|
lating the offices of profit clause if they
held an office in the Constitutional Con-
vention.
I would think it well, therefore, Mr.
President, in order to remove that doubt,
if this constitution is adopted, that we say
in accordance with the Court of Appeals
decision in our constitution that in addition
to the office of notary public, that the of-
fice of a delegate to the Constitutional Con-
vention is not an office of profit; and there-
fore if this constitution is adopted and an-
other constitutional convention is held
thereafter, it will not be necessary to de-
termine that question, because you will
have determined then in this constitution in
accordance with the Court of Appeals' de-
cision under our present one that the office
of a delegate for a constitutional conven-
tion is not considered strictly an office of
profit. And I think just by adding that
little amendment it will clarify it for us in
years to come.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
I can see no harm that it does to anybody,
except to clarify in our constitution what
the Court of Appeals has already ruled as
to our present one.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, as
far as this delegate is concerned, I would
have to agree that being a delegate to this
Constitutional Convention is not an office
of profit.
Further I sayeth not.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: Mr. Chairman,
I have a parliamentary inquiry.
I had ordered some time ago an amend-
ment to this section, and I do not know
whether you have it on your desk, but it
has not been delivered to me as yet.
THE CHAIRMAN: An amendment to
this section?
DELEGATE SICKLES: Yes.
It apparently has not been reproduced
as yet. I discussed it late this afternoon.
Mr. Benson talked to me about 8:30 P.M.
about it.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will check on it.
Does any other delegate desire to speak
in favor of the amendment?
|
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I ask you to
vote for this amendment. This is one of
the few times I find myself with brother
Weidemeyer.
I tried, along with other lawyers in that
case, the other side of that argument. We
tried to convince the Court of Appeals that
under the highly technical aspects of our
law, that holding membership in the Con-
stitutional Convention was not an office of
profit. I assure you, it was a very, very
delicate constitutional problem, because in
my own mind I was not too sure if certain
groups were prevented from running for
this office that we would have had a Con-
stitutional Convention.
I am happy to say that the Court of
Appeals agreed with our side, and now we
are holding this Constitutional Convention.
Hopefully hereafter this problem will not
arise. I urge you to vote for this amend-
ment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Nielson.
DELEGATE NIELSON: Mr. Chairman,
I do not wish to speak at this point in op-
position, but rather ask a question of the
sponsor with respect to the language.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Mr. Chairman,
assuming that this Convention wishes to
retain the prohibition on dual office holding,
and I think that is perhaps a foregone
conclusion, there is a wide question as to
whether various exceptions — and I think
Constitutional Convention delegate and
notary public both have proven to be such
— should be placed in the constitution as
specific exceptions.
Certainly we do not want to legislate in
the constitution, and there are many cir-
cumstances which may arise in which the
prohibition and the principle behind it will
not be applicable.
As I understand it, Delegate Sickles'
amendment will give the General Assembly
the option to exclude offices to which the
principle should not be applicable, and I
suggest that we vote against the amend-
ment; and instead, give some latitude to
the General Assembly to exempt offices
which should not properly be constitu-
|
