|
constitution. I ask you today, who is to
judge what is suitable for a constitution?
Each one of us as individuals have to de-
cide that. It is not a question of law per
se. Many of these things are optional, one
way or the other. It is a question of value
judgments. Where do you place your sense
of value?
Is it because of the number of people
who are affected? I have to disagree with
my good friend, Delegate Smith, on this
when he says that it is too particularized.
All of us are consumers, I submit. We were
talking before about special groups, farm-
ers, lumbermen, miners. We are all con-
sumers. There is no reference to a particu-
lar religion or economic status. I disagree
somewhat with Delegate Roger. This pro-
tects the rich as well as the poor man. I
make reference to Delegate Case's remarks
when he said that many people were swin-
dled by savings and loan scandals. People
had hundreds of thousands of dollars, not
just the poor man. Would it be better for
us to spell it out, paragraph by paragraph,
ten or twelve pages? We do not need that.
We need a clear mandate to the legislature
that we believe this is important enough
for them to take specific action. The prin-
ciple is certainly involved and I am for the
principle.
Something for the people, we have heard
said, and I believe this is something for
the people, people who are not so concerned
with unicameralism or bicameralism,
whether there will be four tiers or three
tiers, but people who are concerned that
there is a clear enunciation of the right of
citizens to enjoy protection from unscrupu-
lous and unfair business practices that
have been defined in many court decisions.
The interpretation is elastic. That is the
way it should be. I say the savings and
loans of the past, existing financing prac-
tices, so-called debt management, food and
meat inspection of an intrastate nature,
unscrupulous sales in many areas, do a dis-
credit to the business community of legiti-
mate business men who want this kind
of protection, as evidenced by a recent edi-
torial over the weekend. This is not figured
by any legitimate businessman. The people
want it.
I wish to commend the legislature for
their past acts and to remind them of their
continuing responsibility in this field.
Let's give the people the benefit of the
doubt, if there is any doubt as to whether
this should be included in the constitution.
|
We were told we should not hold out a
promise to them. I believe we should hold
out a promise to them, that the Constitu-
tion is designed to hold promises for the
future, as well as past accomplishments.
I say set goals that can be reached,
maybe general, maybe vague, but I am con-
vinced the truth in finding is seeking and
this Convention should set goals which the
electorate will accept at the polls and that
is the reason I am voting for this proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Schneider?
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chair-
man, I would not rise to speak to this prop-
osition except for the fact that 21 of us
voted against the natural resources pro-
posal. I felt very strongly in favor of natu-
ral resources and preservation thereof and
I feel very strongly in favor of consumer
protection, but I do not feel in favor of
putting toothless provisions in our consti-
tution just because we agree on policy.
I imagine we could come up with several
hundred policy statements and things we
think are good in nature and good policy,
but to start putting all these in the con-
stitution would lead us to a constitution
which is so long it will read like a dic-
tionary. Furthermore, if we do not also
put in these other policy considerations,
does that not mean perhaps that by exclu-
sion we think they are less important? I
do not think many of these other things
are less important.
I really think that this is something
which, if we are going to put anything in
at all about consumer protection, we had
better be specific. A little specific language
rather than simply a general exhortatory
phrase of our policy and our concern with
consumer protection would be far more
valuable.
I am sure that the legislature is well
aware that the public does not like decep-
tive packaging, deceptive pricing, tainted
meats or anything of that nature. It would
be completely ridiculous if the public were
in favor of these things. I do not think the
legislature needs us to put a provision in
the constitution to give them any guidance.
I would vote against this for that reason.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Mr. Chair-
man, members of the Convention, I suppose
we are debating here a fundamental prin-
ciple of constitutional drafting. We are
|
