Texas Executive Breach Assignment
Glenda Pineda
Houston Community College














Abstract
Looking in depth into the vetoed decisions made by Governor Greg Abbott last year on June 21, below is stated three different vetoes and the way in which he defended his decision. Aside from this there is also the view of the writer from which either supports or opposes the view of the governor and is also supported with evidence.This encourages the citizens in being able to relate to the real life circumstances and how it can be experienced by everyday people.In conclusion the essay is able to describe the three differnet vetoes in which the govenor has made his decision and is supported by evidence of which he has stated and a different perspective from a citizen.













In depth looking at the bills which Governor Greg Abbott vetoed it can be seen that the three which were chosen would have had different roles in our community.
One of the bills which was vetoed was the House Bill 1628. It was " Relating to authorizing a credit union or other financial institution to conduct savings promotion raffles", which basically states that the banks/ private institutions are able to promote savings through promotion raffles which would have an equal chance if it were to come to drawing.In all manners these promotions would encourage the people to save money into accounts and therefore it would create an increase into the funds of the banks. It seems like a plan that would most likely promote advantages for the banks more than the people as the banks would earn more money than the one person that would earn a prize from the so called raffle.The position which the governor took was obviously opposition toward the bill. As stated the bill would cause " non-charitable businesses conduct drawings, they typically allow entry with "no purchase necessary," which generally exempts the drawing from the constitutional restrictions on raffles or lotteries" , therefore the way which this bill was vetoed was a decision based off the exact reasons that it would most likely benefit the banks not the people in general From a personal perspective the reason as to why the bill was vetoed is valid and is more profitable to the people as consumers when seeing the result from an income perspective. It would be more valuable if the income obtained were to be given back to the people not just it being played as some game for the people.
The second bill chosen was the Senate bill 35 which r elating to the authority of a peace officer to apprehend a person for emergency detention and the authority of certain facilities and physicians to temporarily detain a person with mental illness. Meaning that the way in which many cases could take a different turn.The reason as to why the governor vetoed this bill was because " Medical staff should work closely with law enforcement to help protect mentally ill patients and the public. But just as law enforcement should not be asked to practice medicine, medical staff should not be asked to engage in law enforcement, especially when that means depriving a person of the liberty protected by the Constitution." Therefore stating that the different branches are to not intertwine within each other, as to state in simpler terms. The people are to not be doing others jobs especially when the person is not conscious or in full condition to respond towards certain acts. In respect toward the veto of this bill, it is from a personal perspective that I feel a right decision towards the veto of the bill because it does seem as a sort of violation towards the people when it comes to the privacy and rights of a person.
The third bill that was chosen was the 1032 Bill. This bill was to allow more flexible work hours for people to work from home. The reason was to why it was vetoed was simple, the governor position toward this bill was that it would be taken advantage of that that people would not fully implement themselves to their work or study. This is supported through my personal opinion because I also believe