|
I am trying to pinpoint your question,
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Lines 1, 2,
and 3 on page 2.
DELEGATE BOYER: Well, I think it is
consistent with the amendment on lines 25
and 26, three-fifths vote of all members of
the house. The theory is that the consti-
tutional convention is a specialized group,
and probably is, like this group here, de-
voting its entire time to one particular sub-
ject, that is, the constitution; therefore, a
majority vote would be sufficient.
The members of the General Assembly,
however, are a more diversified group and
probably would require larger than a ma-
jority or three-fifths vote. T.his is the only
answer I can give you, sir.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Is it
not largely a matter of style, to make
clear that you need an affirmative vote ? It
is a clarification, is it not?
DELEGATE WILLONER: My problem
simply is that constitutional conventions
ordinarily do not amend constitutions, but
they write entirely new constitutions.
Is this a new type of proposal?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Would
Delegate Boyer mind if the Chair answers
that question ?
It is perfectly possible to have a limited
convention, limited to certain specific areas
as defined in the act calling the convention,
so that if a limited convention is called,
amendments would be submitted to your
current constitution.
I believe that is the answer. Delegate
Penniman might clarify that.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: That would
seem to be the answer to Delegate Wil-
loner's question, but this is what is hap-
pening in Pennsylvania right now, and is
about to happen in Virginia.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: If I may, Mr.
Chairman, this would be supplementing
your answer and that of Delegate Penni-
man, but the Pennsylvania Convention was
called specifically for the purpose of
amending the constitution, and that is one
reason why this could be done in Maryland.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Are
there any further questions for clarifica-
tion?
|
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT,: In section 10.02
when there is discussion about the propos-
ing of amendments by the General Assem-
bly, there is a reference to "the affirmative
vote," and I just wondered what was the
thinking of the Committee in striking out
"the" and putting in "an affirmative vote"
with regard to a convention. Was there
some difference in substance thought to be
created by this ?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I am sorry. I
do not know why we made that change. It
is obvious that it could be "the", and it is
obvious it could be "the" in the second
case, too.
DELEGATE CHABOT: In any event, I
take it it is clear the only thing the con-
stitution mandates with regard to how the
convention votes is to require a majority
on the final passage of whatever it is the
convention recommends.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: What is clear
is that it is an affirmative vote, and the
only thing which was before us came to us
from the General Provisions Committee. I
will make no comment on your question,
which seems to me to again go to Delegate
Boyer.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Well, did you
understand, then, that by changing the
"the" to "an" you were not requiring a
majority vote in places where the work of
the Committee of the Whole would not
have required a majority vote ? You are
not requiring a majority vote on parts of
an amendment or parts of a new constitu-
tion?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: No. Let me
say that the change from "the" to "an"
was accidental and was in no sense in-
tended to change the meaning that "an
affirmative vote" had in the earlier part of
the sentence.
Whether this is a typographical error or
not I do not know, because I do not have
that in front of me. I would be surprised if
it were. T.his was made on Wednesday
morning when we were trying to get every-
thing on the floor by Wednesday afternoon,
and this article and the legislative branch
article suffered I think in both cases, be-
cause we did things in a great deal more
of a hurry than we had any desire to do
it in.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Sollins.
|
