|
That will not do it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you not accom-
plish it simply by adding the word "civil"
before the word "cases" in line 10?
DELEGATE MOSER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objec-
tion to the modification by adding the word
"civil" before the word "cases" in line 10?
DELEGATE JAMES: No objection.
THE CHAIRMAN: No objection. The
amendment is so modified.
Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: In brief explana-
tion of it, I would say that the effect is to
mandate that there be a right of removal.
I think that will allay the fears of some
members of the Convention and this is the
purpose of it. It would require action by
either the Court of Appeals or the General
Assembly by law. It leaves it in the hands
of either.
I am frank to say that I prefer matters
as they are because I think that this is a
question that should be handled by the
Rules Committee.
However, I advocate this amendment to
Delegates Kiefer and Willoner's amend-
ment, and therefore I am submitting it so
that it can be voted up or down.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Willoner. You indicate
whether you accept the substitute or desire
to oppose it?
DELEGATE WILLONER: I am in the
reverse position of Delegate Moser. This
would be a second line position and this is
my second line. The only problem is that
he has a better shot at it than I do. It is
very difficult to argue against it in the
sense that at least we would have a provi-
sion in the Constitution requiring the Gen-
eral Assembly or the Court of Appeals to
do something about this.
Again, I have a problem as a lawyer to
say how they could do it. In many of the
sections where we have said "shall" do
something, it is pretty impossible to enforce
without setting out any standards.
I would have to say I would have to vote
against it because again the committee po-
sition is that this is a very important right
that has been with us since 1805. We do
not wish to change that right except to
give the Court of Appeals reasonable regu-
lation of it. That is all I can say about it
and I would have to oppose it.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: What we are do-
ing is we are really broadening the Willo-
ner amendment. It seems to me this says
shall provide for the right of removal.
That means in all cases equity, condemna-
tion, ejectment of land cases. I cannot
really see any limitation.
The court, as I interpret this, is limited
to procedural matters. There may be some
flexibility, but it is much broader than the
Willoner amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Simplicity is
sometimes not always best. This is both
simple and clear. It does not say all cases,
it does not mean all cases. It simply says
that there shall be provided some right of
removal. It leaves and it intends to leave
with the Rules Committee or the General
Assembly, if the Rules Committee does not
move, the absolute right to determine how
this study be handled and that is the pur-
pose of it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair suggests
to you that Delegate James is suggesting
you change the word "shall" in line 9 to
"may".
Would you consider the change?
DELEGATE MOSER: I could not accept
the amendment at this point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Does any delegate desire to speak in
opposition to the amendment?
Delegate Schneider.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: I would like
to ask Delegate Moser a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MOSER: Yes.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: I under-
stand what you mean when the Court of
Appeals or General Assembly "shall". But
I do not know what it means when it says
"may". You are saying either one or the
other should do something. I am kind of at
a loss to understand how we can tell them
that they shall if we do not tell one or the
other to do it.
DELEGATE MOSER: The constitutional
mandate would be satisfied if either one
does.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Schneider.
|
