|
rect this complaint. Do not hide behind a
pair of parentheses.
I strongly urge you to vote against the
amendment and to vote with the report.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Sickles, do
you still intend to offer your amendment?
DELEGATE SICKLES: I had no in-
tention of offering the amendment unless
the current amendment were to fail.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Scanlan
to speak in favor.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Mr. Chairman,
I thought now without further considera-
tion I could move the previous question. I
think both sides of the issue have been
briefly heard.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a second?
For what purpose does Delegate Cardin
rise?
DELEGATE CARDIN: Before you rec-
ognized Delegate Scanlan, I wanted to an-
swer Delegate Rybczynski.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you with-
draw your motion to permit Delegate Car-
din to reply to Delegate Rybczynski?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I withdraw
my motion, but I understand no delegate
can speak more than once on a pending
matter.
THE PRESIDENT: You are right. She
is a mover, and a mover, under the rule,
can speak twice.
Do you withdraw your motion?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Delegate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Thank you very
much, Delegate Scanlan.
There are two brief statements I would
like to make. Before we vote, I would like
all of you to look closely at the memoran-
dum that was distributed today, and I be-
lieve it was distributed today. In all fair-
ness, I was quite surprised to see the last
paragraph, and the explanation of the last
paragraph just now was that we should
remove any impression this paragraph
would give you before you vote.
I suggest that was not the intention of
the researcher who prepared this paper.
His statements in that paragraph are evi-
dently based on the research that he made.
|
The second thing that I would like to
say, although I would never take issue
with Judge Adkins, is that there is a preju-
dice in a choice. By the very fact that the
office taker must make the choice whether
or not he wishes that parenthetical phrase,
he has prejudiced himself.
If we should have one who refuses to
say that, all will know that he has refused.
This is something that we will not have if
we remove the parenthetical phrase. There
will be no possibility of knowing whether
or not the person made the choice.
I am a religious person, and I feel very
strongly for this reason. I urge you to
vote for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: For what purpose
does Delegate Sherbow rise?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I would like
to be heard in opposition to the amendment.
May I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I shall be
very brief.
Do not fear that anyone who has this
choice to make will stand out and be
afraid. I have been in court as a lawyer
and as a judge and have watched people
refuse to take the oath and so solemnly
affirm. Nobody was prejudiced. Nobody was
concerned. This is a right, and they acted
accordingly.
Next, I address myself to Delegate Mac-
donald's discussion of the law. Our Court
of Appeals has held that they will not
discuss or act on a matter unless there is
a justiciable issue, and the same thing ap-
plies to the United States Supreme Court.
One who is elected or appointed has to
take an oath. If he takes the oath without
the parenthetical phrase that is here, there
is no problem. If he refuses to take the
oath, what is his answer?
He is not required to say that which he
is unwilling to say. His position is com-
pletely untenable, and therefore he would
proceed to take the oath without this pro-
vision in it, and there will be no case for
anybody to decide.
It seems to me that all we are doing
in this constitution is simply saying: here
is the oath. You may, if you wish, you may
not, if you do not wish, add to it this
expression.
On the solemn occasion when one takes
his office, this is not a matter which is to
|
