|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Chairman
Morgan, I direct your attention to the last
sentence of the second section which pro-
vides that the attorney general shall have
been requested to give his opinion, and so
forth.
Are these phrases limiting phrases ? In
other words, could he give his opinion to
other persons in government — for example,
to political subdivisions?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan:
DELEGATE MORGAN: He could.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: So then,
Chairman Morgan —
DELEGATE MORGAN: He would not be
required to, however, but if a political sub-
division asked him for his opinion and there
is nothing in here which would prevent the
attorney general from giving his opinion to
a political subdivision of the State.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Then do you
intend that these are limited words, and
that these are the only persons to whom he
shall, upon request, give an opinion ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: So then you
would not intend that the General Assembly
might prescribe by law that there could be
other persons to whom he might give an
opinion?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: T.here is no in-
tention to prevent the General Assembly
from doing that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you get the an-
swer, Delegate Hardwicke ? His answer was
that there was no intention by the last
sentence to restrict the right of the General
Assembly to provide that the attorney gen-
eral should give opinions upon request to
persons other than those named or agencies
other than those named in the last sentence.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Very well.
With regard to the powers of the General
Assembly, then, to make certain require-
ments of this office by law, could the Gen-
eral Assembly give the attorney general
other duties which would not be of a legal
nature?
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: I think that it
could, but it certainly was not the intention
of the Committee that the attorney general
be strictly a legal officer of the State and
not be given non-legal status or not be re-
quired to carry out any state programs.
There is no language in the article or in
the section which we are recommending
that accomplishes that, but it certainly is
the desire of the Committee that that be
the case.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: If these two
sections are adopted in this Constitution,
and if the General Assembly decided to give
the attorney general non-legal duties, would
that be constitutionally permissible?
DELEGATE MORGAN: It would.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: It would be
constitutionally permissible to give the at-
torney general other non-legal duties ?
DELEGATE MORGAN: It would.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: C h a i r m a n
Morgan, my question is a continuation to
some extent along the same lines as Dele-
gate Hardwicke.
Was it intended by the Committee to limit
the investigative powers of the attorney
general ?
I would like to give you several examples.
One is what should happen if there is per-
haps malfeasance in office by a state's at-
torney? Who in the State is to make the
determination as to the prosecution of that
public official? That would be one example.
Second is one which very recently did
happen, the instance of the present attorney
general making an investigation pursuant
to request by the government in the De-
partment of Correction.
Now, these are just examples, and per-
haps a third one is the one which I think
very likely might happen in the future, the
crimes transcending county boundaries, such
as happened in the federal government
where the federal government has had to
step in and assist the states in the prosecu-
tion of crimes transcending state bounda-
ries.
Was it your Committee's thought that
these things would not be handled by the
|
