Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 4: Difference between revisions

From TLG
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Tag: Reverted
Line 13: Line 13:
|recent=
|recent=


* ''Hensley v. State Comm'n on Jud. Conduct'', 692 S.W.3d 184, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4865454919474533790#p208 208] (Tex. 2024) (J. Blacklock, concurring) ("If the Judicial Conduct Commission is correct—that is, if ''Obergefell'' ushered in an era in which judges who publicly espouse traditional Christian beliefs are unfit for the robe—then yet another deeply rooted constitutional principle . . . . Judge Hensley has been the target of a punitive administrative apparatus with the power, ultimately, to exclude her from holding office. This has happened 'on account of [her] religious sentiments'—not on account of rude or insulting or unprofessional words or actions towards anybody of any sexual orientation.")
* ''Hensley v. State Comm'n on Jud. Conduct'', 692 S.W.3d 184, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4865454919474533790#p208 208] (Tex. 2024) (J. Blacklock, concurring) ("If the Judicial Conduct Commission is correct—that is, if Obergefell ushered in an era in which judges who publicly espouse traditional Christian beliefs are unfit for the robe—then yet another deeply rooted constitutional principle . . . . Judge Hensley has been the target of a punitive administrative apparatus with the power, ultimately, to exclude her from holding office. This has happened 'on account of [her] religious sentiments'—not on account of rude or insulting or unprofessional words or actions towards anybody of any sexual orientation.")


|historic=
|historic=

Revision as of 11:10, June 21, 2025

Adopted February 15, 1876:

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.

Editor Comments

Sections 4 through 7 of Article I, including the recently adopted Section 6-a, concern religion.

Due either to the plain language of the provision or to state court decisions interpreting the provision, the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the state constitution sometimes differs from the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the federal constitution.

For example, under this section, a person who fails to "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" is not eligible to hold public office in Texas. However, that requirement violates the federal constitution and is therefore unenforceable. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) (holding that similar provision contained in Maryland Constitution violated federal constitution).

Attorney Steve Smith

Recent Decisions

  • Hensley v. State Comm'n on Jud. Conduct, 692 S.W.3d 184, 208 (Tex. 2024) (J. Blacklock, concurring) ("If the Judicial Conduct Commission is correct—that is, if Obergefell ushered in an era in which judges who publicly espouse traditional Christian beliefs are unfit for the robe—then yet another deeply rooted constitutional principle . . . . Judge Hensley has been the target of a punitive administrative apparatus with the power, ultimately, to exclude her from holding office. This has happened 'on account of [her] religious sentiments'—not on account of rude or insulting or unprofessional words or actions towards anybody of any sexual orientation.")

Historic Decisions

None.

Library Resources

Online Resources