Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 28: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
* ''Abbott v. Harris County'', 672 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3006813386139274701#p14 14] (Tex. 2023) (citations omitted) ("[W]e first note that even if we were to adopt the State's broad construction of section 418.016(a), we would still have to contend with the County's argument that the State's broad view of the Governor's suspension power runs afoul of the Suspension Clause of the Texas Constitution. This argument raises a serious question of constitutional law, which we should not resolve unless required to do so. Demonstrating the gravity of the constitutional question raised by the County—and the concomitant need to avoid deciding it if possible—requires only a brief explanation.") | * ''Abbott v. Harris County'', 672 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3006813386139274701#p14 14] (Tex. 2023) (citations omitted) ("[W]e first note that even if we were to adopt the State's broad construction of section 418.016(a), we would still have to contend with the County's argument that the State's broad view of the Governor's suspension power runs afoul of the Suspension Clause of the Texas Constitution. This argument raises a serious question of constitutional law, which we should not resolve unless required to do so. Demonstrating the gravity of the constitutional question raised by the County—and the concomitant need to avoid deciding it if possible—requires only a brief explanation.") | ||
* ''In re Hotze'', 629 S.W.3d 146, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9645594308312450856#p148 148] (Tex. 2020) (J. Devine, concurring) ("This provision means what it says. The judiciary may not suspend laws. Nor may the executive. Only the Legislature. Despite this clear constitutional exhortation, we review orders from the Governor that purport to be made under the Texas Disaster Act of 1975, which says that the 'governor may suspend provisions of any regulatory statute prescribing the . . . . The State does not contend why [''Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. City of Dallas''] was wrongly decided or why we should otherwise overrule that decision. The State's failure to address this precedent is troubling.") | * ''In re Hotze'', 629 S.W.3d 146, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9645594308312450856#p148 148] (Tex. 2020) (J. Devine, concurring) ("This provision means what it says. The judiciary may not suspend laws. Nor may the executive. Only the Legislature. Despite this clear constitutional exhortation, we review orders from the Governor that purport to be made under the Texas Disaster Act of 1975, which says that the 'governor may suspend provisions of any regulatory statute prescribing the procedures . . . . The State does not contend why [''Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. City of Dallas''] was wrongly decided or why we should otherwise overrule that decision. The State's failure to address this precedent is troubling.") | ||
* ''In re Hotze'', 627 S.W.3d 642, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13898575528214719134#p644 644] (Tex. 2020) (footnotes omitted) ("Relators argue that the [Governor's] proclamation was not authorized by the Act, or if it was, that the Act violates Article I, Sections 19 and 28 of the Texas Constitution. The State responds that relators have not identified a justiciable interest and therefore lack standing; that the Secretary of State has no power to enforce the two statutory provisions at issue, let alone a ministerial duty that could be compelled by mandamus; that the Act is not unconstitutional; and that relators have delayed too long since the Governor issued the proclamation to seek mandamus relief.") | * ''In re Hotze'', 627 S.W.3d 642, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13898575528214719134#p644 644] (Tex. 2020) (footnotes omitted) ("Relators argue that the [Governor's] proclamation was not authorized by the Act, or if it was, that the Act violates Article I, Sections 19 and 28 of the Texas Constitution. The State responds that relators have not identified a justiciable interest and therefore lack standing; that the Secretary of State has no power to enforce the two statutory provisions at issue, let alone a ministerial duty that could be compelled by mandamus; that the Act is not unconstitutional; and that relators have delayed too long since the Governor issued the proclamation to seek mandamus relief.") | ||