clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 2357   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

[Dec. 13] DEBATES 2357

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan, I
think there were similar problems in the
Executive Branch Committee in the final
recommendations. Were there any provi-
sions which would be affected one way or
another by this section ?

DELEGATE MORGAN: Possibly two
provisions, Mr. Chairman. There is one that
gives the General Assembly two years in
which to make the initial organization of
the executive branch of the government.
Then if the General Assembly fails to do it
within two years, the governor is given
authority to accomplish that organization
by an executive order, and that executive
order does not have to have the approval
of the General Assembly. And under the
general reorganization powers of the gov-
ernor, while the governor is given power
to initiate the plans by executive order,
and submit them to the General Assembly
during the first ten days of their session,
they lie before the General Assembly for
fifty clays and if they are not disapproved
by one or the other house of the General
Assembly by the end of fifty clays, they
become law and have the force and effect of
law.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, would
the provision in question, section 3, have
any bearing upon the provisions in the
judicial branch article giving the legislature
and the Court of Appeals concurrent power
in certain areas to adopt rules of proce-
dure ?

DELEGATE MUDD: It did not occur to
us in the Committee, Mr. Chairman, as I
recollect, since the rule-making power was
thought of in connection with the matters
of practice and procedure, and the legisla-
ture would be prescribing by law matters of
substance.

THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. Is there
any further discussion ?

Delegate Kiefer.

DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman, I
do not believe that I personally would have
objection to adding language to this partic-
ular section to make it clear and still es-
tablish the basic principles that we have in
mind, something like this: unless otherwise
provided in this constitution.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.

DELEGATE HENDERSON: I would like
to amplify a little bit on what Chairman
Mudd has said. It seems to me that there
are several areas in which this might have
an effect.

For example, in the redistributing cases
which the Court of Appeals is given au-
thority to try and in passing on the dis-
ability of the governor and, in fact, even
in the rule-making power which has the
force and effect of law, it is certainly legis-
lative and it seems to me that there are a
number of areas where this thing crosses
over between the three branches. If they
are to be literally separated, it might indeed
invalidate a lot of things we are doing here.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.

DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Will Dele-
gate Henderson yield to a question?

DELEGATE HENDERSON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.

DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Judge Hen-
derson, when we are talking about provi-
sions in the constitution, are we not then
talking about provisions of equal dignity
and so without even the words that Dele-
gate Kiefer suggests, a provision in the
constitution which says that the powers
shall be separate would not be or could not
strike down a provision of that same docu-
ment which provided for some intermixing
of those powers.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.

DELEGATE HENDERSON: Well, it may
be that you could construe everything to go,
but the simplest solution to the problem I
suggest is to leave out this provision calling
for the absolute separation of powers which
has never been true in any department.

I could give a dozen different illustrations
of it. The rule-making power is given to all,
practically all the executive agencies, for
example, and yet it has the force of law
within the field. That is just one illustra-
tion, and I think it just confuses the issue
to put this old provision in, to repeat it in
the present constitution.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment ?

Delegate Adkins.

DELEGATE ADKINS: I would like to
ask a question, Mr. Chairman, of the Com-
mittee Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weidemeyer,
do you desire to ask a question or to speak?

DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I would
like to ask Delegate Henderson a question.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson,
will you yield to another question?



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 2357   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives