Destiny Taylor
2306 Texas Government
R. Crain
March 13, 2015
The Power of the Texas Governor
The office of Governor is extremely weak in Texas. You can thank the Reconstruction Republican government after the Civil War (or as we southerner like to say, the "War Between the States") for that. During Reconstruction the Radical Republicans took over the government in Texas and pretty much instituted Marshall Law. The appointed governor at the time, Edmund J. Davis, was a Southern Unionist who fled Texas after it joined the Confederate States and eventually became a Union General.
Firstly, is the governor too weak to lead? The governor is the commander in chief of the military forces of the state. He can summon the Legislature into special session
…show more content…
for purposes that he designates, grant pardons and commutations of punishments, make appointments to fill vacancies in state and district offices, sign bills into law or veto them, recommend measures to the Legislature for passage, and require information from other executive officers concerning their duties. Does the constitution empower the governor to “run” the executive branch? Is he entitled to issue orders that create programs and policies? This subject came up in the 1998 gubernatorial debate between George W. Bush and Garry Mauro. The moderator asked whether the candidates would order their appointees to block a proposed hazardous waste site in a nearby county. Mauro answered that the governor should instruct his appointees on public policy (but, he now adds, he should not tell them how to vote). Bush said that Mauro’s view amounted to an “ex parte communication”—yes, he really said that—and that governors aren’t supposed to tell state agencies what to do. This is the traditional view, one that Perry clearly does not feel bound by. Secondly, is the governor too weak to be effective? This is not an easy dispute to resolve. The Texas constitution does not directly address the subject of executive power. No clause says, “Texas shall have a weak governor” or “The legislative branch shall be supreme.” These relationships have to be inferred from our knowledge of history, the text of the constitution, and the presumed intention of the authors of the document in 1876: to undo the Reconstruction constitution that had been adopted seven years earlier. That instrument had created a chief executive with a four-year term and broad powers that included the appointment of all top state officials, including justices of the state courts. Edmund J. Davis, the first governor elected under the 1869 constitution, remains infamous to this day. The Reconstruction legislature gave him the power to appoint local officials, such as mayors, aldermen, and district attorneys. It created what was, in effect, a state press whose notices newspapers were required to print. It authorized a state police force that could take lawbreakers to another county for trial. Out of this debacle arose the present constitution, with an executive deliberately weakened by short terms of office (two years), fragmented responsibilities doled out to other elected officials, and a lack of express powers. The Legislature, too, was handcuffed, by being allowed to meet for only twenty weeks every two years. Thirdly, the evaluation of the office of governor of Texas by has been widely examined and criticized.
There are some point I would like to share regarding our past/present governor, both the official and political strengths and weaknesses of the position. The legislative branch can try to fight back. It can pass a law overturning an executive order. It can cut appropriations for the governor or for his pet projects. It can investigate whether he should have acted sooner in the scandal concerning sexual abuse of offenders in Texas Youth Commission facilities. The Senate can refuse to confirm gubernatorial appointments, starting with Hawkins. But the bottom line is that the Legislature can take action for 20 weeks every two years, and the governor can take action for 52 weeks every year. The governor has the advantage if he wants it, and Perry clearly wants it. It is ironic that a governor who has always struggled to achieve respect, both inside and outside the Capitol, and who was recently reelected with one of the smallest pluralities of any Texas chief executive, should be the one to mount a successful expansion of the powers of his office. But in politics, relentlessness pays off, and Perry is relentless in pursuit of his objectives. Rick Perry believes that, as governor, he has broad power to influence and even create, unilaterally, public policy in Texas. He has been bent on expanding executive power since his party gained total control over state government in 2003, a year in which the Legislature rushed through a bill giving sweeping new powers to the Texas Department of Transportation, including the ability to privatize highways; passed a reorganization of health and human services agencies that centralized power in a single bureaucrat appointed by the governor; gave the governor a $295 million fund to dole out to companies for economic development; and allowed him to participate fully in the process that crafted the state
budget. In conclusion, the governor’s office operates out of public view, people do get shut out, and secrecy is demanded. Greater gubernatorial power is the wrong course for state government. In my opinion, our office is too weak.
The office of president of the Republic of Texas was superseded and the state governor was first established in the Constitution of 1845 (“Phillip, Fry,” 2010) The Constitution of 1845 vested executive power in the governor and the election was done by the qualified voters of the State. In comparison, the Constitution of 1876 created plural executive, dividing the executive power among a governor, lieutenant-governor, Secretary of State, comptroller of public accounts, treasurer, commissioner of the general land office, attorney general and all of the officers of the executive department. All of these positions are elected by qualified voters except the Secretary of State who is appointed by the governor. The governor remains the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the State and the militia in both the Constitutions. Also, the Constitution of 1845 placed a limit on the governor’s salary to two thousand dollars annually, which was amended on November 2, 1954 removing this limit. Although there has not been much change in the requirements to become a governor, the Constitution of 1845 limited the governor to two two-year terms in six years compared to the four-year term in the Constitution of 1876 (“Constitution of Texas,” n.d.; “Texas Constitution,” n.d.)
It was a remarkable coup Texas least three of their own to serve as an important adviser in the cabinet of Wilson. Because of one-party rule in the state, members of parliament from southern Texas and can build seniority and gain positions of power simply by being elected and reelected in a noncompetitive political environment. During Wilson, the state lost power in the national government by the establishment of the Federal Reserve system and some constitutional amendment allowed the direct election of senators, Range Women's right to vote, and allowing for a federal income tax was
Texas Constitution is long and detailed, containing a range of statutory provisions that specify exactly what the government is allowed to do and is prohibited to do. In case of any public policy challenges, public
The people of Texas are diverse and carry their “big can-do attitudes and accents” (Pearson); making Texas a bigger than life state. The political culture of Texas is impacted by two different subgroups of individualistic and traditionalistic characteristics. The combination of traditionalism and individualism has had a huge impact on the state and Texas’ seven different constitutions. The shift in power between 1827 and 1876 has impacted the political diversity Texas has today. Looking at the specifics of these subcultures, the traditionalists believe government should benefit the wealthy and powerful, and that government services must be limited.
The Texas Legislature is far too archaic to provide consistent leadership for a state government; Congress has become too enmeshed with the executive branch and leaves blurry lines drawn in its separation of powers. The ideal legislature would be a modernized version of what the Texas Constitution created.
The Governor of Texas needs to not only be a citizen of the United States, but also reside in Texas for at least five years immediately preceding the election in order to fully understand the policies Texas residents’ are dealing with, the culture of Texas, as well as how Texas’ political decision impacts the rest of the nation. Both the President and the Governor are required to give an address to the legislatures, which cover very similar topics. The President’s State of the Union address “…recommends to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;” while the Governor of Texas gives the Condition of the State in which, “…he shall recommend to the Legislature such measures as
Texas went through a great amount of political change from being dominated by the Democratic Party during the 1960s and 70s, from the Republican Party taking over in the 80s. One of the big reasons for this change was due to the political party’s views. Throughout this essay I will discuss the changes of the political stances in Texas as well as the present day factors that affect America.
The three different branches of government in Texas are the following: The executive branch, which is directed by the governor, executes the laws, the judicial branch, which is run through the supreme court and state courts, interpret the laws, and the legislative branch, which is bicameral, includes the 150 members of the house of representatives and the 31 members of the state senate that make the laws.
The Texas government is an unusually complex institution that is composed of many different levels. Everyone asks, with a constitution like the one Texas has, can people really trust the government? The main reasons why people might not be trusting of the government are that they might believe that the officials take advantage of their power, or want to try to control them. The Texas legislature is also subject to checks and balances in the three branch system. For example, the governor 's power to veto bills, which is rarely overridden, and to call special sessions; while the court has the power of judicial review. In Texas, the Constitution divides the powers
Texas politics is an interesting ecosystem of power, rules and regulations. Of course, in typical Texas fashion, most of the politics we engage in we do our own way. From governors who stay in office for a decade to our extremely diverse demographics, Texas is extremely unique. This uniqueness of course comes with its critics, benefits, and downsides. This is particularly true with the Texas Court system compared to both the federal courts and many other states.
The constitution establish major governing institutions, assign institution’s power, place explicit and implicit control on power granted. All this gives the political legitimacy. The U.S constitution gives the base model for state constitution for Texas.
The Annexation of Texas was one of the most debatable events in the history of the United States. This paper argues the different opinions about doing the annexation of Texas or not. In this case Henry Clay and John L. O’Sullivan had completely opposite opinions about this issue. The reasons of why not do it was because of the desire to prevent war, for division over slavery, and for constitutional rights. On the other hand, John L. O’ Sullivan wanted to do this because of his idea of Manifest Destiny. By 1845, the annexation of Texas went into effect.
The Texas Revolution is one of the biggest events that contributed to the founding of this country. Texas’s fight for independence from the Mexican government was very beneficial to the young and growing United States. The effects of this war play a crucial role in how this country came to be
The government of the state of Texas is a difficult and complicated institution that is composed of many different levels. The question comes in to everyone's mind at one time or another whether or not to trust the government. It could be that people believe that the officials will take advantage of their power, or simply people don't like the idea of being controlled by someone who is not a family member or friend. To avoid this centralized power, the government is divided into stages and this is a reasonable ground for trusting the government. Government runs this state and it does deserve to be trusted.
Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians are perhaps three of the most prominent political parties within Texas. Within the pages of their party platforms, we see that each possesses a unique philosophy, with specific viewpoints and recommendations for shaping or reforming government policy. To be sure, the people of Texas face many challenges, two of the most compelling issues being the crisis in healthcare and in education. Not only are we lacking in these areas as Texans, but also on the national level. The parties’ stance on these two major issues defines them, giving us insight into the mind and intentions of each.