4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 28 (view source)
Revision as of 14:45, July 12, 2023
, July 12, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
* ''Constantin v. Smith'', 57 F.2d 227, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Fed2_227.pdf#page=11 237] (E.D.Tex. 1932) ("They were written into the fundamental law as direct inhibitions upon the executive, by men who had suffered under the imposition of martial law . . . . In every convention, in every gathering assembled, protesting the suppression of free speech, the interference with the processes, the judgments, the decrees of courts, these men had denounced martial tyranny, and sought relief against it, and, when they met to adopt the Constitution of 1876 which still obtains, they determined to, and they did, so write the fundamental law that such deprivations of liberty might never again occur.") | * ''Constantin v. Smith'', 57 F.2d 227, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Fed2_227.pdf#page=11 237] (E.D.Tex. 1932) ("They were written into the fundamental law as direct inhibitions upon the executive, by men who had suffered under the imposition of martial law . . . . In every convention, in every gathering assembled, protesting the suppression of free speech, the interference with the processes, the judgments, the decrees of courts, these men had denounced martial tyranny, and sought relief against it, and, when they met to adopt the Constitution of 1876 which still obtains, they determined to, and they did, so write the fundamental law that such deprivations of liberty might never again occur.") | ||
* ''Scoggin v. State'', 38 S.W.2d 592, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Scoggin v. State'', 38 S.W.2d 592, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/038_SW2_592.pdf#page=4 595-96] (Tex.Crim.App. 1931) ("Many examples of the application of article 1, § 28, of the Constitution are found in the reports in this state, both of the Supreme Court and this court. The restriction against the suspension of laws rendered void . . . . The subject before this court is not the authority, by proper regulation, to require peace officers to wear on their person some insignia of office. The vice in the law is referable to the fact that the terms in which the Legislature has expressed its will offend against the mandate of the Constitution which declares that no law can be suspended save by the Legislature.") | ||
* ''Trimmier v. Carlton'', 296 S.W. 1070, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/296_SW_1070.pdf#page=13 1082] (Tex. 1927) ("Again, there is strong support for our conclusion . . . that it is not a delegation of legislative power in violation of the Constitution to grant to some designated body powers which the Legislature cannot itself practically and efficiently exercise. Authorities, supra. In other words, that the exercise of that particular type of authority is read as an exception into the general language of limitation of the Constitution. It is merely tantamount to saying that the Constitution itself does not require the impracticable or the impossible. The case of Kinney v. Zimpleman, 36 Tex. 554, states the principle.") | * ''Trimmier v. Carlton'', 296 S.W. 1070, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/296_SW_1070.pdf#page=13 1082] (Tex. 1927) ("Again, there is strong support for our conclusion . . . that it is not a delegation of legislative power in violation of the Constitution to grant to some designated body powers which the Legislature cannot itself practically and efficiently exercise. Authorities, supra. In other words, that the exercise of that particular type of authority is read as an exception into the general language of limitation of the Constitution. It is merely tantamount to saying that the Constitution itself does not require the impracticable or the impossible. The case of Kinney v. Zimpleman, 36 Tex. 554, states the principle.") | ||