4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 12 (view source)
Revision as of 08:33, July 25, 2023
, July 25, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
* ''Denison v. State'', 61 S.W.2d 1022, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/061_SW2_1022.pdf#page=3 1024] (Tex. 1933) ("We would have quite a different case if we had before us a contention that Mr. Denison did receive a two-thirds vote of the Senate present; that the letter of Mr. Barker, its secretary, was incorrect; and that the Journal entry, to the effect that he had not been confirmed, was untrue. We would then be confronted with a very delicate and important question [] as to whether or not the courts may go behind the Journal entries of the Senate. Here, however, there is no question of the inaccuracy or incorrectness of the Journal entry, or of the letter of the Secretary of the Senate.") | * ''Denison v. State'', 61 S.W.2d 1022, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/061_SW2_1022.pdf#page=3 1024] (Tex. 1933) ("We would have quite a different case if we had before us a contention that Mr. Denison did receive a two-thirds vote of the Senate present; that the letter of Mr. Barker, its secretary, was incorrect; and that the Journal entry, to the effect that he had not been confirmed, was untrue. We would then be confronted with a very delicate and important question [] as to whether or not the courts may go behind the Journal entries of the Senate. Here, however, there is no question of the inaccuracy or incorrectness of the Journal entry, or of the letter of the Secretary of the Senate.") | ||
* ''Jackson v. Walker'', 49 S.W.2d 693, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Jackson v. Walker'', 49 S.W.2d 693, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/049_SW2_693.pdf#page=2 694] (Tex. 1932) ("This is a very interesting question, but to review the decisions of the various courts [in other states] bearing upon this question would prolong this opinion beyond its proper length. The rule has long been established in this state that a duly authenticated, approved, and enrolled statute imports absolute verity and is conclusive; that the act was passed in every respect as designated by the Constitution; and that resort may not be had to the proclamation of the Governor and to the journals of the two houses to invalidate the law. This rule has been followed by the various courts of this state.") | ||
* ''Parshall v. State'', 138 S.W. 759, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_138_SWR_759.pdf#page=5 763] (Tex.Crim.App. 1911) ("Both this court and our Supreme Court, in well-considered opinions, have adopted that construction of the constitutional provision to the effect that where the Constitution does not affirmatively require the journals to show a given fact that the enrolled bill, properly attested by the presiding officer of each house of the Legislature, approved by the Governor, filed in the Secretary of State's office, and published under the authority of the state as a valid act of the Legislature, is absolutely conclusive of the validity thereof, in accordance with the construction first mentioned just above.") | * ''Parshall v. State'', 138 S.W. 759, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_138_SWR_759.pdf#page=5 763] (Tex.Crim.App. 1911) ("Both this court and our Supreme Court, in well-considered opinions, have adopted that construction of the constitutional provision to the effect that where the Constitution does not affirmatively require the journals to show a given fact that the enrolled bill, properly attested by the presiding officer of each house of the Legislature, approved by the Governor, filed in the Secretary of State's office, and published under the authority of the state as a valid act of the Legislature, is absolutely conclusive of the validity thereof, in accordance with the construction first mentioned just above.") | ||