|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm, the
Chair suggests that the confusion arises
because there is a difference between the
language "no person shall be denied equal
protection of laws because of sex" and the
language "no person shall be discriminated
against because of sex".
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Chair-
man, I think I might be able to shed some
light on the problem. The language that has
been considered in the Congress of the
United States with respect to an amend-
ment to the federal Constitution would
create an equal protection clause for women.
It does not get into the due process prob-
lem at all, and when we considered it in
the Committee we considered it in the form
of the proposed amendment to the federal
Constitution. This would be a separate
clause which would provide that a person
shall not be denied the equal protection of
the law because of sex. I believe that the
case law is fairly clear, and that if you use
that approach to it you do not run into the
question raised by the Chair.
I would respectfully suggest that Dele-
gate Storm withdraw the amendment for
the time being, if the Chair would allow it,
and that the concept be reintroduced in
sound legal language of the type I think
possibly Delegate Bamberger has in mind.
The new language will avoid this question
of a reasonable classification based upon
sex, which we have to continue to permit
in our society.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman,
would it be possible for me to withdraw
this, give it a little further thought, and
try to work out something that would ac-
complish the purpose that I intend without
any of the possible dangers that seem to
be here?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad-
vise you that you may withdraw the amend-
ment now. If you act before the Committee
of the Whole has concluded its considera-
tion of Recommendation R&P-1, the Chair
will recognize you to offer the amendment
again, or to offer another amendment deal-
ing with it in another section, whichever
you choose.
Do you withdraw the amendment?
DELEGATE STORM: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Amendment No. 4 is
withdrawn.
|
Delegate L. Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor, you
have two amendments to proposed amend-
ments.
Do you intend to offer both of them?
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Yes, I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would
suggest then that you consider first Amend-
ment B.
The pages will distribute Amendment B.
This will be Amendment No. 5.
Delegate Burgess.
DELEGATE BURGESS: Mr. Chair-
man, a point of personal privilege.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the privilege.
DELEGATE BURGESS: I would like as
a member of the Committee to make ref-
erence to Delegate Storm's commentary
about the negligent report of this Commit-
tee. I take exception to that statement, and
I inform him that he is very mistaken in
this regard.
This matter was very seriously consid-
ered and for a long period of time, and the
report in my opinion as a member of the
Committee is far from negligent.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will read
the amendment.
For what purpose does Delegate Storm
rise?
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman, I
do want to apologize for a statement that
I made regarding the Committee in heated
debate.
I think I did go a little too far in saying
they were negligent, and I would like to
retract that statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: You certainly may
do so. I am quite sure that no one regards
that remark as intended to be critical,
Delegate Storm.
The Clerk will read Amendment No. 5.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 5
to Committee Recommendation No. R&P-1,
by Delegate Lloyd Taylor:
On page 2, section 3, Right to Due Proc-
ess and Equal Protection, in line 31 after
the period add the following new sentence:
"The State or its political subdivisions
|
