|
the constitutional guarantee that it pur-
ports to be.
In the case of Watkins v. Watkins 2 Md.
341, it was held that the judiciary may not
compel action on the part of a coordinate
branch. To say that our Court of Appeals
or any court of this State would compel
the General Assembly to enact legislation
in this area is simply misleading those who
would put their faith and trust in this
provision. It is for these reasons that I
think that this provision should be de-
feated ; not because of what it states or
what its object is, but because it does not
in truth deliver what it purports to deliver.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. Chairman,
I have listened carefully to the arguments
on both sides, and it seems to me that there
have been some good arguments made. Had
I been required to cast my vote on this pro-
posal last Wednesday before we adjourned,
I think I would have voted against the
proposal.
I have come to the conclusion that we
ought to support it, that this provision
ought to be in the constitution, and I have
come to that conclusion by this process of
reasoning. I think there are basically two
arguments that can be raised against the
inclusion of a provision like this in the
constitution. One is that you are not in
favor of consumer protection legislation at
all. I cannot accept that because I am in
favor of the consumer protection legisla-
tion, if and where appropriate. v
The second argument is it ought not to
be in the constitution, and I think that is
a close question; but I resolve that ques-
tion in favor of putting the provision in
the constitution because I believe that by
putting it in the constitution it will set to
rest the argument which I first advanced
in opposition to it. It will set to rest the
argument which is bound to be made in the
General Assembly that we ought not have
or should not have a particular piece of
consumer protection legislation. I think if
we can set that to rest by spelling out in
this constitution that the people of the
State want this sort of legislation, it
destroys one of the biggest arguments
which is bound to be presented against
legislation of this sort when it will come
to the General Assembly.
I support the proposal.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Mr. Chairman,
I rise to a point of information. A resolu-
tion was introduced before this body some-
time ago, which I cannot put my finger on
at this moment, pertaining to presentments
to the General Assembly. I would be curious
to know with regard to this and many
other questions if the Chair could inform
this body where that resolution is at
present, and if acted upon favorably by
this body, just in what manner such pre-
sentments would be made to the General
Assembly?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think you are prob-
ably referring to Resolution No. 16 or No.
21, I am not certain. I do not have it in
front of me. The resolution is still before
the Committee. I think it will be withdrawn
by the sponsor if it has not already bean
withdrawn, on the ground that it poses
problems for the Convention, and for the
staff, that we cannot meet. It would be
virtually impossible for the staff of the
Convention or the Committees to comply
with that resolution.
Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: May I rise to a
point of personal privilege on that ques-
tion?
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE BARD: Since I was the
sponsor of Resolution No. 16, I would like
to add that after conferences with a num-
ber of individuals here, including those in
leadership roles, it was determined that it
would be best to withdraw the resolution,
with all the wisdom that it might have had
behind it, because of the time pressure, be-
cause it was believed that it might not
have been in order for us to leave a me-
morialized statement for the General As-
sembly. Therefore, it is withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Jett.
DELEGATE JETT: Mr. Chairman, fel-
low Delegates:
I rise to oppose this suggestion. I feel
that it is absolutely my duty to do so,
having sat on the General Provisions Com-
mittee and listened to the testimony and
heard the debates concerning this matter.
It is my sincere feeling, and has been,
that this is not a constitutional matter. It
is a matter that belongs in the statutes.
|
