|
make a suggestion? Suppose the Style Com-
mittee takes a paragraph from one section
and places it somewhere else, for example,
takes it out of local government and puts
it in finance and you prefer to see it in the
final document in another place. When
would be the opportunity to bring that up?
THE PRESIDENT: The first oppor-
tunity to bring it up would be in most in-
stances when you reach that section in the
report of the Committee on Style. In other
words, if in a report submitted to you, say
on local government, the committee recom-
mendation is that a certain section be in-
cluded in a different article and you dis-
agree, we can take that up at the time
we are considering the report of the
Committee.
Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. President,
would the vote that takes place on second
reading as to style and substance need a
majority for approval? Would the majority
of those present be all that is necessary
for approval on second reading?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the ma-
jority of those present and voting?
DELEGATE BARD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The provision of
the enabling act requiring the majority of
the whole number of delegates, as the Chair
recalls it, applies to final approval.
DELEGATE GRUMBACHER: I believe
it applies to final approval of each article.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct. The
second reading is not final approval.
DELEGATE GRUMBACHER: The third
reading would be the entire constitution as
we go through it article by article.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know; it
depends on how the Committee on Style
submits it. It could be by articles or by
sections or by the entire article.
DELEGATE GRUMBACHER: As I re-
member the enabling act, I think it would
be by each article because we have to ap-
prove it by 72 votes.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not at that
point. When we get to final approval we
will decide what we have to do.
Are there any further questions as to
procedure?
Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
you know that I am familiar with what we
did in the legislature. Of course, that does
|
not mean anything here, but it was my un-
derstanding that there would be a vote on
each article which would require a ma-
jority of those that were elected. That is
what we found out on the floor of the
Maryland Senate.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Malkus,
the Chair has not indicated that there
would not be.
DELEGATE MALKUS: I felt that you
knew that because you certainly sat in the
gallery long enough when we discussed
this subject matter and I really believe
that we should have the right to vote on
each article with what the law says, and
the law says there shall be a majority of
those in office, a majority of 142 on each
article. That was well-discussed and well-
debated.
I do not care what the Committee on
Style wants to say, but you know, and I
know, that was what the legislature in-
tended to do.
THE PRESIDENT: Again, the Chair
says to you, Delegate Malkus, that it has
not indicated to the contrary. I do not see
the point of your statement.
Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: I do not want
to argue with you, but yesterday —
THE PRESIDENT: I am not arguing
with you. I am agreeing with you.
(Laughter.)
DELEGATE MALKUS: What you are
doing, Mr. President, you are telling me
what you have been doing for a long time
and that is all right, you are the boss.
But now I rise upon a point of inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE MALKUS: You said yes-
terday that that as far as the ground rules
are concerned, they will be given to us in
writing. Have you, as yet, done that?
THE PRESIDENT: It is not yet in
writing; it is partly in writing. I hope to
get it this afternoon.
DELEGATE MALKUS: We can expect
that in ample time before we take up the
subject matters?
THE PRESIDENT: I would think so.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is any
question about what the Chair said yester-
|
