|
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident and members of the Committee. In
our Committee we gave considerable
thought to this and at first the Committee
was rather hostile, I thought, to the doc-
trine of removal of sovereign immunity.
But on the hearing we concluded that the
old doctrine of sovereign immunity com-
ing down from the king of England when
the king could do no wrong should not
apply in this modern day and age.
We found that the legislature had full
and plenary power to act. What we are
also faced with is the fact that over the
past fifteen years the legislature has
dragged its feet and has moved entirely
too slowly.
We were then faced with ignoring the
proposition of removing the doctrine of
sovereign immunity or adopting section 7
where the doctrine of sovereign immunity
is removed except in such instances as the
legislature may close the door.
We had the other concept where we
stated the principle of sovereign immunity
ought to be abolished, but would be abol-
ished as the legislature opened up the
door to the removal.
Now, the section 7 opens the door wide
to removal and forces the General -Assem-
bly to legislate in those areas that sover-
eign immunity should be limited.
The proposal that Delegate Kiefer had
is a more mild and more significant one. I
would gladly go with it because that opens
the door, states the concept and says to the
legislature that in the past it has been
wrong, that we want the doctrine of sov-
ereign immunity removed and that it should
remove it in those areas and to the extent
and in the manner that it removes the
doctrine of sovereign immunity, the state
shall suffer to be sued.
I think we ought to reject the amendment
and get at this matter and find out whether
or not we want to adopt section 7 as it is
or take the more mild measure offered by
Delegate Kiefer. But, certainly, in no event
ought we pass this amendment and abolish
the concept entirely.
As some say, it might not do anything,
but it states a concept and we ought to
state it so that the legislature knows that
the people in the Constitutional Convention
do not want to stand by in this age an old
doctrine of sovereign immunity which no
longer serves the people of the State of
Maryland.
|
Does any other delegate desire to speak
in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Bamberger?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I have
from time to time been too concerned that
there are too many lawyers in this Con-
vention and that we tend to talk to each
other and not —
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger,
the Chair observes that the applause comes
from the non-lawyer members of the Com-
mittee of the Whole.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I move to
expunge the Chair's remark from the
record.
(Laughter.)
I rise to point out that section 7 makes
a very important policy decision. I am not
prepared on the basis of any facts stated
on this floor to make that policy decision.
Let me try to say in non-legal language
what we are doing. The present law is that
you may not sue a unit of government
when it is exercising a governmental func-
tion, but just taking it without all the
qualifications and the legal gobble-de-gook,
that you cannot sue a unit of government
for injuries which you suffer.
I agree that is an archaic doctrine and a
doctrine which it is difficult to defend in
some particular instances.
The legislature now may consider that
doctrine and its application to the state,
to a county, to a city, to an authority, and
to any other governmental unit and make
a judgment of whether the resources and
the functions of that governmental unit
are such that people ought to be able to
recover from it when they are injured.
That is something which the legislature
can explore, and then can understand the
impact of its action. What section 7 does
is absolutely the reverse of the rule. It says
that if you suffer injury because of the
action by some unit of government, by the
state, or the county or the city, you may
sue that unit and recover from the public
treasury and recover from the tax funds
unless the legislature says you may not.
If we adopt section 7, the door is open.
This doctrine of immunity is completely
gone and we put on the legislature the
burden of reviewing the function of each
little unit of government in the state, its
|
