4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 35 (view source)
Revision as of 11:21, July 25, 2023
, July 25, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
* ''Jones v. Anderson'', 189 S.W.2d 65, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/189_SW2_65.pdf#page=2 66] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1945, ref'd) ("The Legislature, by the enactment of said Article 52-161, created for Bexar County the constitutional office of Criminal District Attorney, and this being so Section 21 of Article 5 of our Constitution, in effect, provides that in such a county no County Attorney shall be elected. Appellant contends that said Article 52-161 is unconstitutional because it allegedly violates the provisions of Section 35 of Article 3 . . . . All of these things were inter-related, necessary and proper to the one main object of the bill, which was to create a Criminal District Court for Bexar County.") | * ''Jones v. Anderson'', 189 S.W.2d 65, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/189_SW2_65.pdf#page=2 66] (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1945, ref'd) ("The Legislature, by the enactment of said Article 52-161, created for Bexar County the constitutional office of Criminal District Attorney, and this being so Section 21 of Article 5 of our Constitution, in effect, provides that in such a county no County Attorney shall be elected. Appellant contends that said Article 52-161 is unconstitutional because it allegedly violates the provisions of Section 35 of Article 3 . . . . All of these things were inter-related, necessary and proper to the one main object of the bill, which was to create a Criminal District Court for Bexar County.") | ||
* ''Gulf Ins. Co. v. James'', 185 S.W.2d 966, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Gulf Ins. Co. v. James'', 185 S.W.2d 966, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/185_SW2_966.pdf#page=5 970] (Tex. 1945) ("The purpose of Section 35 of Article III [] is to require that the bill shall advise both the Legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, such purpose being stated in [cited case] as follows: 'To advise the legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill, so as to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which otherwise might be ingrafted on it and become the law, and to obviate legislation through the combination upon a composite bill, of the votes of the proponents of different measures included in it, some of which would not pass upon their merits if separately considered.'") | ||
* ''Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State'', 113 S.W. 916, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_113_SWR_916.pdf#page=2 917] (Tex. 1908) ("A title is not bad merely because of comprehensiveness; but it is bad if it is so indefinite as to express no subject, or if it does not express the particular subject of the act. The title must not only express a subject, but must express that which is dealt with in the body of the act. No authority but the plain language of the Constitution is needed for that proposition. But the authorities recognize, as they must, that a title may be so indefinite as not to express any subject of legislation sufficiently, or that it may fail to express the subject of the body of the act.") | * ''Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State'', 113 S.W. 916, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_113_SWR_916.pdf#page=2 917] (Tex. 1908) ("A title is not bad merely because of comprehensiveness; but it is bad if it is so indefinite as to express no subject, or if it does not express the particular subject of the act. The title must not only express a subject, but must express that which is dealt with in the body of the act. No authority but the plain language of the Constitution is needed for that proposition. But the authorities recognize, as they must, that a title may be so indefinite as not to express any subject of legislation sufficiently, or that it may fail to express the subject of the body of the act.") | ||