4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 3 (view source)
Revision as of 10:38, September 13, 2023
, September 13, 2023no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary Tag: Manual revert |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
* ''Mumme v. Marrs'', 40 S.W.2d 31, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/040_SW2_31.pdf#page=6 36] (Tex. 1931) ("[L]egislation is not open to objection if all who are brought under its influence are treated alike in the same circumstances. 9 Texas Jurisprudence, p. 553, § 117. In the very nature of society, with its manifold occupations and contacts, the Legislature must have, and clearly does have, authority to classify subjects of legislation, and, when the classification is reasonable—that is, based upon some real difference existing in the subject of the enactment—and the law applies uniformly to those who are within the particular class, the act is not open to constitutional objection. 9 Texas Jurisprudence, p. 555, § 119, p. 558, § 120, p. 561, § 121.") | * ''Mumme v. Marrs'', 40 S.W.2d 31, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/040_SW2_31.pdf#page=6 36] (Tex. 1931) ("[L]egislation is not open to objection if all who are brought under its influence are treated alike in the same circumstances. 9 Texas Jurisprudence, p. 553, § 117. In the very nature of society, with its manifold occupations and contacts, the Legislature must have, and clearly does have, authority to classify subjects of legislation, and, when the classification is reasonable—that is, based upon some real difference existing in the subject of the enactment—and the law applies uniformly to those who are within the particular class, the act is not open to constitutional objection. 9 Texas Jurisprudence, p. 555, § 119, p. 558, § 120, p. 561, § 121.") | ||
* ''St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. State'', 261 S.W. 996, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/261_SW_996.pdf#page=4 999-1000] (Tex. 1924) ("In reaching a conclusion as to the reasonableness of the classification made by the Legislature, it matters not what might be the opinion of the members of this Court as to the wisdom or expediency of the statute. . . . There being reasonable ground for the legislative classification of persons with respect to payment and non-payment of passenger fares, and the law affecting equally all persons similarly situated under similar circumstances, the statute is not invalid under the provisions of Article I, of the State Constitution or of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.") | |||
* ''Glasgow v. Terrell'', 102 S.W. 98, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/102_SW_98.pdf#page=2 99] (Tex. 1907) ("Every state has of necessity dual functions to perform—first, its political functions, which affect the public; second, its private functions, such as the acquisition of private property and the disposition of property already acquired. The latter are not in our opinion affected by the provision of the Constitution in question. It was so held in the case of ''Williams v. Cammack'', 27 Miss. 209, 61 Am. Dec. 508, in which a provision of the Constitution of Mississippi couched in substantially the same language was in question. . . . We have found no other case in which the words 'public emoluments and privileges' have been construed.") | * ''Glasgow v. Terrell'', 102 S.W. 98, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/102_SW_98.pdf#page=2 99] (Tex. 1907) ("Every state has of necessity dual functions to perform—first, its political functions, which affect the public; second, its private functions, such as the acquisition of private property and the disposition of property already acquired. The latter are not in our opinion affected by the provision of the Constitution in question. It was so held in the case of ''Williams v. Cammack'', 27 Miss. 209, 61 Am. Dec. 508, in which a provision of the Constitution of Mississippi couched in substantially the same language was in question. . . . We have found no other case in which the words 'public emoluments and privileges' have been construed.") | ||
| Line 95: | Line 97: | ||
* ''Francois v. State'', 9 Tex.Ct.App. 144, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/009_TexCtApp_144.pdf#page=3 146] (1880) ("Sect. 3, Art. I., of the Constitution of 1876 is a literal copy of sect. 2 of Art. I. of the Constitution of 1869, as quoted above, and sect. 29 of the same Constitution is a literal copy of the twenty-third section of the Constitution of 1869, also quoted above. These provisions, it is contended, abrogate art. 386 of the Penal Code, which was passed previously—on the twelfth day of February, 1858. It is also contended that art. 386 is in contravention of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. We do not propose to discuss anew these questions.") | * ''Francois v. State'', 9 Tex.Ct.App. 144, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/009_TexCtApp_144.pdf#page=3 146] (1880) ("Sect. 3, Art. I., of the Constitution of 1876 is a literal copy of sect. 2 of Art. I. of the Constitution of 1869, as quoted above, and sect. 29 of the same Constitution is a literal copy of the twenty-third section of the Constitution of 1869, also quoted above. These provisions, it is contended, abrogate art. 386 of the Penal Code, which was passed previously—on the twelfth day of February, 1858. It is also contended that art. 386 is in contravention of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. We do not propose to discuss anew these questions.") | ||
* ''Bohl v. State'', 3 Tex.Ct.App. 683, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/003_TexCtApp_683.pdf#page=2 684-85] (1878) (citations omitted) (" | * ''Bohl v. State'', 3 Tex.Ct.App. 683, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/003_TexCtApp_683.pdf#page=2 684-85] (1878) (citations omitted) ("[A]rticle 1, which is in these words: 'All freemen, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man or set of men is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments or privileges but in consideration of public services.' . . . The principle enunciated in the 3d section of the Bill of Rights is to be found expressed in the same language in each of the Constitutions under which the people of Texas have lived since the organization of the state government. And under those Constitutions the decisions heretofore rendered, holding Sunday laws constitutional, were made by our courts.") | ||
|seo_title=Featured Article: Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution ("Equal Rights Provision") | |seo_title=Featured Article: Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution ("Equal Rights Provision") | ||