|
DELEGATE SYBERT: I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion to
amend was rejected on the last vote which
meant that the deletion was rejected and
the line remained as it was originally.
Are there any further amendments to
section 8.01 and 8.02?
(There was no response.)
The Chair hears none.
The question now arises on the adoption
on second reading of Committee Recom-
mendation GP-6 as amended. The Clerk will
ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Committee Recommendation GP-6 as
as amended on second reading. A vote Aye
is a vote in favor of the adoption of the
committee recommendation as amended; a
vote No is a vote against.
Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted? Docs any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 107 votes in the affirmative
and 1 in the negative, the motion is car-
ried and Committee Recommendation GP-6
as amended is adopted on second reading.
The recommendation as amended is re-
ferred to the Committee on Style, Drafting
and Arrangement.
This concludes consideration of the spe-
cial orders. We revert now to the next item
on the calendar for second reading of com-
mittee recommendations.
The first item for second reading is the
Committee Report S&D-17. This is with
respect to Committee Recommendation
GP-7 dealing with amendments, GP-8 deal-
ing with constitutional convention, GP-9
dealing with the carryover of common law,
GP-12 effective date, R&P-1 suspension and
emergencies. This is the committee report
that was under discussion at about 2
o'clock when we took up consideration of
the special orders.
We had concluded consideration of
Amendment No. 6 to section 10.02. We had
passed over for the moment further con-
sideration of Amendment No. 5 to section
10.01. The Chair would therefore revert to
Amendment No. 5, section 10.01.
I believe this is the amendment made
necessary to bring this section into con-
formity with the schedule of transitional
provisions, was it not?
|
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Yes. This
was our intention at the present.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any reason
why we cannot act now?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Is there any further discussion necessary
with respect to Amendment No. 5?
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. President, I
raised the initial question about this be-
cause it seemed to me that as a matter
of strict theory, laws were not enacted pur-
suant to authority granted. The prior Con-
stitution or any constitution does not grant
the authority to enact laws, but rather acts
as a restriction on the plenary power of the
legislature to grant laws.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Chair
can perhaps clarify it a little bit because
the discussion arose in considering the pro-
visions to be included in the schedule of
transitional provisions.
Your comment is, of course, entirely cor-
rect except that unfortunately in a number
of instances in the previous Constitution
the language is so phrased that it would
appear to be a grant of power.
It, for instance, says the General Assem-
bly may or shall prescribe by law thus and
so. Because of this, persons are concerned
with the effect of the section 10.01, not
delegates. I think there were some dele-
gates, but these were some members of
bar association committees or others. They
were a little apprehensive less there be any
possibility of contention being made that if
the old Constitution died and it granted the
authority to pass a law that that grant of
authority died with it and carried with it
the law enacted pursuant thereto.
The Chair does not share that view, but
I did not think it was harmful to include
the provision to prevent any doubt.
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. President, you
expressed quite clearly the point I was
seeking to make. The only other query I
have of that section is should the saving
clause be limited to the Constitution of
1867 when it says a prior Constitution and
that is the way that is defined, or should
it go on back and save all the laws if any?
I wonder if it should say "granted by the
provisions of prior Constitution"?
THE PRESIDENT: You have raised the
question that somebody else anticipated
|
