|
At the time this amendment was pro-
posed, if I may refer to it as "the paren-
thetical God phrase", there was some ques-
tion about whether there would be a ref-
erence to a deity in the constitution. Since
that time our preamble has included "Al-
mighty God and His beneficence." How-
ever, we include Him without the dubious
crutches of the parenthesis.
I feel, first, it is not necessary in the
oath. Second, that it may be unconstitu-
tional, and I would personally prefer my
deity out of the parenthesis, standing alone.
I would like, if possible, under our pro-
cedure, to yield the floor to two delegates
who have the right to speak to this.
THE PRESIDENT: You do not have
the right to yield the floor; but they will
be recognized when they ask for it.
DELEGATE CARDIN: I would like to
say one thing which does not refer to the
amendment.
Even though I am against censorship I
would like the editors to know they have
my permission to use editorial license on
the tape and transcript if they feel it is
required.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
DELEGATE BLAIR: Mr. Chairman, I
am not necessarily speaking in opposition.
My position is one in which I was the
chairman of the subcommittee on oaths,
and today I thought it was expedient to
prepare something in connection with the
position of the research committee on the
constitutionality of the oath. I did this to
try to step this debate along tonight and
so that the Committee would have the op-
portunity of reading the memorandum, the
research article in connection with the
views on the constitutionality of it. I there-
fore, with the approval of Mr. Boyer and
also Delegate Rybczynski, who was also the
one who offered the amendment originally,
putting God into the oath, I thought if we
could possibly bring it to a head it would
be helpful.
I would like it to be known this is not
a position paper in any way and that our
names appearing on here, Rybczynski,
Blair, and Boyer, does not represent any
position that we have taken; but I do
think that it is interesting to bring to the
attention of the Committee that the re-
search article does not formulate any ju-
dicial opinion but still leaves the matter up
in the air.
|
I thought we could possibly resolve it if
it could be done by research. Apparently
it cannot be done, but the conclusions that
you would draw from reading the thing
would be purely wrong without any judicial
interpretations establishing a principle or
precept.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment.
Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Mr. President,
I move the previous question.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is not
debatable. Is there a second?
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Point of
parliamentary inquiry.
What vote is required to approve the
motion to move the previous question?
THE PRESIDENT: The majority of
those present and voting.
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Although the pre-
vious question has been moved, did the
Chair not make the statement that he in-
tended to have two delegates speak? Would
that not take precedence over the previous
question?
THE PRESIDENT: It would not.
The Chair has no control over the
matter.
Under the rules, the motion for moving
the question takes precedence, and it is not
debatable.
For what purpose does Delegate White
rise?
DELEGATE WHITE: In the interest of
fair play I would ask the Convention to
permit the maker of the original motion,
Delegate Rybczynski, to put —
THE PRESIDENT: Your motion is out
of order.
The Chair has to put the question.
The question arises on the motion for the
previous question. A vote Aye is a vote in
favor. A vote No is a vote against.
All those in favor, say Aye; contrary,
No. The Noes appear to have it. It is so
ordered.
Does any delegate desire to speak in
favor of the amendment?
|
