|
tionally prohibited from the dual office
holding procedure.
It is for that reason that I arise to
oppose the amendment, and to suggest that
we should not have particular exceptions
specified in the Constitution, but should
allow the General Assembly, which very
wisely acted in the case of the Constitu-
tional Convention delegates, to decide in
other cases that there are overriding rea-
sons why a public official should be able to
hold a dual office.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles, the
Chair now has not one, but three amend-
ments which you have prepared to this
section. I take it that these are intended
as alternates?
Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: Amendment AD
would be my primary and first amend-
ment, then if that were to pass, then I
would be deleting the very language that
Delegate Weidemeyer is now attempting to
have passed.
THE CHAIRMAN: If that should pass,
what? I am sorry.
DELEGATE SICKLES: If Amend-
ment AD were to pass, then I would offer
Amendment AE, because that would delete
the second sentence, which is the sentence
now about to be amended if Delegate Weide-
meyer's amendment is adopted.
Then my A amendment would be a sec-
ond position, if my AD amendment were
not adopted; so I would be proposing AD
as my primary and first amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The pages will please
distribute amendment AD.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Chabot rise?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Has our adop-
tion of Committee Report EB-2 prohibited
us from providing constitutional status for
notaries public?
THE CHAIRMAN : Are you speaking of
Committee Recommendation EB-2, or the
Committee Report?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Committee Re-
port EB-2.
THE CHAIRMAN: You mean EB-1?
DELEGATE CHABOT: I am sorry, I
mean EB-1, yes.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not
think so.
I am sorry. I should not say that. I am
not sure just how you phrased your ques-
tion.
Recommendation 5, contained in Com-
mittee Report EB-1, provides that among
other offices, notaries public not be pro-
vided for in the constitution.
This prevents any provision providing
for notaries public in the constitution. It, of
course, would not prevent the creation of
such position by statute. I am not sure
that was your precise question.
DELEGATE CHABOT: My understand-
ing of the language in section 5 of R&P-2
is that the specific reference to notaries
public would be in effect a mandate to
create this office as a constitutional office.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would not
think so, Delegate Chabot. I think it would
be read as though it had said the position
of notary public, if provided for by law,
shall not be considered an office of profit.
It may be that the Committee on Style
would have to make such amendment to
make it clear.
Delegate Sickles, do you desire to speak
to the amendment, amendment 5, not your
own amendment.
DELEGATE SICKLES: If it is in order,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer my
amendment as a substitute for Amendment
No. 5.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles, I
do not think it would be proper as a sub-
stitute.
For what purpose does Delegate Weide-
meyer rise?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I want
to answer Delegate Chabot, and also to an-
swer as to the substitution. I would say to
Delegate Chabot, under the Moser case and
the decision of the Court of Appeals an
office of profit and trust can arise either
under the constitution or the laws of the
State. So even though we have not made
notary public a constitutional office, if
created by the legislature it could be an
office of profit and trust, unless we spe-
cifically say otherwise.
As to substituting Delegate Sickles'
amendment —
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has al-
ready ruled it may not be offered as a
substitute.
|
