|
Has every delegate voted?
(There was no response.)
Does any delegate desire to change his
vote?
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 106 votes in the affirmative
and 20 in the negative, the motion is car-
ried, and the amendment is adopted.
Delegate Mitchell, do you still desire to
offer your amendment to section 5.16,
amendment CZ?
DELEGATE MITCHELL: I gladly with-
draw it, Mr. President.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Delegate Beatrice Miller, do you still de-
sire to offer your amendment to section
5.14?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: I would, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: The page will dis-
tribute amendment DG.
Amendment No. 32. The Clerk will read
the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 32
to Committee Recommendation JB-1 by
Delegate B. Miller: On page 4 of section
5.14, Nomination and Appointment, lines
45 through 50 inclusive, strike out begin-
ning with the words "if the governor" in
line 45 down to and including the period in
line 50 and insert in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing: "The governor shall appoint one
of the nominees within 30 days after re-
ceiving the list".
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment
seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was duly
seconded.)
The amendment having been seconded,
the Chair recognizes Delegate Beatrice
Miller to speak to the amendment.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man, fellow delegates: This amendment
seeks to state specifically what the gover-
nor must do and that he must do it most
expeditiously.
I would suggest that we are attempting
in this section to make statutory law and
that we have rejected all such attempts at
statutory legislation in this constitution
when we were writing the other article.
|
It seems to me that we have accepted the
fact that the word "shall" is a mandatory
word, and all through this constitution we
have said that the legislature "shall", the
executive "shall", in the Declaration of
Rights we use the word "shall", and we do
not provide for what happens in the case
of failure.
It seems to me that in this one article,
and possibly in this the lawyers are writ-
ing their own article, we are attempting
to write in all the "ifs", "ands", "buts"
and "maybes"; but I submit they have no
place in this constitution. Further I would
point out that in the text of the phone call
that we were given, that the members of
the Judiciary Committee called the com-
mittee in Missouri, they could only think
of one occasion when the governor did not
act in pursuing the matter from the list,
and I would say that in this case we are
trying to provide, as Chairman Mudd said,
for the improbable and what would be pos-
sible or probable. On the basis of that he
gave us another amendment, and for this
reason I would hope that we consider this
amendment in terms of mandating what
the governor must do in terms of the plan
that we have adopted here.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair calls at-
tention to the fact that this amendment is
precisely the same as Amendment 26, ex-
cept f^r the period of time in line 9, thirty
days instead of sixty days and hopes de-
bate will be limited accordingly. Delegate
Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman, my
first observation, is that this amendment
reduces the time in which the governor has
to act after receiving the list of nominees,
from sixty days to thirty days, and again
it is possible, but may not be probable, that
the thirty days may be a rather strict time
in which the governor is allowed to act,
especially in view of emergency matters
that might occur simultaneously.
I, therefore urge the rejection of this
amendment and ask the delegates to vote
against it; also for the second reason that
it is identical with the amendment that has
been defeated by a rather substantial vote,
which proposes to eliminate the last provi-
sion, which in our humble opinion supplies
an alternative in the event, again I say, of
the possible, but the improbable occurrence
of the governor not exercising his power of
appointment.
I would, therefore, urge the defeat of
this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion? Delegate Weidemeyer.
|
