Why does the tx constitution have so many similarities with the us constitution? how many amendments have been made to each? what are three primary differences? in your opinion, which constitution is better and why?

In many ways, the U.S. and Texas Constitutions are similar documents. They both embody the principles of representative democratic government, in which sovereignty emanates from the people. Both contain a bill of rights that protects civil liberties from government infringement… both provide for a bicameral legislature with a House of Representatives and a Senate… both seek a system of checks and balances and separation of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government… and both divide government power between upper and lower levels of government.

In the U.S. Constitution the states are subordinate to the federal government, and in the Texas Constitution the counties are subordinate to the state government. But beyond these general features, the two constitutions could not be more different. These differences result from the fact that the two documents arose out of very different historical circumstances and for radically opposite complaints with the document each was meant to replace. With the U.S. Constitution, the problem with the earlier Articles of Confederation was that government was too decentralized and not powerful enough. The U.S. Constitution was designed to overcome these weaknesses and offer a degree of centralization and increased government power. But this is precisely what the Texas Constitution was designed to reverse and avoid. The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to enable government action; the framers of the Texas Constitution wanted to paralyze government action.

islamic religious leaders have traditionally been people who, as part of the clerisy, mosque, or government, performed a prominent role within their community or nation. however, in the modern contexts of muslims minorities in non-muslim countries as well as secularised muslim states like turkey, indonesia and bangladesh, religious leadership may take a variety of non-formal shapes.

compared to religious leaders/clerics of the other abrahamic faiths, islamic clergy are said to resemble rabbis and not priests. unlike catholic priests they do not "serve as intermediaries between mankind and god",[1] have "process of ordination",[2] or "sacramental functions",[1] but instead serve as "exemplars, teachers, judges, and community leaders," providing religious rules to the pious on "even the most minor and private" matters.[1]