many of which are deeply embedded in our legal history. Some longstanding restrictions on children's activities, like prohibiting child labor and access to tattoos and tobacco, limit parental authority. See TEX. LAB. CODE § 51.011 (prohibiting the employment of a child younger than fourteen except under limited circumstances); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 146.012(a)(1), (a-1) (prohibiting a child younger than eighteen from obtaining a tattoo, even with parental consent, except to cover certain other tattoos or markings); id. § 161.082(a) (prohibiting the giving or selling of cigarettes or tobacco products to someone younger than twenty-one). Tattoos provide a particularly apt example, as they involve what is in most cases a permanent adjustment to the human body that is not intended to restore the body's physical condition but instead applied for psychological reasons. The Legislature prohibits children from being tattooed, even with their parents' consent, both because children may not fully appreciate the consequences of their actions and because of the risk that parents may be imposing their own desires, however well-meaning, on the child. Whatever the context in which they arise, these examples demonstrate that, while parents have a large degree of control and authority to decide what is best for their children, parental control and authority have never been understood as constitutionally mandated absolutes. Said differently, a fit parent's fundamental interest in caring for her child free from government interference extends to choosing from among legally available medical treatments, but it never has been understood to permit a parent to demand medical treatment that is not legally available.")
This proposal would include parental rights, as currently outlined out in federal case law, in the Texas Constitution. The intent of the amendment is to protect parental rights since “case law can change and disappear over time with the appointment of new judges,” according to an analysis of the legislation.
 
The constitution would be amended to include the following: “Provides that, to enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”
 
Some questions were raised during legislative discussions about how the proposal would ensure children’s voices are also heard. More recently, various advocacy groups have expressed opposition to the constitutional amendment’s broad language. Education and reproductive rights groups say other provisions in Texas law already recognize parental rights and that the amendment could be used to justify censorship and further restrict access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. The group Accountability Matters has also raised concerns that the vague language of the amendment could lead to costly legal fights over its meaning and enable more state oversight.
 
==HRO==
 
Supporters say:
 
By enshrining in the Texas Constitution the right of a
parent to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s
children, Proposition 15 would provide a clear and solid
legal foundation to protect parental rights.  
Courts have long recognized that parents have a
constitutionally protected right to make decisions for their
children. This proposition would codify longstanding case
law in the Texas Constitution to ensure that this important
right could not be removed or diminished by future court
opinions. The parent-child relationship is rooted in natural
law and should be safeguarded. Proposition 15 also would
make accessing the right simpler, less costly, and easier for
parents and lawyers, allowing them to cite the Constitution to  
help defend their rights in court.
 
 
Critics say:
Proposition 15 focuses too heavily on the rights
of parents without including language to ensure that
children’s rights and best interests are protected. The
proposition should further emphasize the duties and
responsibilities of parents to their children so that parental
rights cannot override fundamental children’s rights, such
as the right to basic healthcare or mental health support, as
well as the ability of children to have their psychological,
emotional, and social needs met.
 
Other critics say:
While protecting parental rights is essential,
Proposition 15 contains language that is too vague
and, as worded, could impose obligations on parents
or undermine parents’ rights if it were determined that
parents have not met their responsibilities.
 
== TLC ==
 
Comments by Supporters:
 
• Enshrining in the Texas Constitution the right of a parent to  
exercise care, custody, and control of the parent's children
would provide a clear and solid legal foundation to protect
parental rights.
 
• Courts have long recognized that parents have a constitutionally
protected right to make decisions for their children. Such
a fundamental right deserves a securely codified place in
the Texas Constitution to ensure that it is not removed or
diminished by future judicial decisions.
 
• By expressly recognizing parental rights and responsibilities in
the text of the constitution, the proposed amendment would
make parental rights easier to identify for parents and their  
lawyers, allowing them to cite the Texas Constitution to help
defend their rights in court, and would provide clarity that
could help avoid costly litigation.
 
• Protecting the rights of parents helps parents to meet their  
obligations to care for, nurture, and educate their children.
 
• The proposed amendment is not intended to expand or
diminish any existing parental rights.
 
Comments by Opponents:
 
• The proposed amendment does not do enough to protect
children's rights, which are not expressly addressed by the  
amendment.  
 
• While not raised during legislative consideration of the  
proposal, a review of other sources indicates concerns that  
the amendment language stating that the established parental
rights correspond with the responsibility of parents to nurture
and protect their children could result in a parent's rights
being conditioned on the government determining that the
parent's responsibility has been fulfilled.

Latest revision as of 10:28, October 22, 2025

This page is available for comment and discussion regarding the page Article I, Section 37 of the Texas Constitution.

2025[edit topic]

This section, proposed by SJR 34, will be voted on at the 2025 constitutional amendment election.

Tribune[edit topic]

This proposal would include parental rights, as currently outlined out in federal case law, in the Texas Constitution. The intent of the amendment is to protect parental rights since “case law can change and disappear over time with the appointment of new judges,” according to an analysis of the legislation.

The constitution would be amended to include the following: “Provides that, to enshrine truths that are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions, the people of Texas hereby affirm that a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”

Some questions were raised during legislative discussions about how the proposal would ensure children’s voices are also heard. More recently, various advocacy groups have expressed opposition to the constitutional amendment’s broad language. Education and reproductive rights groups say other provisions in Texas law already recognize parental rights and that the amendment could be used to justify censorship and further restrict access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. The group Accountability Matters has also raised concerns that the vague language of the amendment could lead to costly legal fights over its meaning and enable more state oversight.

HRO[edit topic]

Supporters say:

By enshrining in the Texas Constitution the right of a parent to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s children, Proposition 15 would provide a clear and solid legal foundation to protect parental rights. Courts have long recognized that parents have a constitutionally protected right to make decisions for their children. This proposition would codify longstanding case law in the Texas Constitution to ensure that this important right could not be removed or diminished by future court opinions. The parent-child relationship is rooted in natural law and should be safeguarded. Proposition 15 also would make accessing the right simpler, less costly, and easier for parents and lawyers, allowing them to cite the Constitution to help defend their rights in court.


Critics say:

Proposition 15 focuses too heavily on the rights of parents without including language to ensure that children’s rights and best interests are protected. The proposition should further emphasize the duties and responsibilities of parents to their children so that parental rights cannot override fundamental children’s rights, such as the right to basic healthcare or mental health support, as well as the ability of children to have their psychological, emotional, and social needs met.

Other critics say:

While protecting parental rights is essential, Proposition 15 contains language that is too vague and, as worded, could impose obligations on parents or undermine parents’ rights if it were determined that parents have not met their responsibilities.

TLC[edit topic]

Comments by Supporters:

• Enshrining in the Texas Constitution the right of a parent to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent's children would provide a clear and solid legal foundation to protect parental rights.

• Courts have long recognized that parents have a constitutionally protected right to make decisions for their children. Such a fundamental right deserves a securely codified place in the Texas Constitution to ensure that it is not removed or diminished by future judicial decisions.

• By expressly recognizing parental rights and responsibilities in the text of the constitution, the proposed amendment would make parental rights easier to identify for parents and their lawyers, allowing them to cite the Texas Constitution to help defend their rights in court, and would provide clarity that could help avoid costly litigation.

• Protecting the rights of parents helps parents to meet their obligations to care for, nurture, and educate their children.

• The proposed amendment is not intended to expand or diminish any existing parental rights.

Comments by Opponents:

• The proposed amendment does not do enough to protect children's rights, which are not expressly addressed by the amendment.

• While not raised during legislative consideration of the proposal, a review of other sources indicates concerns that the amendment language stating that the established parental rights correspond with the responsibility of parents to nurture and protect their children could result in a parent's rights being conditioned on the government determining that the parent's responsibility has been fulfilled.

Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution_talk:Article_I,_Section_37&oldid=8951"