Texas Constitution: Differences and Amendments
During any regular or special session, a member of the Texas legislature can propose an amendment to the state constitution. This proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the members of each house of Texas and the Amendment will be voted upon by qualified, registered voters.
A brief description, or explanatory statement of the proposed amendment is then prepared by the Secretary of State and approved by the Attorney General. It will then be published, along with the date that it will be voted on, twice in all newspapers in the state. Those newspapers must meet certain requirements in order to publish official notices. Those requirements are set forth by the Texas legislature
The Secretary of …show more content…
If approved, it will become part of the constitution and a proclamation will be made by the Governor.
In 1974 there was a strong attempt at reforming the Texas constitution. There were several reasons from strengthening the Legislative branch to keeping Labor Unions out of Texas. Another amendment would require that judges have completed a Law degree. That would have been bad news for a lot of current Texas judges. But as is typical in politics, political infighting and partisanship lead to it not being passed. Despite three million dollars having been spent on the convention it failed by three votes.
Do I believe it is better to have a detailed constitution that requires frequent amendments, or one that has broad language providing flexibility to handle situations as they arise? I believe, personally, that an argument can be made for both, as well as an argument against both. The problem is not in the paperwork but in the people who interpret them as well as those who create issues that must be interpreted. I think that for many years, the broad language of our United States Constitution worked very well for our country and would have been a good guide lines for the states. But it’s hard to argue against strict verbiage and a difficult amendment
During any regular or special session, a member of the Texas legislature can propose an amendment to the state constitution. This proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the members of each house of Texas and the Amendment will be voted upon by qualified, registered voters.
A brief description, or explanatory statement of the proposed amendment is then prepared by the Secretary of State and approved by the Attorney General. It will then be published, along with the date that it will be voted on, twice in all newspapers in the state. Those newspapers must meet certain requirements in order to publish official notices. Those requirements are set forth by the Texas legislature
The Secretary of …show more content…
If approved, it will become part of the constitution and a proclamation will be made by the Governor.
In 1974 there was a strong attempt at reforming the Texas constitution. There were several reasons from strengthening the Legislative branch to keeping Labor Unions out of Texas. Another amendment would require that judges have completed a Law degree. That would have been bad news for a lot of current Texas judges. But as is typical in politics, political infighting and partisanship lead to it not being passed. Despite three million dollars having been spent on the convention it failed by three votes.
Do I believe it is better to have a detailed constitution that requires frequent amendments, or one that has broad language providing flexibility to handle situations as they arise? I believe, personally, that an argument can be made for both, as well as an argument against both. The problem is not in the paperwork but in the people who interpret them as well as those who create issues that must be interpreted. I think that for many years, the broad language of our United States Constitution worked very well for our country and would have been a good guide lines for the states. But it’s hard to argue against strict verbiage and a difficult amendment