|
The question arises on the appeal from
the ruling of the Chair. Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: I just want to
announce in advance I will not erode the
authority of the Chair in this decision.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Mr. President, I
will withdraw the motion. It is obvious that
it is bound to be defeated.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is with-
drawn.
Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I will, however,
move for reconsideration of the vote by
which Amendment No. 5 has been accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bothe, the
Chair calls your attention to the fact that
if you desire to do so, without the formality
of the two-clay layover rule, and the 15
signatures you should do so before there
is final action with respect to 1.17,
You do not have to at this moment, but
you should do it before that time.
For what purpose does Delegate White
rise ?
DELEGATE WHITE: Mr. President, I
was going to offer —
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, I can-
not understand you.
DELEGATE WHITE: I intended to offer
a motion to reconsider, but I am not in-
tending to engineer this operation. In the
absence of objection, I would move that
we would reconsider now.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a second to
Delegate White's motion to reconsider the
vote by which Amendment No. 5. Just a
moment, before we move that. I think the
Chair has to announce the results on the
statement of Delegate Pascal; the record of
the vote on Amendment No. 5 will be cor-
rected to show Delegate Pascal voted Aye
in which event the vote on the Amendment
becomes 68 in the affirmative, and 66 in the
negative, and the motion passes.
Amendment No. 5 is adopted.
Delegate White has moved to reconsider
the vote by which Amendment No. 5 was
adopted.
Is there a second to that motion?
(The motion was duly seconded.)
The motion is seconded.
|
For what purpose does Delegate James
rise ?
DELEGATE JAMES: I would like a
clarification of the parliamentary proced-
ure, and the point that I am interested in
is whether or not this is a substantive vote.
My inquiry is that section 1.17 has now
been stricken from the proposed constitu-
tion. Now, the motion to reconsider legisla-
tive procedures stands by itself, and it is
not a substantive vote. My understanding
of the rules being followed here is that if
the motion to reconsider is adopted, this
reinstates section 1.17 in the proposed con-
stitution, so that it is a substantive and
not merely a procedural vote. Am I correct?
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure that I
would characterize it as such, but the end
result is as you have indicated.
Very well, Delegate White, do you desire
to speak to the motion to reconsider?
DELEGATE WHITE: Mr. President, I
do not wish to make a speech, but I do
hope that everyone will carefully vote
green or red, and look so that we will not
be forced in a position of having a certain
cloud which exists now.
I believe there is one about the whole
operation, and there are a lot of strange
and mysterious things happening over this
issue and if we are going to be men and
women, let us stand up and vote so that
we can be counted.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise to speak first in favor of re-
consideration, and secondly to state my
own need for information.
No issue has so divided this Convention.
No issue of substance has failed or passed
by such a close vote within this Conven-
tion. Last week we heard arguments as to
why this should not be in the constitution.
I thought all of those arguments were
cured by the amendment which was spon-
sored by delegates who had voted on both
sides of this provision.
If there is some other important reason
why this provision of section 1.17, which is
obviously very important to almost an even
minority, or half of the delegates in this
Convention, and which I think we would
also recognize is very important, if not as
a matter of substance, then certainly as a
symbol to hundreds of thousands of people
in this State, then I should like to hear
those arguments which support the propo-
|
