|
|
|
it always to be in the power of the people to change their
constitution by the assent of a majority of the existing
Legislature, but was in hopes that such a constitution
would now be framed as would endure beyond this gen-
eration.
Mr. Ritchie said the proposition of the gentleman from
Washington county was very plausible, but if appended
to article 1 it would entirely destroy what vitality there
was left in it. That article had been so changed and
tampered with by successive conventions, from its original
meaning, that it was obscure, and any further alteration
would render it almost unintelligible. The objection to
the proposition of the gentleman was, that it added limi-
tations to an inalienable right.
Mr. McKaig said this question had been settled in
Maryland many years ago. In 1836, in the time of the
Nineteen, a convention was called and a constitution
adopted in utter violation of the existing constitution and
laws, and no one had questioned it then, or, that he had
heard of, up to the present time. The right of the people
to alter their organic law could not be gainsayed, and he
hoped the article would remain as reported by the com-
mittee.
The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr.
Seyster, when it was disagreed to.
The amendment of Mr. Alvey was then disagreed to.
Several other amendments were offered, and all nega-
tived.
Article 1, as reported by the committee, was then
adopted.
Article 2 was then proceeded with. It is as follows:
Art. 2. The constitution of the United States and the
laws made or which shall be made in pursuance thereof^
and all treaties made or which shall be made under the
authority of the United States, are and shall be the su-
preme law of the State; and the judges of this State and
all the people of this State are and shall be bound thereby,
anything in the constitution or laws of this State to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Mr. McKaig moved to strike out of the article the
99
|
|
|
|
 |
