|
retain to the State the greatest degree of
jurisdiction permitted by federal law.
I would be very happy to answer any
questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the Committee Chairman for pur-
poses of clarification?
Delegate Henderson?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: This seems
to be confined to lands hereafter acquired.
Is there a reason for that? Why should it
not apply to all that are presently owned
by the federal government?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes, there are
many lands already acquired by the fed-
eral government. We would not want to
rock the boat and disturb or disrupt what
rights they presently have. This has al-
ready been accomplished by statutory law
and by the suggestion of the General Pro-
visions Committee to include this in the
new constitution to take effect for any
future acquired lands.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the Committee Chairman?
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Chairman Boy-
er, does the proposed GP-5 add anything
whatsoever to the present statutory law
contained in section 47 of Article 96?
DELEGATE BOYER: It was not in-
tended. We copied the proposal as recom-
mended by Delegate Storm, who would be
an authority on this.
Personally, it was not our intention to
include anything else; it was so designed
to accomplish that, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: One further
question, if I may.
I have some little difficulty with your
language in that I suggest it may restrict
the State from, in the terms of the deed
involved, granting additional or less juris-
diction. It seems to me that the terms of
the deed will not affect at all what juris-
diction it has obtained by this constitu-
tional provision.
Am I correct in that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes, sir.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions of the Committee Chairman?
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Delegate Boyer,
in your presentation you said that you
want to retain or use to the fullest extent
permitted by the law and the Constitution
of the United States but refer only to the
Constitution of the United States, and I
wonder whether or not you mean by "law"
the reference to the uses, purposes and
functions in 13, 14 and 15, that is, whether
that implies federal law.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: That was our
intention. Of course, federal law derives
from the federal Constitution, with the
trickle-down theory that any federal law
passed by the federal government would be
paramount to whatever the state law might
provide.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Is this kind of
provision contained in other state con-
stitutions?
DELEGATE BOYER: Touche. I do not
know. I would yield to Delegate Storm on
that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm, the
question was asked whether a similar pro-
vision is contained in other state consti-
tutions.
Could you take the floor and reply?
DELEGATE STORM: As far as I know,
Mr. Chairman, there are no other states
with a constitutional provision. This par-
ticular original proposal was copied from
the West Virginia statute, and I under-
stand a number of other states have similar
statutes. However, Delegate Jett and I have
an amendment which I believe will clear up
the language just a little bit, and I might
say that we conferred with some represen-
tatives of the federal government in arriv-
ing at the amendment language which we
will submit. The reason for it being in our
constitution, even if it is not in any other,
is that if the legislature passed a statute
as they did in the case of Port Dietrick,
or if they pass, as they did in the case of
the National Institutes of Health, a cession
act, it will be interpreted as being a more
exclusive ceding than any previous ceding
because of this being a statute. Therefore,
if it is in the constitution, it cannot be so
interpreted, and that is the reason for it
being in the constitution.
|
