This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Constitution of Texas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It would be nice if this was a little more expansive. – 24.28.64.176 ( talk), 20:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC).
In the bill of rights section, the following sentence doesn't make sense. In particular, I think something is wrong at the word "statly." It seems likely that many letters or words are missing after the "t" and before the "ly"... "Most of the article's provisions concern specific fundamental limitations on the power of the statly, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient." (Article 1, Section 2)"
Thus, the Texas Constitution functions as a limiting document, as opposed to the U.S. Constitution's purpose as a granting document.
What's the significance of this sentence? The US Constitution was written to grant specific powers to the central authority, including those "necessary and proper" to the explicitly listed ones, and no other powers (see the 10th Amendment). How does that make the federal Constitution a "granting document" in contrast to a "limiting document?" - Kris Schnee ( talk) 17:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The powers of the Federal government are "explicit", they are specifically listed in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States. The line "the common defence and general welfare" is the PURPOSE of the specific powers listed underneath - it is not some sort of "catch-all" power in its self. Thus the United States Constitution (like the Constitution of the State of Texas) is a "limiting document". This is not astonishing - as the basic philosophy of the authors of the Constitution of the United States and the State of Texas was the same. A very different philosphy from that of most Wikipedia writers. 176.25.71.54 ( talk) 01:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think someone did not correctly comprehend a sentence in the Constitution from this paragraph:
"Section 4 prohibits office holders from the requirements of any religious test, provided they "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being". The latter requirement, as well as similar provisions in several other state constitutions, violates the First Amendment prohibition on establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof (which includes the right to not hold a religious belief), and more particularly violates Article VI, which prohibits any religious test for office. Since it would almost certainly be struck down by the federal courts if challenged, it has not been enforced in modern times."
The actual text states:
"SEC. 4. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. "
From my reading of this, it seems to be IF a person did ever "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" then they cannot be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments. Trentc ( talk) 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Texas has had six or seven constitutions depending on how you count them. But in any event, the second paragraph literally doesn't add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlgonline ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The article says that 666 amendments to the constitution have been proposed, of which 662 were submitted to voters. Since proposed amendments are required to be submitted to voters, the obvious question is why the other four were not submitted to voters. What happened to them? OnlineAdjunct ( talk) 14:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
There should be more information regarding why the 1876 constitution was adopted, what differences it has with the 1869 one, and the political climate at the time of its adoption. – Illegitimate Barrister, 11:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)