In the United States, governors tend to play varying roles in their respective state governments. The argument can be made that the governor should be to a state what the president is to the nation. One would be led to believe that in large state like Texas, such a publicized position would have a large number of formal powers through which they could direct policy-making and the legislative process (Henson 6.1). However, a unique blend of Texas’s history and political views has shaped the role of the governor as one with sternly restricted powers when compared to their national level counterpart.
The Texas governor and U.S. president can be compared and contrasted in a variety of ways. A major factor to consider when relating the characteristics …show more content…
While the U.S. president may find it relatively simpler to unite the individuals within the executive branch, the Texas governor may not have this luxury. Essentially, the U.S. president has an inherent advantage when working with his “team”. The U.S. president starts with the team he wants, while the Texas governor has to be active in building his team throughout the years. This explains why governors who have served multiple terms have distinctly more authority (Henson 6.5). They have had a longer period of opportunity to select executive appointments. But even when the Texas governor does gain a chance to appoint a member of the executive branch, his power is severely limited. The Texas governor must abide by a two-thirds approval by the senate and abide by senatorial courtesy. Not only that, but the governor does not have the ability to fire any of their predecessors appointees, and must wait for some natural resignation process to occur (Henson 6.5). Furthermore, because of the president’s power to appoint not only within the executive branch itself, but also within the judicial branch in the form of Supreme …show more content…
But what is the reason for this? The answer lies in the political history of Texas and changes that took place after the U.S. Civil War. Out of all the events shaping the antiquity of the governance in the state of Texas, non seemingly played a larger role than the Constitution of 1876. For the majority of it’s existence, Texas was led by the conservative elite, a highly wealthy group of people who would align themselves with the views of the Southern Confederacy (Henson 2.7). At the conclusion of the Civil War, the constitution of 1869 was drafted into place by a group of Radical Republicans (Henson 6.4). This was heavily loathed by the once ruling conservative elites of the state. This piece of legislature encouraged a stronger central government and offered more power to the governor, something that had been negatively looked upon by previous lawmakers in the state. Up until that point, the affluent property-owners in the state had been making a hefty profit off of slave labor (Henson 6.4). A decentralized and comparatively weaker single entity executive that would promote lower taxes favored these practices. Additionally, the newly powerful governor almost acted as a figure of sorts for the loss these wealthy individuals suffered at the hands of the Union (Henson 6.4). Needless to say, these individuals had a
The Texas governor and U.S. president can be compared and contrasted in a variety of ways. A major factor to consider when relating the characteristics …show more content…
While the U.S. president may find it relatively simpler to unite the individuals within the executive branch, the Texas governor may not have this luxury. Essentially, the U.S. president has an inherent advantage when working with his “team”. The U.S. president starts with the team he wants, while the Texas governor has to be active in building his team throughout the years. This explains why governors who have served multiple terms have distinctly more authority (Henson 6.5). They have had a longer period of opportunity to select executive appointments. But even when the Texas governor does gain a chance to appoint a member of the executive branch, his power is severely limited. The Texas governor must abide by a two-thirds approval by the senate and abide by senatorial courtesy. Not only that, but the governor does not have the ability to fire any of their predecessors appointees, and must wait for some natural resignation process to occur (Henson 6.5). Furthermore, because of the president’s power to appoint not only within the executive branch itself, but also within the judicial branch in the form of Supreme …show more content…
But what is the reason for this? The answer lies in the political history of Texas and changes that took place after the U.S. Civil War. Out of all the events shaping the antiquity of the governance in the state of Texas, non seemingly played a larger role than the Constitution of 1876. For the majority of it’s existence, Texas was led by the conservative elite, a highly wealthy group of people who would align themselves with the views of the Southern Confederacy (Henson 2.7). At the conclusion of the Civil War, the constitution of 1869 was drafted into place by a group of Radical Republicans (Henson 6.4). This was heavily loathed by the once ruling conservative elites of the state. This piece of legislature encouraged a stronger central government and offered more power to the governor, something that had been negatively looked upon by previous lawmakers in the state. Up until that point, the affluent property-owners in the state had been making a hefty profit off of slave labor (Henson 6.4). A decentralized and comparatively weaker single entity executive that would promote lower taxes favored these practices. Additionally, the newly powerful governor almost acted as a figure of sorts for the loss these wealthy individuals suffered at the hands of the Union (Henson 6.4). Needless to say, these individuals had a