|
you on, but if the prior constitutions die
when the subsequent constitution is adopted,
then whatever effect resulted from that
death has already occurred and it was felt
not necessary to provide it.
Are you ready for the question?
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Mr. President,
this brings up the same problem which I
brought up in a prior amendment which
was rejected.
However, I am not sure whether it is
completely understood. Assuming, as you
assume that it is not necessary, then con-
versely if it is put in, would it not then
by implication exclude anything else which
might have been based on a prior Consti-
tution which would in effect mean if there
are any of these other clauses which are
included in 10.01 which are based on a
prior Constitution they would in effect then
not be continued.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not follow you
because the whole effect of this sentence
is to provide exactly to the contrary of
what you suggest.
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: My understand-
ing of Amendment No. 5 is that it is a
saving clause in the event that a statute is
qualified from a prior constitutional pro-
vision. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DELEGATE GRANT: Is it my under-
standing that it is your opinion that it is
not necessary because section 10.01 already
does that?
THE PRESIDENT: Essentially that. I
would rely on the general principle that if
a law is valid when it is enacted, it will re-
main valid.
DELEGATE GRANT: A lot of actions
may be made on what is contained in the
Bill of Rights and so forth and that would
be bottomed on the prior Constitution. My
concern is having agreed with the Chair
as to having been valid, they should remain
valid.
Do you mean by implication there would
be no other exception?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not share your
concern. I do not know how else to say it.
Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Mr. Chair-
man, I was just wondering by the addition
|
of the word pursuant to authority recog-
nized or granted by the provision might
not cover it.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not believe that
was Delegate Grant's point. I think his
point was acts other than legislation, a
court decree which might be bottomed on
some provision of the Constitution.
Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: What I
was thinking of particularly is the statute
of fraud which goes back to the statutes
of the first Elizabeth and it is still a law
of Maryland. You could hardly say that
was granted under the Constitution. There
was a clause in there which preserved the
British statutes.
THE PRESIDENT: It was the feeling
of the Committee that things such as the
statute of fraud were clearly protected by
the first part of the sentence beginning in
line 8. That was the purpose of it.
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: If I may
elaborate on that, the Committee expressly
used "law" rather than laws in order to
pick up not noly legislation but common
law hangovers such as the statute of fraud.
THE PRESIDENT: The question arises
on the adoption of Amendment No. 5. A
vote Aye is a vote in favor of the amend-
ment; a vote No is a vote against.
Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 78 votes in the affirmative
and 13 in the negative, the motion is car-
ried and the amendment is adopted.
Are there any other amendments to sec-
tion 10.01 or 10.02?
The Chair has none and hears none.
Are there any further amendments to
section 10.03?
Delegate Della or Delegate Johnson, I
take it, you have two amendments going
in part to the same question? I take it you
would prefer to submit your Amendment J
first and failing that to submit Amendment
I. State your preference.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I would prefer
to submit Amendment I to the delegates
|
