|
is that we are writing a constitution for
the people to see.
As a lawyer who has dealt with these
clauses, due process and equal protection
of the law, it is always necessary to go
into the law books to get a definition, be-
cause the courts have decided that these
things apply in many ways and in many
fashions.
I would suggest to you that the basic
rights in the Declaration of Rights in the
federal and state Constitutions are perhaps
the most widely read provisions by the
people, not only of this State, but of the
United States.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one quar-
ter minute.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: I think they
are entitled to be able to read exactly what
the provision means, that is, that there
shall be no discrimination by the State be-
cause of race, color, religion or national
origin, and they do not have to look in a
law book to find a definition of the word
due process and equal protection of the law.
I therefore support the majority amend-
ment.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Delegate
Koss.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss, how
much time?
DELEGATE MITCHELL: One minute.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss, one
minute.
DELEGATE KOSS: Mr. Chairman, fel-
low delegates, a great deal of what I want
to say has already been said here.
I would just like to emphasize the fact
that while due process and equal protection
clauses might be very explicit and their
meaning clear to the legal profession, they
are neither explicit nor understood by the
vast majority of the people whose rights
we are considering here.
It is absolutely inconceivable to me that
we should write a constitution in 1967 and
not give explicit recognition to one of the
major problems facing Maryland today.
I certainly was one that found that the
language of the 1867 Constitution was
archaic, but it becomes clear that that doc-
ument did reflect the major problems of
the day and spoke to them; that to do less
|
than that here today would be dishonest
and completely unresponsive to the people
of this State.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Delegate
Bard, one minute.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. Chairman, la-
dies and gentlemen, I would like to speak
to the matter of being colorblind, and sec-
ond, the key words "subject to discrimina-
tion by the State".
I hope the day comes when we can really
be colorblind. Let us be realistic. We know
that this is not so and will not be so for
many years. As an educator, I would like
to say that as far as young people are
concerned, they suffer from the fact that
we are not colorblind.
The State for a long period of time, this
very State, Maryland, underscored and sub-
scribed to the concept of segregated schools.
This certainly was not a concept of being
colorblind. Furthermore, I would like to
say this: Each new learning is assimilated
to some previously learned concept. The
new is conditioned by the old.
It is necessary for us to set forth in all
aspects of life the fact that the State is
making it crystal clear that it will be no
part to discrimination, and this will make
it so.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell,
you have slightly more than one minute
left.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: I am going
to ask the others who have agreed to speak
if they will speak in the uncontrolled time.
I would like to call on Delegate Sickles
for the last minute.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the amendment and it
seems to me that there are essentially two
purposes for the amendment. I think it
offers hope in an area where hope is
needed, and I think it offers clarity in an
area where clarity is needed.
If one were to go into the community
where this amendment would have the most
impact, and read to him the expression,
equal protection of the laws, or the expres-
sion due process, I am not sure if it would
be clearly understood.
But if one would say, in the constitution
we have banned discrimination because of
|
