|
DELEGATE RITTER: I do not think that
would be hard for our legislators. I think if
they advocate the overthrow of our govern-
ment by force or violence I think it would
be very evident to you and me and to all
of the legislators. I think they could set up
qualifications. There are very able lawyers
in that body, and I feel that they can do
that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Blair.
DELEGATE BLAIR: Mr. Chairman, I
think the oath itself accomplishes the whole
philosophy that is promulgated by advo-
cates of this amendment. I think that the
oath of office is an affirmative position, that
the affiant will support the Constitution of
the United States, the Constitution of the
State of Maryland and the laws thereof,
by reason of taking this position affirma-
tively. I certainly do not think that the
amendment means anything.
I think it is fully covered in the oath of
office, and it is allocated specifically only
to public offices of profit or trust, by ap-
pointment or by election.
I think the oath is all-encompassing, and
it does the very thing that the amendment
intends to do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I have a question
to address to Delegate Ritter.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak?
(There was no response.)
If not, Delegate Ritter, will you take the
floor and respond to a question?
DELEGATE RITTER: I will attempt to.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Delegate Ritter,
it would appear that the last sentence of
your proposed amendment is almost a bill
of attainder. Would you be willing to ac-
cept an amendment to your amendment, to
strike out the last sentence, which I think
would get you past that constitutional
impediment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Ritter.
DELEGATE RITTER: Wait until I talk
to my other constitutional lawyer. If we get
another vote, we will knock it out.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Does that mean you
modify the amendment?
DELEGATE RITTER: Yes, by knock-
ing out the last sentence.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any ob-
jection?
The Chair hears none.
The amendment is modified by striking
the last sentence, beginning on line 11, and
all of lines 12 and 13.
Does any other delegate desire to speak
to the amendment?
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I have a
question for either of the makers of the
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Take your choice.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Delegate
Vecera.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Vecera,
will you take the floor to yield to a question?
DELEGATE VECERA: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: This provi-
sion as stated is absolutely inoperable, un-
less you concede that an act done by an
officer who advocates the violent overthrow
of our country is an illegal act. For ex-
ample, if a judge advocates the overthrow
of the government, would any of his deci-
sions be any good? Is that how you plan
to enforce this?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: How do you
plan to enforce it then?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: I think by vir-
tue of eliminating the last sentence. That
would be the intent of the enabling act. In
order to enforce it, the last sentence, by
virtue of having —
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Vecera, are
you speaking of the sentence that was
deleted?
DELEGATE VECERA: Yes, sir.
I am trying to answer Delegate Wil-
loner's question.
|
