|
also the fact that section 10.02 provides
the method by which proposed amendments
submitted by the constitutional convention
shall be approved by the electorate, this
tends to confuse the entire matter. I am
inclined to agree with him. But I certainly
would like a little bit of explanation from
the Chairman with reference to the neces-
sity of having this last sentence in section
10.03.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Mr. President,
on reflection, and after talking with my
legal eagle here, the intent of it originally
was any proposal, recommended by the
convention after the convention is called,
calling for a change in the constitution
shall be submitted to the voters. "Shall be
submitted to the voters for adoption" is
what we would prefer. This would refer
it back to the people and let them act on
it, either affirmatively or negatively, and
let them make a final approval. This is
the language I think the General Provi-
sions Committee intended and had so
recommended.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: May I ask
this, Delegate Boyer: Is it included within
your concept of the word "proposal," for
example, the transitional legislation? This
is to be included?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes, Delegate
Gleason. The proposal was broader than
an amendment. It would include schedule
of legislation, transitional provisions, or
any other matter which would have the
force and effect of any constitutional
provision.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Is the transi-
tional legislation not actually a change in
the constitution?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes, it would be
a change in the constitution, because it has
the same force and effect as the constitu-
tion. The schedule of legislation is only a
temporary arrangement until repealed or
amended by the General Assembly itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I am now
concerned with the Chairman's response to
Delegate Gleason's question because I would
|
not understand that the language in lines
47 to 52 covers that kind of legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: I am sorry. Dele-
gate Bamberger is confused. It is certainly
the intent. We will soon have GP-13 be-
fore us, dealing with transitional provi-
sions and scheduled legislation. If you
could for a minute act in an invisible man-
ner on this, consider the transitory pro-
visions.
This, if recommended by this Conven-
tion, would be a proposal to this conven-
tion, in the broadest sense of the word;
not a narrow proposal sense.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Chairman
Boyer, I do not consider those proposals
for changing the constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Certainly if we
adopt, it appears to me, anything in the
transitional provision, it would make a
drastic change in the constitution, because
it would have the thrust of the constitution
itself. It would have the same impact and
same force and effect.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: May I ad-
dress a question to Delegate Boyer?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Boyer,
with regard to these last five lines, "Any
proposal recommended by the Convention
for the changing of the Constitution shall
be adopted in the same manner as an
amendment", an amendment before the
General Assembly requires a three-fifths
vote of both the House and Senate, would
it be your interpretation that if the Con-
stitutional Convention were called that no
provision recommended by the Constitu-
tional Convention could be passed by a
simple majority vote, but would require a
three-fifths vote in the same manner as
one adopting an amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Now I know Del-
egate Gallagher is not filibustering, and I
think he does have a correct point here.
The original language, if you refer to that
|
