|
THE CHAIRMAN: Has that sentence
not been deleted?
DELEGATE VECERA: It has been
deleted.
I am going further into the matter. I
think it would do no harm to have the
remainder of the amendment, Delegate
Willoner, in the constitution. I do not think
it is doing any harm.
How it will be effective or effectuated by
the General Assembly is a matter for the
General Assembly.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Well, as I
understand your answer, is it true this is
to have no effect?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: As I understand
it, Delegate Willoner, this amendment pre-
viously had an oath to go with the amend-
ment that was stricken in the recent case
of the University of Maryland professor.
Let me read you a sentence. Maybe it will
clear up the matter of why we want it in.
"In the recent case of Whitehill v. Elkins,
36 Law Week 4006, November 6, 1967, the
Supreme Court of the United States held
that the sworn statement required by the
State of the plaintiff as a condition prece-
dent to his taking a teaching job at the
University of Maryland was unconstitu-
tional under the United States Constitution
because it impinged upon freedoms guar-
anteed by the first amendment." The Su-
preme Court did not indicate that any such
required statement would be unconstitu-
tional but found that the statement re-
quired of Whitehill was bad because it was
so vague that it did not permit a man of
common intelligence to know specifically
what was encompassed in his oath. The ma-
jority of the Court found that the form of
oath could be interpreted as incorporating
by reference the more specific language of
the Ober Law and that when so read the
oath impinged upon rights of free speech
protected by the first amendment.
What I am trying to say, Delegate Wil-
loner, is that possibly the General Assem-
bly could come up, in the future, with some
kind of language that would protect our
rights, in order that people such as this
would not be able to hold office.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner,
do you have a further question?
DELEGATE WILLONER: For the pur-
pose of the legislative history, other than
|
as a statement of principle, is this not to
have any operative effect? Is it to be non-
justiciable?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: I hope it will
have an operative effect.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Would you
state how it will have an operable effect?
DELEGATE VECERA: I think that
would be entirely up to the General As-
sembly, or perhaps the judiciary.
I defer to Delegate Grant.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant, do
you have a question?
DELEGATE GRANT: I had a comment
to that, which I think should be made, since
I suggested they make the change.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
DELEGATE GRANT: I intend to vote
for this, but I would not want anybody to
vote for it with the thoughts that it could
not be enforced. It is very enforceable. It is
part of the Bill of Rights. I would remind
you that the Bill of Rights is what is used
to interpret the Constitution.
Now, the Constitution provides for the
General Assembly to create offices, and in
creating offices they claim they will be filled
by people who are eligible to fill the offices.
If you have a case of someone who is a
subversive, who has to be removed from
office, all you have to do is go to the bill of
rights, which indicates the person is not
eligible to hold office, and he can be
removed.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I desire to
speak in opposition.
THE CHAIRMAN : Go ahead.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Ladies and
gentlemen: The hour is late, and this is so
important that I just feel that even though
one would like to support this kind of a
general statement, we have to recognize
what we are doing.
History shows this. Mr. Ober, one of the
outstanding members of the bar, after a
brilliant address before the State Bar As-
sociation on this entire subject, prepared a
law. It was very, very carefully worked
out. This was then known and still is, as
|
