|
also raised the same question. I suppose
that it is a possibility. We were faced by
a situation in which the Legislative Branch
Committee, which we thought probably had
power in dealing with the nature of the
legislative branch, had been careful not to
name the head or the presiding officer in
either of the houses because they wanted
to leave the legislative branch free. It
seemed to us undesirable to have it pop up
some place else although I admit that there
might be some circumstances in which it
might be possible that at least a temporary
presiding officer might not indeed be the
president or his equavalent.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: In this we are
dealing with what obviously would be an
emergency situation, where we do not have
either a governor or lieutenant governor.
I point out to you that there may well be
a situation in which there may well be no
president of the Senate and you would
have a presiding officer. I wondered if you
wanted to make a more definite indication
of a specific person rather than a person
who just happened to be filling a particular
office at that particular moment.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I really do
not know what the answer is in this situa-
tion. Perhaps the substantive committee
has a bit of wisdom which is beyond mine.
I really am trying to call it to the attention
of the Convention.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I had a second
question on page 12.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I hope I can
be more precise in my answer to that one.
DELEGATE GRANT: In section 4:30
I presume you intended that to mean in
the conjunctive and not in the alternative,
on line 16?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean in line
18 it should bse "appointment and removal".
DELEGATE GRANT: Do you mean to
say "persons whose method of removal" or
do you mean the person who is obtaining
the appointment is the same one of whom
you are contemplating the removal?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Those are
not our words. They are the words of the
original committee.
|
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Grant is
asking a question with respect to section
4.30 which I think may more properly be
addressed to you. He calls attention to the
fact that the disjunctive is used in the first
three words of line 18 on page 12 and asks
whether or not you intend the section to
apply to a person whose appointment and
removal is not specifically specified, or
whether you mean literally one whose ap-
pointment is not specified but whose re-
moval may be, or one whose appointment
is specified and removal not. Is this your
question, Delegate Grant?
DELEGATE GRANT: Yes, Mr. Presi-
dent.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: We meant "or"
in the disjunctive and not "and."
THE PRESIDENT: You meant that a
person with respect to whom the method of
appointment is specified, but the method of
removal is not specified, may be removed
as prescribed by law, and that a person
whose appointment is not prescribed but
his removal is prescribed, may be appointed
as prescribed by law; is this what you are
saying?
DELEGATE MORGAN: That is correct,
Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: My question pos-
sibly goes a little further than that be-
cause you have both appointive and elected
officers. What I am assuming from what
we have done so far, is that you do mean
appointment and removal to apply to ap-
pointive officers, or to appointive and
elected officers in the case of removal.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it the an-
swer to the previous question would give
you an affirmative answer to this. I am not
sure that is what he intends. Did you fol-
low the second question, Delegate Penni-
man ?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: The ques-
tion is whether it applied to both elective
and appointive officers.
TPIE PRESIDENT: The appointment
can apply only to appointive officers. The
question is does removal apply to only
elective officers.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: No. It ap-
plies to both elective and appointive of-
fices.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Grant.
|
