|
DELEGATE WILLONER: That is right.
There would not be any right of removal
in other cases other than absolute right of
removal in other cases, except in cases
punishable by death or life imprisonment.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Are there any further questions?
DELEGATE WILLONER: May I make
an additional comment? We have dropped
out the rather detailed language providing
for the right of removal where it is dis-
cretionary on the part of the judge where
there is a prejudice. This is inherent in the
present Constitution. It seems to me, in
line with the Supreme Court cases in the
area of fair trial, that the courts can pro-
vide, and I am sure the courts provide by
rule for the right of removal where there
is prejudice actually established to the
satisfaction of the court.
(President H. Vernon Eney resumed the
Chair.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions of the minority spokesman?
(There was no response.)
The Chair hears none.
Delegate Child, do you desire to make a
presentation with respect to sections 3 and
5?
DELEGATE CHILD: It occurred to me,
Mr. Chairman, that it might possibly be
best to give a short presentation and then
to take these sections up one at a time.
I believe we can get along faster that way.
THE CHAIRMAN: That may save us
some time.
We Avill take up for consideration section
1 of R&P-2. Are there any amendments?
The Chair hears none.
The pages will please distribute Amend-
ment M. This will be Amendment No. 1.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 1
to Committee Recommendation R&P-2 : On
page 1 strike out all of section 1, Su-
premacy of the Constitution of the United
States, comprising lines 7 through 19,
inclusive.
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment hav-
ing been submitted by Delegate Scanlan
and seconded by Delegate Moser, the Chair
recognizes Delegate Scanlan to speak to
the amendment.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Mr. Chairman,
I will be very brief.
|
My amendment proposes that we strike
section 1 which, in effect, would write into
the constitution of Maryland the supremacy
clause of the Constitution of the United
States.
I concede that a similar clause is now
found in our 1867 Constitution, but I sub-
mit that there is some validity for its in-
sertion in that fatal, critical year when
the memory of the most ferocious assault
on the supremacy of the federal union was
fresh on the mind of all Marylanders.
At that time, although the supremacy
clause existed in the federal Constitution,
although John Marshall had «'one a long way in establishing its full implications, it
was nearly shattered in the war between
the states. Therefore, there was consider-
able emotional and historic validity and
justification for inserting in a state con-
stitution a similar supremacy clause ac-
knowledging the supremacy of the federal
Constitution.
However, the historical reasons which
justified this insertion in 1867 no longer
maintain. There is no question it is settled
beyond any doubt that the provisions of
the United States Constitution, when they
are in conflict with state constitutions or
state law, prevail. The decisions on the
point are legion. They are unanimous. As
I said, the doctrine is completely settled.
I think the time has come for us all to
put a brake on inserting in the constitution
unnecessary provisions no matter how lofty
the language of those provisions. If we do
not stop this process, I am not overstating
the case when I say that we will end up
with a constitution to submit to the people
in May which is longer than the one that
we came down here to modernize. There is
no necessity for this clause. It adds not one
whit of constitutional doctrine in this
State or in the United States. I urge its
deletion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any fur-
ther discussion?
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I
do not rise to oppose or to agree with this.
I think that everything that Delegate
Scanlan said is quite pertinent.
We put it in because some members of
the Committee have been approached by
other delegates and thought at least this
Committee should have a chance to vote on
it. I do not think any discussion is neces-
|
