Texas Constitution and New Hampshire Constitution

The disposition is the funda custodytal principles of equity that the conjure ups law strategy is base on. Regardless of where it was created, unused Hampshire or Texas, the constitution always went through different processes of drafting, revising, and amending several(prenominal) clock over the courses of history to result in the modern constitution as volume prospect at it today. At a glance, there is Texas, a soil that is k straight offn for its notorious cowboy finish and rebellious history, to be compare to crude Hampshire, a quiet little state that locate in the northeast corner of the US.In omparison and contradiction, the two states constitution division some(prenominal) an new(prenominal)(prenominal) standardizedities in their bills of rights and maintain many leavings in their legislative body, e special(a)ly in the concussion daily rounds. Whether or not Texas should change its constitution in suppose to ensure the effectiveness of legislative session in a given time frame is button up in debate. One of the major and about apparent similarities that appears in almost every states constitution is the immunity of religion.In Texas constitution, this category is worded as freedom of venerate, atom 6 of article 1 states, All men have a subjective nd unforfeitable right to worship Almighty God correspond to the dictates of their own consciences. No human ascendancy ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion (Texas Constitution. Art. l, sec. 6. In a like manner, the invigorated Hampshire constitution states, Every soulfulness has a rude(a) and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God. ( sweet Hampshire Constitution. Part 1 . Art. 5) The first two clock times from individually section of the two states constitutions steadyly proclaim that it is the natural right of the people to worshiping any kind of divinity without viewting punish or being pinch to worship a different deity against their wish.This affinity of ghostlike freedom from both constitutions illustrated the state founders strong desire for a society in which people are free to pursuit a assent of their own. However, at heart these similarities there are soothe nigh grave differences. To be much specific, the second sentence of religious freedom on the New Hampshire constitution does mention that the right to worship can be achieved only if he doth not crowd out the general peace or disturb otherwises in their religious worship. (New Hampshire Constitution. Part l. Art. 5). This statement means to say that virtuoso individual cannot use their freedom of worship to disturb other individuals life or his or her freedom of worship. Texas constitution did not state specifically the very(prenominal) i dea but it took into account another important element- the equality of religions It shall be the duty of the Legislature to lead such laws as may be ecessary to nurture equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of existence worship. (Texas Constitution. Art. I, sec. 6). This is one very important element that the New Hampshire constitution does not mention. Texas, in the other hand, get down in text that the government is liable to protect every religion the same as others by passing such law to communicate of the government structure, both Texas and New Hampshire have the basal form of government in which the structure is similar to the United States federal government. Each has three branches legislative, administrator and Judicial.The Texas general assembly, however, has one substantive difference to the New Hampshire legislature, the meeting cycle. The Texas constitution requires the legislature to meet in unremitting session once every two years. The legislature shall meet every two years at such time as may be provided by law and at other times when convened by the Governor. (Texas Constitution. Art. Ill, sec. 5). Normally, the session held on the second Tuesday in January of odd- issue forthed years and may stand up for 140 days.The New Hampshire constitution requires the state legislature to meet more often. Article 3 of Part II of the New Hampshire constitution states that the state legislature is to meet in session for once a year in January (New Hampshire Constitution. Part II. Art. 3) a session usually last until June. In addition, the legislature has to meet again on December of the next even-numbered year for organization purposes, speech the number of session to three times every two years.The difference between for each one state legislatures meeting cycles is particularly stood out because Texas is geographicalally abundant state with large population, and the fact that its meeting cycle i s too far away from each other is very uncommon among other large states. The difference between Texas and New Hampshire constitutions in regard to the relative frequence of legislative meeting can be rationalise by several reasons. According to Texas former senator allow Harnet, Annual sessions are expensive and can pursuance off quality law-maker that are paid as little as $7,200 a year (Schechter).But in contrast, meeting annually has advantages that included dealing with coordination compound conundrums, inishing works on time and reducing the number of special sessions (Schechter). For a state that is the second most populous in the nation, Texas is the only large state that has legislature meet every two years, the other states are Montana, Nevada and North Dakota, all with tiny populations (Schechter). Recently, this frequency of meeting has shown its disadvantage. The most obvious example is that during the summertime of 2013, Texas Governor Rick Perry has called thr ee back-to-back special sessions (Schechter).This puts a question mark on the Texas constitution, wherefore ouldnt change the legislative meeting cycle to annual if Texas law-makers are not able to get their business done on time? New Hampshire has a much smaller population than Texas and still able to meet annually without any restrictions. The legislature meeting cycle is one big problem that Texas needs to amend into the constitution, not only to let off the budget from all the extra special sessions but also giving law-makers a more flexible cycle to work on many complex problems.In the end, both Texas and New Hampshire constitution do one and only one urpose is to maintain their societies within the law of the state and also in discover to the United Stated constitution. A society in which every individual are born with natural and unalienable rights including the right to worship, and that no human authority can restricts people from doing so. On the other hand, the differ ences of population, geographic and political beliefs are reflected on the word of each states constitution, which in this case is the difference between the legislative meeting cycles.The Texas legislature apparently had experience the flaws of their cycle, eing said, it is now the time for the Texas government to reconsider amending their constitution, in gild to create a better legislative system that is capable of getting their business to finish on time.