|
very reason that Delegate Scanlan men-
tioned, that it is a matter of style. I cannot
imagine any document as important as a
constitution being composed by references
to other documents, especially when the
adoption of this one will put the other
one out of business.
Number two, what we will be doing is
voting on something which we already have
in identical language. It will be a duplicate
vote. In other words, the amendment Dele-
gate Scanlan wants us to vote on section
3.17 (ab) is worded exactly the same way
with no changes whatsoever. The substance
is exactly the same.
I suggest that it is out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would rule
that the amendment is out of order.
.Are there any further questions?
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Delegate Scanlan,
I cannot agree with Delegate Rybczynski's
statement that section 48 of Article III is
exactly the same in substance with the pro-
posed section 3.17(ab). And I think in this
there may lie the flaw in your amendment.
Section 48 in the present Constitution
contains an exception for laws dealing
with municipal corporations. That was
taken out by the Committee's Recommenda-
tion. If we vote to keep old section 48 in the
new constitution, will it not fly in the teeth
of the local government provisions which
we have already passed?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I must confess
on that point that Mr. Case is right. I had
forgotten that we had eliminated the mu-
nicipal corporation provision that was for-
merly found in section 48, and that matter
would have to be handled somewhere else if
my amendment were adopted.
My amendment is not directed at that
particular problem, and I think it could
be rectified by other language.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Case
asked my question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. Delegate
Weidemeyer, do you have a question?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: No. I have
a question to ask Delegate Scanlan.
One redeeming feature of his amendment
is this: that it will require all those who
|
have spoken so disparagingly of our old
Constitution to take another look at it.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: It would have
that incidental benefit. I thank you for
bringing it to my attention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason, do
you have a question?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the question.
DELEGATE GLEASON: You understand
this provision was also amended in 1891?
T.HE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I understand
that, and the intention of the amendment
is to embrace in this constitution the pro-
visions of section 48, Article III, as they
stand as of the date of the enactment of
this constitution. That will be my intention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: No, but I
think the Chairman of the Committee on
Style ought to be informed of that fact.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of the
Committee on Style will please note that it
is the intention of Amendment No. 3 that
the reference to the Constitution of 1867
means the Constitution of 1867 and all
amendments in force as of the date of the
adoption of this constitution.
Are there any further questions to the
sponsor?
Delegate Gullett
DELEGATE GULLETT: Perhaps this
question might be directed to the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole. If this
amendment is adopted as written, would
anything prevent the Committee on Style
from lifting bodily Article III, section 48,
and putting it right back into the present
Constitution, or is it your intention by
this motion that we instruct the committee
not to do that?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: May I at this
point make a modification to my amend-
ment? I ask for unanimous consent to
amend it as follows. In short, I would
strike all of the lines beginning with the
word "all" on line 35 on page 1 —
THE CHAIRMAN: What are you ad-
dressing our attention to? Your amendment,
or the Committee Recommendation?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I am address-
ing your attention to the effect of my modi-
|
