of its provisions, including the ex post facto and takings clauses. See Eastern Enters. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 533, 118 S.Ct. 2131, 141 L.Ed.2d 451 (1998); Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). 16 . See also Henderson v. Love, 181 S.W.3d 810, 815 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (finding that article I, section 29 "expressly limits the state’s police power”); Fazekas v. University of Houston, 565 S.W.2d 299, 305 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (stating that, although state has broad police power, the Texas Constitution excepts from this power the authority to enact laws contrary to article I, section 16); Faulk v. Buena Vista Burial Park Ass’n, 152 S.W.2d 891, 893-94 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1941, no writ) (<HOLDING>); Murphy v. Phillips, 63 S.W.2d 404
holding police power is restricted by constitutional bill of rights recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer recognizing that the police power is broad and comprehensive but concluding that the texas constitution forbids its exercise when the result would be the destruction of the rights guarantees privileges and restraints excepted from the powers of government by the bill of rights holding that unless that power is restricted by the principal an agent under a california statutory healthcare power of attorney has the power to execute applicable admission forms including arbitration agreements