Texas Attorney General Opinion: MW-51 Page: 2 of 9
9 p.View a full description of this text.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable William P. Clements, Jr.
Honorable Bm Presal - Page Two (MW-51)
Honorable Homer A. Poerster
portion of the appropriations bill constituted an item of appropriation e and was ths subject
to veto the Supreme Court recently stated
It can be said then that the term 'tem of appropriation'
contemplates the setting aside or dedicating of funds for a
specified purpose. This is to be distinguished from language which
qualifies or directs the we of appropriated funds or which is merely
Incidental to an appropriation. Language of the latter sort is
clearly not subject to veto.
If the language b Intended to set aside funds for a specified
purpose, it is an item of appropriation' and Is therefore subject to
veto by the Governor. Otherwise, the Governor must veto the
entire billor let the objectionable part stand,...
Jessen AssoeIates, Inc. v. Bulloek, 531 SW.2d 593, 599 (Tex. 1975).
In a ease relied on.n Jessen and by the courts of several other states, our Supreme
Court stated:
The only additional authority to disapproving a bill In whole is that
given to object to an Item or Items where a bill contains several
items of appropriation. It follows comelvely that where the veto
power is attempted to be exrelsed to object to a paragraph or
portion of a bmll other than en item or items, or to language
qualifying appropriation ao drecting the method of its uses, he
exceeds the constitutional authority vested In him, and his
objection to such paragraph, or portion of a bill, or language
qualifying an appropriation or directing the method of its use,
becomes noneffective.
Fulm . 140 W. 405, 412 (T 191). See also Attorney General Opinions M-499
Representative Presnal questions seven specific vetoes. The first portion of the bill
which is the subject of a questioned veto provides
The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System is
hereby authorized to expend such amount of its Permanent
University Fund bond proceeds and/or other bond proceeds and such
amount of its other available moneys as may be necessary to fund,
in whole or in part, alterations and additions to the Sun Bowlp. 157
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View five places within this text that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: MW-51, text, August 31, 1979; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth271896/m1/2/?q=Lamar+University: accessed June 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.