|
sition that this should not be in the con-
stitution.
I have heard what has come to be called
the Scanlan argument that we should not
clutter the constitution with unnecessary
provisions, but even Delegate Scanlan is
willing to accede in that we did not worry
very much about that when we voted on
such things as natural resources and con-
sumer protection.
I am told that this is a provision which
should not be in the bill of rights, because
it only affects a part of the people; that is,
those people who work in industries that
would be affected. I do not buy that argu-
ment. I believe that the right to organize,
labor peace, and equal bargaining rights
between employees and employers affects
all of us, and I think anyone who argues
otherwise fails to remember the history of
the last 30 or 40 years in this country.
I am told that I should be concerned,
because it may give to policemen or fire-
men or those who are concerned with pro-
tecting the public safety some right to walk
away from fires and crimes. I thought it
was made clear in the initial debate that
that was not allowed by section 1.17, as
\\ritten. If there was any doubt it seems
to me that doubt is erased by the words in
the amendment adopted here today, and by
the explanation of the intent offered by
Delegate Scanlan.
I really do not understand why on an
issue which is so important to so many
people we cannot hear what the real rea-
sons are why this should not be in the con-
stitution, and I respectfully request those
who feel strongly that section 1.17 should
not be in the constitution to tell me in pub-
lic and on this floor just what it is that
worries them.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bamberger,
you have one quarter minute left out of
three minutes.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I urge that
we reconsider and I urge that by a sub-
stantial vote we defeat Amendment No. 5,
and put section 1.17 into the constitution
so that next May we can have the support
of the people for the document on which
we have labored so hard and I think done
so well.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further
discussion? Are you ready for the ques-
tion?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
|
The question arises on the motion to re-
consider the vote by which Amendment No.
5 was adopted. This is a motion to recon-
sider. A vote Aye is a vote in favor of re-
consideration. A vote No is a vote against
reconsideration.
Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted?
Delegate Boileau.
DELEGATE BOILEAU: Record me as
voting Aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boileau
votes Aye.
Has every delegate now voted? Does any
delegate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 79 votes in the affirmative,
and 59 in the negative, the motion carries.
The question now arises on the adoption
of Amendment No. 5. Tjhe Chair recognizes
Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: I move the previ-
ous question, if I am in order.
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE PRESIDENT: All those in favor
signify by saying Aye; contrary No. The
Ayes have it. It is so ordered.
For what purpose does Delegate Ryb-
czynski rise?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: To make a
parliamentary request. Would the Chair be
so kind as to state the effect of this vote
at the time that it states the question with
particular reference to what is now re-
ferred to as the Scanlan amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. For what
purpose does Delegate Jett rise?
DELEGATE JETT: Same purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well ,the ques-
tion arises on the adoption of Amendment
No. 5. Amendment No. 5 is the amendment
to delete section 1.17. A vote Aye is a vote
in favor of the amendment, that is, in favor
of the deletion. A vote No is a vote against
the amendment, that is, against the dele-
tion of the section. If Amendment No. 5 is
adopted, section 1.17 is deleted. If Amend-
ment No. 5 is rejected, section 1.17 as
amended by Amendment No. 13 is before
you open to your further amendment.
So that there will be no misunderstand-
ing, a vote Aye is a vote in favor of
|
