|
stricken by the Style Committee, submitted
to the voters of the State for adoption or
rejection, and would only be effective if
approved by majority of those voting
thereon.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher,
I am not sure that I correctly followed your
question, but I would not assume that the
General Assembly adopted an amendment.
Under the language of section 10.02 the
General Assembly may propose and amend,
but not adopt and amend.
I would take it that the language in 51
and 52 referring to adoption of the amend-
ment would refer only to the provision be-
ginning in line 4 on page 2, the provisions
of section 10.02, which is the original por-
tion referring to adoption.
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, I agree. I wanted to clarify it be-
cause I thought it was possible to argue
the three-fifths rather than simple majority
vote, and I wanted to get it eliminated.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: By oversight I
did not, I think, make absolutely clear what
the sentence is which we are considering.
By an amendment on Saturday the sen-
tence was restored virtually to the condi-
tion in which it came from the Committee
of the Whole, so that the sentence which
my proposed amendment would strike reads
"Any proposal recommended by the Con-
vention for changing the Constitution shall
be submitted to the voters of the State for
adoption and shall be effective only if ap-
proved by the affirmative vote of a majority
of those voting on the proposal." The style
amendment was rejected, and we are back
virtually to the original language of the
Committee of the Whole. I think that may
have caused Chairman Gallagher some con-
cern. But let me say this, further:
"Proposal" seems to me certainly to en-
compass amendment, since we are talking
about proposals for changing the constitu-
tion. If an amendment is called a proposal,
is it submitted to the people simply under
the language of this last sentence if we
leave it in, or is it submitted to the people
with the further restrictions and provisions
of section 10.02?
I just cannot accept the theory that there
are proposals for changing the Constitu-
tion which are not simply amendments to
the Constitution. I do not believe that the
|
schedule of legislation is a proposal for
changing the constitution.
I believe the schedule of transitional pro-
visions which we are considering and
which will have constitutional effect are,
in effect, a constitutional amendment. I
just do not believe there is a proposal for
changing the constitution which is not an
amendment. Therefore, this sentence con-
fuses rather than adds anything more to
these two sections which is not already pro-
vided for and spelled out in a little more
and better detail in the language of section
10.02 which details how the constitution
may be amended.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I wonder if
the President would be good enough to en-
lighten us with his views on this contro-
versy, if he has any.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Scanlan
rose. I will recognize him first.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: In partial re-
joinder to Delegate Marion and in partial
justification for what the General Provi-
sions Committee did, I do think the con-
cept of the proposal is not necessarily co-
extensive with the concept of amendments.
I direct Delegate Marion's attention to
the present Constitution, in section 2 of
Article XIV, which says "but any Consti-
tution or change or amendment of the ex-
isting Constitution." This is followed by
the language that similarly follows in pro-
posed section 10.03.
In short, I think it fair in this section
to use a term that is broader than an
amendment, because what we are going to
submit to the voters, hopefully, on May 14,
will be a new constitution. I think it fail-
to regard that in a different category.
In the old constitution they specifically
spelled it out. Apparently the General Pro-
visions Committee and Style Committee
have agreed upon the word "proposal" to
embrace something more than the ordinary
amendment. I think there is justification
for it, and also I think it is justified in the
old Constitution.
While there may be some quarrel with
the term "proposal," nevertheless, I think
some term should be used which encom-
passes amendment, yes, but above and be-
yond amendment, including the whole con-
stitution, if necessary.
DELEGATE MARION: Would Delegate
Scanlan yield to a question?
|
