Amendment.”). Horton, 530 S.W.3d at 727, 2017 WL 1953333, at *8 (Livingston, C.J., dissenting). I share Chief Justice Livingston’s concerns that applying the Salinas retro-activity analysis raises significant constitutional issues. Most importantly, elevating this part of Salinas to binding precedent has the effect of overturning a number of this Court’s prior cases without engaging in any form of stare decisis analysis. We have previously and repeatedly held that facially unconstitutional statutes are void from inception. See, e.g., Ex parte Fournier, 473 S.W.3d 789, 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Smith v. State, 463 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Reyes v. State, 753 S.W.2d 382, 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); see also Ex parte Shay, 507 S.W.3d 731, 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (<HOLDING>). If we are going to overrule this precedent,
holding that application of the exclusive remedies provision in tax code section 4209 deprives courts of subjectmatter jurisdiction recognizing that failure to observe the required process deprives the court of jurisdiction holding texas flagdesecration statute facially unconstitutional holding that declaring statute facially unconstitutional deprives trial court of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case