|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate Kiefer,
is it not true that during the interim be-
tween the passage and effective date of the
constitution, and the time when the General
Assembly shall act by law, that the courts
would determine the meaning of the word
"damage" as used in this Bill of Rights
section ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: I would not only
answer in the affirmative, but I would also
say that whatever the legislature spells
out, the court is going to have to interpret
and afifectuate and implement, too.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I agree with you
there, but before the legislature acts, in any
cases that come before the courts during the
interim, between the effective date of the
constitution and the time the General As-
sembly acts, the courts themselves would
give a definition to the word "damage",
which could be a gaiide to the General As-
sembly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a statement
or a question ?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Delegate Weiclemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I had a
question, but I think I was in error. I was
going to ask him what the latter term
meant, whether it meant public use pur-
poses or compensation. He may have meant
it to mean "damages" but I do not know
whether it is so clear from reading the
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, so that there
will be no doubt, the Chair will ask the
sponsor and ask the Committee on Style to
note.
The question raised is whether in line 5
of the amendment, the words "latter term"
is intended to refer to "damage" or to some
other word in section 9B.
Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: "Damage."
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your
question, Delegate Weidemeyer?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Yes, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman, I
do not think that my answer to Delegate
Clagett was recorded. My answer to his
question was yes, the courts would have to
interpret and perhaps provide guidelines
until the legislature had acted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Because of
Delegate Kiefer's answer to that question,
I have a question for Chairman Kiefer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very Well.
Delegate Kiefer, will you respond to a
question ?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Chairman Kie-
fer, just so that the record is perfectly clear,
you are not precluding the possibility of
either your Committee or the General Pro-
visions Committee providing by way of a
transitory provision that this particular sec-
tion would not be applicable until perhaps
a year later, so that the legislature would
have an opportunity to set the necessary
guidelines? Is that so?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the
question?
Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise to speak against this amend-
ment, and I suggest that the Chairman of
the Committee and the members of the
Committee consider the effect of this. As I
understand it, it now means that that right
to compensation for property which is not
taken but which is damaged is circum-
scribed by whatever law the General Assem-
bly might enact. If it was the intention of
the Committee to give to the owners of
property, compensation where property was
not actually taken but damaged, as that
word is defined in the decisions of the
courts where there are similar constitu-
tional provisions, then this amendment does
absolute violence to the intention of the
Committee.
The amendment says that a property
|
