|
the police powers and it is not necessary
for jail or imprisonment to rest on this
section.
It is only agreements incorporated into
divorce proceedings or agreements with re-
spect to support which a court incorporates
into its decree. A strict ruling by the court
on its own is not necessary to be protected
under these circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the court make
this suggestion. In any event (Laughter) —
I am sorry. That is the first time I have
made that slip I have been conscious of,
and I have been told I have made it at
least three times, and I am sorry.
Delegate Rybczynski, if I understand the
point you are making, it does not quarrel
with any of the changes submitted by the
Committee on Style. It rather is a further
change, although it may be of style. If so,
I think it would be preferable to consider
it separately from the committee amend-
ments. This will give you an opportunity
to struggle with language a little. I will
give you the opportunity later to consider it.
•Am I correct that you are not troubled
by the changes made by the Committee on
Style in this section, you are troubled by
the fact that you do not think they have
made enough changes?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: No, sir.
This line 41 really troubles me.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I follow your
point.
Are there any other amendments to sec-
tion 1.13?
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Mr. Chair-
man, I have an amendment, I believe of
style, to 1.13.
It is a committee amendment, Amend-
ment R, and the mover of this amendment
when it was changed in the Committee of
the Whole —
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Willoner,
I do not believe that is an amendment of
style, I believe it is an amendment of sub-
stance. I will recognize you at the proper
time.
Are there any other amendments as to
style to section 1.14? 1.15? 1.16? section
1.17? section 1.18?
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I have an Amend-
ment 0 which is not directed to 1.18 but in
|
effect would create a new 1.18 and re-
number 1.18. Is that an amendment to 1.18?
THE PRESIDENT: It is not a style
amendment, I take it.
DELEGATE DUKES: Unnumbered sec-
tion 2 on page 5 would be moved in as a
new section 1.18, and it would be re-num-
bered 1.18.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean it just
changes the position of the section?
DELEGATE DUKES: It changes it
from general provisions to the Declaration
of Rights.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think that
is proper at this time. I will recognize you.
Unnumbered section, beginning in line 5
on page 5, are there any style amendments?
Unnumbered section on page 5 beginning
in line 13, any style amendments?
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Can you explain
to me whether the process of voting on the
third reading will be with respect to section
by section or article by article? What are
we going to vote on on the third reading?
What constitutes the majority?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair proposes
to submit the entire constitution to the
Convention for consideration and adoption,
final adoption, on third reading, article by
article.
When we get to the schedule of transi-
tional provisions and the schedule of legis-
lation, they will be submitted schedule by
schedule.
Delegate Dukes?
DELEGATE DUKES: Can you also tell
me now whether or not —
THE PRESIDENT: Let me add some-
thing to that, that in order to consider it
in that manner it will be necessary for the
convention either to suspend or to change
Rule 59, I think it is, which requires sec-
tion by section consideration.
MR. DUKES: Can you also tell me
whether general provisions will be a sepa-
rate article by the time it gets to us on
third reading, as a numbered section simi-
lar to what would now be the article for
the Declaration of Rights?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there will be
an article. Whether it will be called "Gen-
eral Provisions" or "General Government",
|
