Texas State Authority over Sanctuary Cities and Texas Bill of Rights

This article discusses the state of Texas' authority over sanctuary cities and the Texas Bill of Rights. It explores the conflict between state and local control, and the impact of federalism on state laws. The article also examines the policies related to limiting abortion and protecting the rights of the unborn. Course code, course name, and college/university are not mentioned.

Running Head: TEXAS 1
TEXAS
[Name]
Course:
Professor’s Name:
Institution:
Location of Institution:
Date:

TEXAS 2
Texas state authority over sanctuary cities
The state of Texas had passed a law that allowed the police officers to question the status
of immigration for the individual they had detained or arrested. The rule also gave the police
power to punish electoral officials who failed to adhere to federal immigration request by agents
to turn over the immigrant issue to be deported (Aguilar, 2018). The punishment was either in
cash or jail term. The spirit of federalism puts this law on hold because it violated the fourth
amendment. According to the judgment, the public interest is to protect the constitutional right,
avoid heavy burdens, and to build rapport with the locals (Motomura, 2015). This law imposes a
heavy burden on the local.
Texas Bill of Rights
The constitution was amended to provide the right to the unborn child and to do away
with abortion fully possible (Justia Law, 2018). This right prohibits abortion in Texas unless it is
a rape or medical emergency is needed. This bill burns abortion after five months of pregnancy
and requires abortion clinics to update to the standards as hospital-style surgical centers and
mandates that the doctor admits privileges at clinics near the facilities they do abortion. The bill
also required clinics without required standard be closed or renovated to the standard of
ambulatory surgery centers. This made some clinics to be closed since it was expensive to
renovate or to relocate (Texas abortion law, 2017). Clinics, which used to import doctors, were
also to be closed since it was not as per the requirement of the law. The spirit of Texas
constitution was therefore used in providing legislative efforts to limit abortion without federal
interference

TEXAS 3
There is a conflict between the state and local control. The local government had passed
the bill, which allowed the police officer to ask detainees questions on their immigration status.
The court of appeal judged that this would violate the fourth amendment and should be done
away with. The issue, therefore, is keeping with the spirit of federalism.
The government is trying to protect the bill of right for the unborn and trying to ensure
hospitals delivering abortion are well equipped. They also want the medic handling that process
to be close to their patient so that. They are using the spirit of Texas constitution to make laws
for the locals.
From the policy discussed above. The sanction city seems to be more political than
solving problems. It could have led to rampant discrimination and make the community less safe.
The policy of limiting abortion was a good policy to protect the life of unborn and the safety of
the mother.
In conclusion, I have learned that federalism government has more power than state
political power and the rules made in states should not violate the rules of the federal
government. In case the state government is violating the federal rule, the federal government
has powers to stop that.

TEXAS 4
References
Aguilar, J. (2018). Judge temporarily blocks immigration enforcement law. [online] The Texas
Tribune. Available at: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/30/judge-temporarily-
blocks-sanctuary-cities-law/ [Accessed 2 Apr. 2018].
Justia Law. (2018). Art 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS. [online] Available at:
https://law.justia.com/constitution/texas/articles/cn000100.html [Accessed 2 Apr. 2018].
Motomura, H. (2015). The President's Dilemma: Executive Authority, Enforcement, and the
Rule of Law in Immigration Law. Washburn LJ, 55, 1.
Texas abortion law. (2017). New Scientist, 233(3110), p.6.