|
them. I think we would probably get to the
same place, but rather than get involved
in declaring or trying to say something is
not an office of profit when as a matter of
fact it is, I think we ought to recognize that
it is; but provide for the limited exceptions
where you might be able to hold two at the
same time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Is there any further discussion of the
amendment ?
Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Mr. Chairman,
I rise for a point of clarification. Is it the
intent of the mover, as I would understand
this arrangement, to place the principle of
separation of powers, which has now been
removed by the elimination of section 3 into
section 5? Is it the intention to place it
entirely within the hands of the General
Assembly?
I am most sympathetic with the problem
that Delegate Sickles has, but there are
other problems. I do not see why the Gen-
eral Assembly —
THE CHAIRMAN: Let us get the answer
to your question first.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: I would like
to get into such a problem, such problem
as would permit the president of the Senate
to be secretary of state.
T.HE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles, do
you understand the question?
DELEGATE SICKLES: I understand the
question. It is certainly not my intention to
try to prejudge what specific cases the legis-
lature may apply this to. I am persuaded,
however, that they would apply it only in
those cases where it would serve a useful
purpose. I am sure you are not going to get
the president of the Senate acting as secre-
tary of state.
THE CHAIRMAN: I take it the question
directed to you was, was it the intent of
the amendment to leave the decision of this
question, that is, whether one person could
hold more than one office of profit, to the
determination of the General Assembly?
The answer is —
DELEGATE SICKLES: — Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Burdette, do
you have a further question?
DELEGATE BURDETTE: I would say,
Mr. President, I think this is a very dan-
gerous departure from the principle of
|
separation of powers in order to face a par-
ticular and specific problem; we are legis-
lating here in a fashion that may be most
undesirable.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak? Is there any further
discussion ?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question ?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 6, as modified to Committee
Recommendation R&P-2.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 6. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 75 votes in the affirmative
and 40 in the negative, the motion carries.
Tl.he amendment is adopted.
I take it, Delegate Sickles, that you will
not now offer amendment AF ?
Delegate Sickles?
DELEGATE SICKLES: That is correct,
Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
The Chair has no other amendments to
section 5. Are there any others?
If not, we will proceed to a consideration
of amendments after section 5.
Delegate Vecera, do you desire to offer
your amendment?
DELEGATE VECERA: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: The pages will dis-
tribute amendment A. This will be Amend-
ment No. 7. The Clerk will read the amend-
ment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 7
to Committee Recommendation R&P-2, by
Delegates Vecera and Ritter: On page 2
following section 5 Limitation of Holding Office, add the following new section:
"Section . Disqualification for Of-
fice.
|
