|
put in the majority report denied any per-
son the equal protection of the law, I
would be willing for this amendment ov any
other amendment to change it.
I do not think so. The argument has
been made here that the language is not
plain. My good friend Delegate Koss said
so. I cannot see where you can have any
plainer language than this: No person shall
be denied the equal protection of laws. That
is as plain and as concise as can be made
any time, anywhere.
I am looking at this thing a little bit
from a lawyer's standpoint, especially from
the judge's on the bench. A system of case
law has grown up interpreting the 14th
Amendment.
The Courts of Maryland will have no
trouble, in view of the decisions of the
Supreme Court, remaining in step with the
Supreme Court and giving to the people of
Maryland every right that the Supreme
Court allows under this language.
If we change that language, if we add
one word to it, if we do anything to change
that language, you have a problem for the
courts and any lawyer, or any judge will
tell you so.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-half
minute, Delegate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: I think, Mr. Chair-
man, that we should let the amendment re-
main where it is. I think it gives every
protection against discrimination to any
person and to every person.
I am against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen, and I shall be brief, a
hundred years ago in this very house, peti-
tions were filed with Congress to prevent
the 118 delegates from proceeding.
The State, even the country, was in a
terrible state of ferment, but that Constitu-
tional Convention rose to heights of states-
manship, and adopted no extreme on any
side.
There is a state of ferment in our country
today, and in our State. If it be true that
the amendment means exactly what those
who oppose it say it means, is it too much
to ask that we adopt it, in order to give
reassurance to those people who feel that
they need it?
I do not think so. I think they need it. I
think our State needs it, and I ask you as a
|
Constitutional Convention to rise to those
same heights of statesmanship and approve
this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Presi-
dent, members of the Convention, our Com-
mittee had before it the federal Constitu-
tion. We all know that the federal civil
rights bill of 1964 was based on the due
process clause, and the non-discrimination
clause in the 14th Amendment, and the
commerce clause also of the federal Con-
stitution.
Now, when the federal civil rights bill
was passed there was a storm of ferment
within this State, and there was a storm of
ferment when the public accommodations
law of the State of Maryland was passed.
Now, if we get into this area, as those
appearing before the Committee admitted,
"state action" could mean hitting at the
private action of people who got their
licenses and were authorized to do business
by the State.
We know that in the field of the federal
civil rights bill, there is a gray area be-
tween private action and public action,
sometimes narrow and sometimes broad.
But if we pass this amendment and then
get into this area of state action, then I am
afraid that many of the people of our State
will be violently opposed to it, because we
will be leaning forward and beyond the
federal and state law and beyond any con-
cept into an uncharted sea, where our peo-
ple will not know what we have meant.
They will have so many grave doubts
about it that we will cause a storm of
opposition against it.
This says, and as the Committee has
recommended, no person. Our Committee
meant to go no further than the federal
civil rights bill of 1964, nor the federal
public accommodations law of Maryland.
Now, if you want to freeze in the consti-
tution something to go way beyond there
and into an uncharted sea, then you are
asking the people of Maryland to adopt
something that I am afraid they will never
agree to.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment. First of
all, I would like to point out that at the
minimum, what this amendment does is to
prevent a retreat from the current inter-
|
