4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 28 (view source)
Revision as of 14:37, July 12, 2023
, July 12, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
* ''Dockery v. State'', 247 S.W. 508, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_247_SWR_508.pdf#page=2 509] (Tex.Crim.App. 1923) ("Section 28, art. 1, of our Constitution, forbids the delegation of lawmaking power by the Legislature. We discussed this at some . . . . If the act under discussion be upheld, it would seem clear that the law requiring fire escapes would be such as that the essential part of it, i. e. the kind and character of specifications necessary, might be changed, modified, added to, or taken from by a power other than the Legislature, at the will, wish, or whim of such foreign power. Indeed, if the fire marshal declined to promulgate specifications it might be that the entire law would be rendered futile.") | * ''Dockery v. State'', 247 S.W. 508, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_247_SWR_508.pdf#page=2 509] (Tex.Crim.App. 1923) ("Section 28, art. 1, of our Constitution, forbids the delegation of lawmaking power by the Legislature. We discussed this at some . . . . If the act under discussion be upheld, it would seem clear that the law requiring fire escapes would be such as that the essential part of it, i. e. the kind and character of specifications necessary, might be changed, modified, added to, or taken from by a power other than the Legislature, at the will, wish, or whim of such foreign power. Indeed, if the fire marshal declined to promulgate specifications it might be that the entire law would be rendered futile.") | ||
* ''Zucarro v. State'', 197 S.W. 982, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Zucarro v. State'', 197 S.W. 982, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/197_SW_982.pdf#page=5 986-87] (Tex.Crim.App. 1917) ("The state law (article 302, P. C.) prohibiting the conduct of the business for which appellant is prosecuted, the ordinance of the city of Ft. Worth could not have the effect of suspending the operation of the state law. This was held by the Court of Civil Appeals at Austin in an opinion by Judge Key in the case of Burton v. Dupree, [] 46 S.W. 272, and by the Supreme Court in an opinion by Chief Justice . . . . Other authorities in point are: Arroyo v. State, 69 S.W. 504; Ex parte Ogden, [] 66 S.W. 1100; Denton v. McDonald, [] 135 S.W. 1148, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 453; Fay v. State, [] 71 S.W. 603.") | ||
* ''Lyle v. State'', 193 S.W. 680, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/193_SW_680.pdf#page=7 686] (Tex.Crim.App. 1917) ("They so definitely establish the rule of construction in this state applying to the section of the Constitution mentioned . . . . The framers of the Constitution when they wrote section 28 of article 1 of the Constitution, abandoning the provision theretofore existing that laws might be suspended by the authority of the Legislature, and asserted in the new Constitution that they could be suspended alone by the Legislature, were not without foresight as to the mischievous consequences that might flow from extending to the Legislature the power to delegate its authority to suspend laws.") | * ''Lyle v. State'', 193 S.W. 680, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/193_SW_680.pdf#page=7 686] (Tex.Crim.App. 1917) ("They so definitely establish the rule of construction in this state applying to the section of the Constitution mentioned . . . . The framers of the Constitution when they wrote section 28 of article 1 of the Constitution, abandoning the provision theretofore existing that laws might be suspended by the authority of the Legislature, and asserted in the new Constitution that they could be suspended alone by the Legislature, were not without foresight as to the mischievous consequences that might flow from extending to the Legislature the power to delegate its authority to suspend laws.") | ||