|
proposals recommended by the constitu-
tional convention, for changing the consti-
tution. Up to that point in section 10.03, the
entire section relates to the procedures, in-
ternal procedures of the convention, and
for the calling of a constitutional convention.
The process of constitutional amendment
is detailed in section 10.02. In that section
it is clear that there are two methods by
which an amendment may be proposed. One
is by adoption of a proposed constitutional
amendment by three-fifths of all members
of the General Assembly, and second, by the
affirmative vote of all members of the con-
stitutional convention.
That section then goes on to detail the
procedure by which such a proposed con-
stitutional amendment is to be submitted to
the voters. I think that the last sentence
of section 10.03 is unclear and poses cer-
tain questions as to what a proposal is for
changing the constitution that may or may
not be different from an amendment of the
constitution under section 10.02.
I would believe that what is intended by
the last sentence of section 10.03 is in
effect to incorporate by reference the pro-
visions of section 10.02, but if that is the
purpose, it does not do so in its entirety
because it does not provide the vote by
which such a proposal must be adopted by
the constitutional convention. If you call
an amendment a proposal, it is unclear
whether section 10.02 would apply.
It also does not carry into section 10.03
the last sentence of section 10.02 which
provides for an effective date of an amend-
ment. There would seem to be some doubt
as to what the effective date would be and
whether the "unless otherwise provided"
language of section 10.02 applies to an
amendment, which would be called a pro-
posal if it were submitted to the voters
under the last section of 10.03.
I do not think there is any proposal for
changing the constitution which is not an
amendment. Therefore, I submit that this
sentence in 10.03, which up to that point
deals just with the calling of the Consti-
tutional Convention and its internal or-
ganization, this sentence should be deleted.
We should leave intact the language of
section 10.02 which sets forth procedures
that thus far we have felt necessary for
submission of such a proposed amendment,
whether it be an amendment of one section
or several sections, or whether it be an
amendment which would substitute the en-
tire new constitution for the present con-
stitution.
|
I respectfully urge you support this
amendment and delete this last confusing
sentence to section 10.03.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Mr. President, I
am frankly a little confused about the in-
tent of this amendment. My understanding
is that the amendment, I imagine we are
talking about English words here — the
definition of words, is a change of any pro-
posal, as we have been doing here. The pro-
posal, however, is broader than the amend-
ment. Any proposal recommended by the
Convention, a recommendation to change
the constitution, has to be approved in
some manner or other.
The General Provisions Committee and
Style Committee have agreed that any pro-
posal for recommended change in the con-
stitution should be approved by the same
manner in which an amendment to the con-
stitution is approved.
Frankly, we prefer the wording in this
recommendation to you, not the wording of
the amendment. For some reason or other,
I cannot quite grasp the thread of thought
of Delegate Marion's proposal, this amend-
ment here, to take out the verbiage in this
particular section. We would prefer to keep
it in there as the Style Committee has
suggested.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Mentzer.
DELEGATE MENTZER: Mr. President,
I cannot see the distinction that Delegate
Boyer does between proposal of the Con-
vention and amendment. In this body we
often pay lip service to the ideal of a more
concise constitution, and we often get away
from that goal. Here we have an oppor-
tunity to put this ideal into practice and
to do no violence to the substance of the
provisions.
The treatment of amendments proposed
either by the General Assembly or by a
constitutional convention is fully covered
in section 10.02. It does not have to be
repeated in 10.03. I would urge support of
this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any fur-
ther discussion?
At the risk of — Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. President,
I plead for a little clarification of not only
the amendment, but also the last sentence
in section 10.03. I gather what Delegate
Marion is saying is that by using the word
"proposal" rather than "amendment", and
|
