|
If part of this constitution says the Con-
stitution of 1867 goes out, it obviously
means to apply to everything in 10.01.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Is
there any further comment?
Delegate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: I would like to
address a comment to Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Do
you want to address a question to Delegate
Penniman?
DELEGATE NEEDLE: A question, yes.
If Delegate Clagett's amendment to
Delegate Grant's amendment is adopted,
would that mean that any law could oth-
erwise provide that the effective date of
this constitution be suspended, or would
you not otherwise have to say "or as other-
wise provided in this constitution"?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I think the
answer to that is yes.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Delegate Clag-
ett's amendment is not acceptable, is that
correct ?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I do not find
it acceptable any more than I find the other
one, and it for still further reasons.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: If an amend-
ment is adopted, Delegate Clagett's amend-
ment is not acceptable on the basis of style,
is that correct?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: That is cor-
rect.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding: Are
there any further comments ?
The amendment offered by Delegate
Grant is modified by the language which
was suggested by Delegate Clagett, which
means the insertion on line 6 of section
10.04 of the word "or".
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Chair-
man, this is a bad amendment. It really
fouls up and makes a mess of 10.04 as well
as 10.01. It suggests that there are excep-
tions in the constitution which preserve the
Constitution of 1S(>7. There are none. The
only places we will preserve the Constitu-
tion of 1867 are by new language which
|
embodies the concept in specific constitu-
tional language for this constitution. It is
unnecessary. It is not a clarifying change,
but is a confusing change; and I urge the
Convention to vote against it.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Is
there any further comment?
Delegate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: I do not mean
to speak for the merits of the proposed
change, but would ask Delegate Clagett
if he would accept the minor amendment to
his amendment to say "specifically pro-
vided in this constitution or".
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): I do
not think we can accept an amendment to
the amendment.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I would have
no objection to amending the amendment
so that it provided this to clarify it, if it
will meet with the accord of Chairman
Penniman, but I think his objection goes in
another direction. Certainly there would be
no objection to inserting after the word
"provided" and before the word "in" the
words "in this constitution or in the sched-
ule of transitional Drovisions attached to
this constitution," the additional words
being "in this constitution or".
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Adding these
words will not change anything.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): The
Chair rules the amendment to the amend-
ment is out of order.
Delegate Neilson.
DELEGATE NEILSON: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Convention:
why don't we stop this and get on with the
business? This particular section was not
even touched by Style and Drafting. It
simply says the same thing we decided it
should say in the Committee of the Whole.
I suggest we get it to a vote. I object to
the amendment.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): You
move the previous question ?
DELEGATE NEILSON: Yes, sir, I do.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): All
in favor, say Aye; opposed, No.
The Ayes seem to have it. The Ayes
have it.
|
