|
DELEGATE DUKES: Is this the amend-
ment that has to do with the state capitol?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.
DELEGATE DUKES: Inasmuch as I
supported those who placed the original
proposal for Annapolis in the record, I will
have to do so now.
However, I could not let this record pass
without stating my preference for Hyatts-
ville, and if not Hyattsville, then Upper
Marlboro for the state capitol.
(Laughter.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair hears no
suggestion to amendment of section 3.01 a.
Are there any amendments to section
3.17a? Delegate Moser?
DELEGATE MOSER: Mr. Chairman,
amendment Q, I think it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Pages will please
distribute amendment Q. Amendment Q
will be Amendment No. 25.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 25
to Committee Recommendation LB-2 by
Delegate Moser: On page 5, section 3.17a,
Special Legislation in line 38 after the
word "applicable" strike out the comma
and the rest of the sentence in lines 38
through 40 inclusive.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is
submitted by Delegate Moser. Is there a
second.
(The motion was duly seconded.)
The amendment having been seconded,
the Chair recognizes Delegate Moser to
speak to the amendment. Are there any
delegates who do not have copies of the
amendment?
The chair recognizes Delegate Moser to
speak to the amendment.
DELEGATE MOSER: Mr. Chairman,
this amendment has been offered after dis-
cussion with Chairman Gallagher. It is by
way of being a clarifying amendment. The
effect of it would cause section 3.17a on
special legislation to read simply, "The
General Assembly shall pass no special
law when a general law is applicable." It
deletes the phrase "and whether a general
law is applicable shall be a matter for
judicial interpretation." The reason for the
amendment is very simply this, in the
colloquy between Chairman Gallagher and
myself when the Committee report was
being made, Chairman Gallagher indicated
that it was the intention of his Committee
to continue the present provisions of Ar-
|
ticle III, section 33 of the Constitution
with respect to special laws and if that is
the case, the language which is being de-
leted is unnecessary. In fact the language
that is being deleted, which I believe came
from the model state constitution, is con-
fusing because by not putting it in other
sections of the constitution, including sec-
tion 7.0G, one immediately asks, well, why
do we need it? It is perfectly clear that
without this language from the case law of
Maryland, which we are intending to con-
tinue, the court can determine whether a
law is or is not a special law and, therefore,
in violation of the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man and ladies and gentlemen of the Com-
mittee: I would urge the adoption of Mr.
Moser's amendment. I do feel that he has
aptly described the situation, and it is the
intention of the Committee that the present
practice with respect to special laws should
continue under the new constitution, and
I would support his elimination of that
part of the section which would be deleted
by the amendment.
DELEGATE H. TAYLOR: Harry E.
Taylor! Mr. Chairman, I would like the
sponsor of the amendment to yield to a
question, please.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Harry
Taylor.
DELEGATE H. TAYLOR: It appears
to me you have stricken the comma here
and you have not substituted a period.
DELEGATE MOSER: I am sure Style,
Drafting and Arrangement will take care
of the omission.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion? Delegate Fox.
DELEGATE FOX: Mr. Chairman, I
hate to rise in regard to this on this late
hour on Saturday afternoon. This disturbs
me because I am afraid that what you are
saying is when a general law is not ap-
plicable, then the legislature may pass a
special law and I think this flies directly
in the face of the provision of the local
government article that tried to restrict the
legislature to enacting only statewide laws.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox, do you
mean by that last comment that a special
law cannot be statewide?
|
