News Discrimination in Texas Constitution?

[Whovian]

Rewriting history eh??

I'll ignore the rest of your post, though the bit about praying surprised me.

Aren't they teaching in Texas that the Civil War was about "states' rights?" While it technically was, it was primarily about slavery, and I don't think that's referenced once in the books.

Fortunately, the people of the great state of Texas can still choose elected officials based on their personal beliefs…… at least for now. Perhaps someday the government will pass a law that prohibits citizens from voting against someone that doesn’t share their values.

And I can tell you're overreacting. I see no reason religion has anything to do with anything, other than that of course some people are more likely to vote for people with the same religious beliefs as themselves. The voting system does not take religion into account, it's the voters that do. So any state could, in theory, choose elected officials based on their personal beliefs.

One final thought, the Constitution still has discrimination in it, or did you forget about the age discrimination for holding some public offices or the discrimination against non-natural born Americans to become President?

Don't know about the age discrimination, but of course any constitution's going to have at least some discrimination.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Seems like the country is becoming more progressively (I guess how you view the term "progressive") religious. I actually giggled when reading the article.

 

[Danger]

I actually giggled when reading the article.

As an outside observer, I am both amused and appalled.

 

[D H]

Umm Prohibition is still in the federal constitution it was an amendment. There is another amendment removing its effects but once somehting is passed you never just delete it.

That's a bit irrelevant because this thread is about state constitutions rather than the federal constitution. In many states, amendments do modify the text of the constitution. Texas is one of them. All that's left after an amendment repeals some section is a placeholder to keep the numbering consistent.

No matter what you do it will not remove anything from the old books unless you scrap the entire code and start over with a new constitution that is why "all these nonsense laws" are still on the books.

Contrary to what you wrote, changes to federal law do modify the text of the law, and laws that are repealed are removed in their entirety except for a placeholder to keep the numbering consistent. In the federal system, it is only the US constitution where history is not rewritten.

I am sure you would agree the culture is not driven by those between the lines type laws.

A number of the commenters here (not just picking on you, nitsuj) are from outside the US. You perhaps don't understand the distinction between constitutions and laws. There's a huge difference between the two in the US. Laws are ephemeral and mutable. Constitutions are much harder to change by design.

Many states have re-written their constitutions. For example, Georgia is on its ninth constitution, which became effective in 1983 after being drawn up by a committee, approved by the state legislature, and finally ratified by a statewide vote. Only twenty of the fifty states are still using their original constitutions.

Of the seven states with this objectionable clause in their constitutions, all but one were last rewritten in the 1870s or earlier. The one exception is Tennessee, which rewrote part of their constitution in 1971. That 1971 rewrite left this objectionable clause because it was limited to rewriting that part of the constitution that specified how property taxes are assessed. In other words, the objectionable clause stayed in because the committee wasn't authorized to touch it.

 

[russ_watters]

The prohibition comment is more incorrect than irrelevant. Amendments make actual changes. Keeping records of changes and old wordings is just that: record keeping. Prohibition is not "on the books" anymore, but this line in the Texas Constitution is.

 

[Danger]

A number of the commenters here (not just picking on you, nitsuj) are from outside the US. You perhaps don't understand the distinction between constitutions and laws. There's a huge difference between the two in the US. Laws are ephemeral and mutable. Constitutions are much harder to change by design.

Fair enough. That is one aspect of your government that I wasn't familiar with. Here in Canada, we originally had the Articles of Confederation, which united everyone under English law as a side-effect of forming a nation from a bunch of different areas. Now, we have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is our equivalent of your constitution. No law can supersede that, although some have tried. Laws are passed on every level from municipal to federal, but if anyone of them is in violation of the Charter it's toast.

 

[russ_watters]

You are correct that "disgusting" isn't quite the proper term; I'd use "reprehensible".
You and some others (I can't remember who said what) are missing one important fact. As evidenced by the Texas rewriting of history in textbooks and Tennessee promoting Creationism, neither of those states gives a damn about the US constitution. They are blatantly defying it, and nobody is doing anything to stop them. Just because the state mandate that this thread is about isn't enforced doesn't mean that they won't enforce it if it suits their political agenda. Even if such enforcement is eventually overturned by the federal government, lives will have been ruined in the meantime.

Not all Texans are bigoted idiots, Danger. I see no value in your assumption that sooner or later someone will try to enforce this and it will be a serious issue. I do see prejudice in the assumption though: this wasn't written by modern-day Texans, but you are assuming they are cut from the same cloth.

Since we're making speculative assumptions, mine is that this would never be bigger than the birther conspiracy theories.

 

[D H]

The prohibition comment is more incorrect than irrelevant. Amendments make actual changes. Keeping records of changes and old wordings is just that: record keeping. Prohibition is not "on the books" anymore, but this line in the Texas Constitution is.

I disagree. The US Constitution lists amendments separately. If some new amendment were passed that overturned the 14th you would still see the 14th amendment. The Texas State Constitution operates differently. Amendments are not kept as a separate list. They instead modify the text of the constitution. Search for article 13 of the Texas constitution, or section 2 of article 17. All you will find are placeholders.

The US constitution has some clauses that tell the US government what it must do, others that tell the US government what it cannot do. The only clause that tells the US government what it can do are the necessary and sufficient clause and the general welfare clause. The US Constitution is a very open document. In contrast, the Texas constitution is a closed document. If something isn't spelled out at last somewhat obliquely in our state constitution, the state can't do it (but our legislators are quite adept at finding some oblique justification for new laws). This makes our state constitution a lengthy and somewhat unwieldy beast. For example, we have a railroad commission that is explicitly spelled out in our constitution. The Texas Railroad Commission now regulates the Texas oil and gas industry, pipelines, and mining. Oh, but not railroads. That part of its charter was long ago redacted from the constitution.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you missed my point: regardless of how the paperwork is done, prohibition is not in force because it was repealed. This line in the Texas Constitution has not been repealed/amended, it is just being ignored.

 

[Danger]

Not all Texans are bigoted idiots, Danger.

It was never my intention to imply that, Russ, and I apologize to any intelligent Texans who took it the wrong way. Evo and MIH are both from there, and you have to know that I would never accuse either of them of ignorance. What I meant is that most Texans in positions of power, and in the public eye, are bigoted idiots.
And I guarantee that if a law is still on the books, eventually some of those bigoted idiots will put someone in jail for it for as long as it takes to be overturned by your federal government. That's one reason that I'm so dead-set (pardon the expression) against capital punishment. Would you even care to speculate about how many innocent people have been executed in that state?

 

[AlephZero]

A number of the commenters here (not just picking on you, nitsuj) are from outside the US. You perhaps don't understand the distinction between constitutions and laws. There's a huge difference between the two in the US. Laws are ephemeral and mutable. Constitutions are much harder to change by design.

I wouldn't argue with that in the US, but it's not a "law of nature" that it should be that way. For example the UK gets along fine without any written constution, and things which the US would consider fundamental constitutional principles (e.g. the relationship between the government and a state religion) are Acts of Parliament, i.e. laws - even though those particular laws may only apply to one living person at any moment in time.

 

[Danger]

I wouldn't argue with that in the US, but it's not a "law of nature" that it should be that way.

There is no "law of nature" other than "survival of the fittest" that can possibly apply here. While I agree with what you said, in general, the topic of the thread is specific to Texas, USA. Anything else is irrelevant, no matter how irritating that is.

 

[russ_watters]

It was never my intention to imply that, Russ, and I apologize to any intelligent Texans who took it the wrong way. Evo and MIH are both from there, and you have to know that I would never accuse either of them of ignorance. What I meant is that most Texans in positions of power, and in the public eye, are bigoted idiots.
And I guarantee that if a law is still on the books, eventually some of those bigoted idiots will put someone in jail for it for as long as it takes to be overturned by your federal government.

Fair enough, Danger. And while I find I have a hard time disagreeing with the notion that any legislature is comprised largely of bigoted idiots, legislators are nevertheless fairly competent at one key aspect of their jobs: saying/doing whatever they need to to get re-elected. So I still see it as unlikely that they would ever challenge someone on these grounds. Why? Because even though there are points to lose by going out of one's way to have this passage removed, there are also points to lose by challenging someone on these grounds. Why? Because any challenge would be laughed-out of court and I doubt if any legislators are really that dumb (with due deference to a certain former Alabama Supreme Court justice...) as to be so publicly and officially declared to be an idiot (see: Donald Trump and the birther conspiracy theory).

But even if there is just one legislator who is that dumb, the case would crash and burn so fast that no harm would come to the person on the receiving end as a result. (See again: Obama birther conspiracy).

 

[D H]

I wouldn't argue with that in the US, but it's not a "law of nature" that it should be that way.

I never said or implied that it's a "law of nature." The laws of nature are downright brutish. Coming up with something as absolutely brilliant as the US constitution took a good precedent in British law, a big mistake in the Articles of Confederation (why you Europeans are reproducing that big mistake in the European Union is beyond me), and an incredible amount of sheer dumb luck. Even with that brilliant precedent, most of the state constitutions in the USA represent a step backwards rather than forward. The constitutions of Texas and California, for example, are best viewed as how things should not be done.

 

[Danger]

I find I have a hard time disagreeing with the notion that any legislature is comprised largely of bigoted idiots, legislators are nevertheless fairly competent at one key aspect of their jobs: saying/doing whatever they need to to get re-elected.

That applies to all levels of government in Canada as well, so I wasn't being prejudicial in mentioning it. Generally speaking, the Maritimes are more progressive than the rest of the country, but they're small.

even if there is just one legislator who is that dumb, the case would crash and burn so fast that no harm would come to the person on the receiving end as a result. (See again: Obama birther conspiracy).

How sure are you of that? Again, look at what they're doing with textbooks. Shouldn't any part of the populace with 2 functional brain cells tell these guys to go and indulge in self-gratification? The lunatics are in charge of the asylum, and nobody seems to care.

 

[D H]

How sure are you of that? Again, look at what they're doing with textbooks.

"They", the Texas legislators, are not guilty of these travesties. That's the Texas State Board of Education you are talking about, not the legislature. So how do these board members get there? In Texas we voters don't just get to vote for the governor, lieutenant governor (who has a lot more power than does the governor), and legislators. We also get to vote for the railroad commissioner, the land commissioner, the state comptroller, judges, et cetera -- and that et cetera includes the members of the board of education.

You need to put the blame for the schoolbook mess where it belongs, which is we the people of Texas.

 

[Gokul43201]

Not all Texans are bigoted idiots, Danger. ... I do see prejudice in the assumption though: this wasn't written by modern-day Texans, but you are assuming they are cut from the same cloth.

If there wasn't the possibility that a majority of the Texas electorate were "bigoted idiots" (I'd choose different words - I think that's not a good description) then the following, bolded part, wouldn't be true:

There is no practical way to remove these obsolete clauses from these constitutions. A legislator would have to propose amending the constitution, a super-majority would have to pass that proposed amendment, and in Texas at least, the proposed amendment would have to be approved by the voters. There's little chance that a legislator in Texas would make such a proposal (it would be political suicide), even less chance that the legislature as a whole would approve it (this would be mass political suicide), and zero chance that it would pass that final test by the voters (we voters can be downright stupid and very bigoted.) There isn't a law that prohibits voters from being stupid or bigoted. Such a law would in fact be unconstitutional.

But I think D H has got it exactly right.

The idea of a religious test is not a lifeless remnant of archaic thought. It is a very mainstream concept among a large segment of the US population - that the US Constitution prohibits it from being legally applied is just an inconvenience. Remember the old Presidential debate when one of the contenders won loud applause from the audience when he asserted that an atheist can not be trusted with power? That was Gingrich: only months ago, not decades or centuries.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't buy that at all, Gokul, but since we're both just speculating without evidence, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[ThomasT]

Shouldn't any part of the populace with 2 functional brain cells tell these guys to go and indulge in self-gratification? The lunatics are in charge of the asylum, and nobody seems to care.

It's part of the bible belt. Isn't it? I grew up in a bible belt state. I don't think it's so much a matter of intelligence (which is contextual) as it is socialization, and individual internalization of group norms, mores, etc. Even very smart (according to certain criteria) people can become emotionally attached to religious doctrine, tradition, and practice ... I think.

So, my two cents is that if there are objective criteria wrt which the apparent religiosity of any individual or group can be evaluated as being contradictory to the well being of a society in general, then those are the lines along which the argument should proceed.

I would like to see certain obviously religiously grounded (wrt my perspective) laws repealed or superceded (I don't know how that stuff works exactly). For example, sometimes I run out of booze on Saturday night and would like, Sunday morning, to get, say, margarita or mimosa fixin's for Sunday brunch. But even in Florida stores are prohibited from selling spirits until 12 noon on Sundays -- a most inconvenient law which I think has something to do with the Christian religion.

 

[mege]

I would like to see certain obviously religiously grounded (wrt my perspective) laws repealed or superceded (I don't know how that stuff works exactly). For example, sometimes I run out of booze on Saturday night and would like, Sunday morning, to get, say, margarita or mimosa fixin's for Sunday brunch. But even in Florida stores are prohibited from selling spirits until 12 noon on Sundays -- a most inconvenient law which I think has something to do with the Christian religion.

Per the SCOTUS - 'days of rest' (regarding Blue Laws, like TT has described) have a secular value to them. (McGOWAN v. MARYLAND): "The present purpose and effect of most of our Sunday Closing Laws is to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens; and the fact that this day is Sunday, a day of particular significance for the dominant Christian sects, does not bar the State from achieving its secular goals."



As a thought experiment (and because I'm dense like this): does one have to be religious to believe in god or a supreme being? Is there a legal test that defines 'belief in a god' as religious (it should be noted that there are Atheistic Hindus and Buddists, for example)? "God"/"supreme being" is used in a lot of US Government documents without any reference to Christianity or another religion. I think that 'belief in a god' is being equivocated too loosely with 'establishment of a religion' by many.

That said, I would think that a better reason to dissolve (have dissolved, etc) the 'must believe in a god' clauses in certain states constitutions would be more on grounds of discrimination rather than because of the establishment of religion clause. Equal opportunity isn't being given to Atheistic religious folks. Having a test of 'do you believe in god?' does not establish religious intent any more than 'do you drive a car?' (because you could drive a car to go to church, after all).

 

[chemisttree]

Fair enough. That is one aspect of your government that I wasn't familiar with. Here in Canada, we originally had the Articles of Confederation, which united everyone under English law as a side-effect of forming a nation from a bunch of different areas. Now, we have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is our equivalent of your constitution. No law can supersede that, although some have tried. Laws are passed on every level from municipal to federal, but if anyone of them is in violation of the Charter it's toast.

No it isn't. The Charter provides a "Nonwithstanding Clause" that actually provides a mechanism for a state's law to supercede that of the Federal.

 

[jtbell]

But even in Florida stores are prohibited from selling spirits until 12 noon on Sundays -- a most inconvenient law which I think has something to do with the Christian religion.

Per the SCOTUS - 'days of rest' (regarding Blue Laws, like TT has described) have a secular value to them.

The regulation of alcohol in the US has a long and mixed history which has both religious and public-health (the "secular value") motivations, with results that vary wildly from one state to another. Here in South Carolina, for example, state law provides for a general ban on sales of alcohol on Sunday, except that counties can authorize Sunday sales by the drink in restaurants, and maybe wine and beer in supermarkets etc. (I'm not sure about the latter because I live in a county which has no alcohol sales on Sunday; my wife and I often visit one of the nearby "big cities" on Sunday, where we've observed the availability of alcohol in restaurants, but we don't shop for groceries on those trips.) And until a few years ago, state-licensed liquor stores, which are still closed on Sunday everywhere in the state, had to close no later than sundown on days that they were open, which led to varying closing hours at different times of year. They still can't stay open late in the evening, but they do have more uniform hours now.

 

[ThinkToday]

The regulation of alcohol in the US has a long and mixed history which has both religious and public-health (the "secular value") motivations, with results that vary wildly from one state to another. Here in South Carolina, for example, state law provides for a general ban on sales of alcohol on Sunday, except that counties can authorize Sunday sales by the drink in restaurants, and maybe wine and beer in supermarkets etc. (I'm not sure about the latter because I live in a county which has no alcohol sales on Sunday; my wife and I often visit one of the nearby "big cities" on Sunday, where we've observed the availability of alcohol in restaurants, but we don't shop for groceries on those trips.) And until a few years ago, state-licensed liquor stores, which are still closed on Sunday everywhere in the state, had to close no later than sundown on days that they were open, which led to varying closing hours at different times of year. They still can't stay open late in the evening, but they do have more uniform hours now.

I would go to Myrtle Beach golfing every spring. I remember the laws that blocked full nude bars, which were blocked by the bars alcohol license. One "bar" wised up and supplied only mixers with their all nude "service" They couldn't be regulated by the same board, since they didn't sell alcohol. haha

 

[Danger]

No it isn't. The Charter provides a "Nonwithstanding Clause" that actually provides a mechanism for a state's law to supercede that of the Federal.

This might be just a matter of interpretation. As I see it, using the "Notwithstanding Clause" to supersede a section is not a violation of the Charter because the Clause itself is a part of the Charter. And we have provinces and territories, not states.

 

[chemisttree]

So your statement,

...No law can supersede that, although some have tried. Laws are passed on every level from municipal to federal, but if anyone of them is in violation of the Charter it's toast.

means that if a territorial law is written with language that identifies it as being subject to the Notwithstanding Clause, it supercedes federal law even though the Judiciary has determined that it is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter? Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[Danger]

"They", the Texas legislators, are not guilty of these travesties. That's the Texas State Board of Education you are talking about, not the legislature.

Yeah, I figured that it was a fair comparison, though, because they're similar types of people in similar positions of public responsibility.

if a territorial law is written with language that identifies it as being subject to the Notwithstanding Clause, it supercedes federal law even though the Judiciary has determined that it is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter?

Not quite. It's the Clause that supersedes another part of the Charter, not the new law itself.

 

[chemisttree]

...Aren't they teaching in Texas that the Civil War was about "states' rights?"

Yes they are but they also teach that the war was largely about slavery.

While it technically was, it was primarily about slavery, and I don't think that's referenced once in the books.

Absolutely false. Where did you get this idea?

The Civil War is taught in 7th (from a Texas History standpoint) and 8th grade (from an American History standpoint).

All textbooks in Texas that teach Texas History (7th Grade) must include the following "Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills" (TEKS):

(5) History. The student understands how events and issues shaped the history of Texas during the Civil War and Reconstruction. The student is expected to:

(A) explain reasons for the involvement of Texas in the Civil War such as states' rights, slavery, sectionalism, and tariffs;

(B) analyze the political, economic, and social effects of the Civil War and Reconstruction in Texas; and

(C) identify significant individuals and events concerning Texas and the Civil War such as John Bell Hood, John Reagan, Francis Lubbock, Thomas Green, John Magruder and the Battle of Galveston, the Battle of Sabine Pass, and the Battle of Palmito Ranch.

All textbooks in Texas that teach American History (8th Grade) must include the following TEKS:

(7) History. The student understands how political, economic, and social factors led to the growth of sectionalism and the Civil War. The student is expected to:

(A) analyze the impact of tariff policies on sections of the United States before the Civil War;

(B) compare the effects of political, economic, and social factors on slaves and free blacks;

(C) analyze the impact of slavery on different sections of the United States; and

(D) identify the provisions and compare the effects of congressional conflicts and compromises prior to the Civil War, including the roles of John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster.

(8) History. The student understands individuals, issues, and events of the Civil War. The student is expected to:

(A) explain the roles played by significant individuals during the Civil War, including Jefferson Davis, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and Abraham Lincoln, and heroes such as congressional Medal of Honor recipients William Carney and Philip Bazaar;

(B) explain the causes of the Civil War, including sectionalism, states' rights, and slavery, and significant events of the Civil War, including the firing on Fort Sumter; the battles of Antietam, Gettysburg, and Vicksburg; the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation; Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House; and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln; and

(C) analyze Abraham Lincoln's ideas about liberty, equality, union, and government as contained in his first and second inaugural addresses and the Gettysburg Address and contrast them with the ideas contained in Jefferson Davis's inaugural address.

You can see for yourself one School District's textbook list http://georgetownisd.org/ccorner/socstudies/documents/Gr6-8_SS_Annotated_Bibliography_000.pdf (pg 19-20) I defy you to find even one of those books that doesn't mention slavery as a significant cause of the Civil War.

Number one on the list:
Burchard, Peter. LINCOLN AND SLAVERY. Atheneum, 1999.
ISBN 0-689-81570-0.
Readers are provided with a rich understanding of the preeminence of slavery as a political and moral issue in 19th century America.

 

[mege]

Saying that 'the civil war is about slavery' mean different things: the US Civil War wasn't about 'freeing the slaves,' it was prominently about the institution of slavery and the regulation of various types of commerce in the context of states rights. Even us yanks learn that; I don't think that Texas is anything special in that regard.

Either concept is a far concept from the civil war being taught as 'the war of northern aggression' etc.

 

[nitsuj]

A cartoon clip I saw of the civil war said it was about labour.

That being said, The bullet points from chemisttree seem to sum it up well.


states' rights,
slavery,
sectionalism,
and tariffs

i.e. fightin' the gov'ment.