Texas Separation Of Power

The Systems of Separation of Power

The state of Texas was founded on the backs and sweat of men who believed in independence through the people. Texans had a strong belief in how the government could assist the people while leaving the rights to be governed to the people. The Federal Constitution is no exception. Inherently, similarities between these two constitutions were created for democracy, and for citizens and their protections. Both share a House of Representatives, which is the initial line of political hierarchy often called the lower house who consider constitutional amendments and state spending. There is also the Senate, which is called the upper house and is responsible for recommending new laws and managing the state budget.

Both bring much-needed value by having these bipartisan entities reviewing and amending bills for the well-being of the people. Both congressional seats are determined by population whether by state or county. The state HOR totals 150 members and each is elected for 2-year terms. The terms were set at two years so that elected representatives must maintain a personal relationship with their communities while being in tuned with their needs. This removes complacency.
Both systems of government share their version of the Bill of Rights that protect the people and their freedoms. The Texas Bill of Rights is lengthier and more-detailed in its verbiage but both bills were created for a specific purpose. The bills protect the rights of citizens and not allow the government to take control from the state. This was important to document in the constitution because there was minimal trust in the government and what could be imposed later on.
Another more telling similarity is the three branches of government consisting of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branch.

Roles of the branches are similar in structure and administration. The legislative branches are made up of 2 houses of congress consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Executive branch for the U.S. government is led by the President while Texas is led by the Governor. Both leaders are elected for 4-year terms with limited connections to all 3 branches. There must be a balance of power between the 3 branches of state and federal governments. Historically when this was not the case, governments struggled to be consistent. According to Sam Ervin (1970), “Even in the republic of Rome, there was a somewhat similar system consisting of public assemblies, the senate and public officials all operating on a principle of checks and balances.” (p. 108) Today this holds true as both the state and federal government branches must be on one accord to maintain the balance needed to ensure the people are well

represented.

Differences Between the Governments
There are several glaring differences between the state and national government that determine how both entities are run while providing support for the people. Both constitutions were written by the founders to provide certain clarities to guide decisions and assist future leaders with direction. The Texas constitution was written to be detailed and specific on exactly what should or should not be allowed in the state. There is an issue with such laws that were created more than a century ago. Several of the laws are antiquated and no longer have relevance with today’s society. It appears as if the laws were developed for only that time in history versus laws that have the foresight to think of future times to come. The driver to most of the language is keeping the federal government from gaining too much control or access into the states affairs. The federal constitution is said to be written without many specifics so that over time, in-depth interpretations could take place when the time came to evaluate them and provide slight clarity in their meanings.
Another difference between the state and federal constitutions is the way in which spending is limited and allocated by the state of Texas.

The state has four spending limits in place from the constitution to control and regulate where state funds can be used. The four spending limits are; Debt limit, Welfare spending limit, Pay-as-you go limit and the Limit on the growth of certain appropriations. Texas has no state income tax so revenue must be generated by other forms of tax collection. And when the other forms of revenue are collected, it must be spent under the guidelines of the limits. This practice prevents overspending and limits the amount of assistance or debt that can be accumulated. The state’s form of control over collecting taxes and regulating spending is uniquely different that the practices of the federal government. The government does not have a traditional federal spending limit which is the main reason for the country being exposed to an insurmountable national debt. Spending can be allocated to wherever the funds are deemed necessary as long as it is voted upon by congress. The debt ceiling can also be raised with majority agreement. National debts have been raised 78 times since 1963. The federal government sets the debt ceiling and controls the spending of revenue. There is no tangible control over spending and over the budget because there is too much flexibility in the hands of congress and the

president.
The act of vetoing is another disparity between the state and federal government. The governor of the state and the president of the U.S. have different responsibilities during the veto process. The president can veto the entire bill if he is not in total agreement on what was presented. That bill then goes back to congress unsigned so that corrections can be made to the bill or it remains the same and is passed with a two/thirds majority vote by congress. The governor of the state however, can exercise the line-item veto when rejecting a bill from the state congress. Instead of rejecting the entire bill, only specific parts of the bill can be vetoed while the remainder of the bill can still be passed. According to Pat Thompson (1994), “seven of the most recent 11 presidents have endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment giving the president the power to remove single line items from appropriation bills.” (p. 38). Presidents have requested the line item veto change be added to their veto rights but with no luck. Instead, presidents have used their veto power to send bills back to congress to further more discussions and dialogue among congress.