clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3159   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

[Jan. 3] DEBATES 3159

THE PRESIDENT: Would he yield for
a question?

DELEGATE MARION: Yes.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Yes.

DELEGATE MARION: Regardless of
what it is called in the old Constitution,
does it not go on to provide the same pro-
cedure or whatever it is that is going to
change the constitution?

THE PRESIDENT: Just a second,
please.

DELEGATE SCANLAN: Yes, it does.
Yes, the old Constitution, after specifying
any constitution, change or amendment,
goes on to set out how it is to be adopted,
how it shall become effective, which is the
same as an amendment. That is exactly
what the General Provisions Committee
language does; so therefore I think I am
in the position of Mark Twain, Delegate
Marion, the more you explain your amend-
ment, the more I do not understand it.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any fur-
ther discussion?

Delegate Gleason asked the Chair to
comment. For what it is worth, the Chair's
comment is as follows :

I think Delegate Marion is quite correct
in saying that technically what is spoken
of as a proposal in section 10.03 is an
amendment.

But I do not believe that is the ordinary
understanding of the term. I think that
most people think of an amendment as en-
compassing something less than a complete
revision of the entire constitution. I am a
little fearful that in the context of section
10.02, where obviously the amendment pro-
posed by the General Assembly is intended
to refer to an amendment that is some-
thing less than a complete revision, the
amendment proposed by the Convention
would be thought of as in the same
character.

In section 10.03 what is contemplated is
at least the possibility that there would be
a complete revision, and whether the word
proposal is the most apt word to describe
it, I do not know. I think there is a suffi-
cient difference to warrant the inclusion
in section 10.03 of the additional language.

Let me call your attention to the fact,
as pointed out by Delegate Marion, that
as modified by Amendment No. 2 the last
five lines of section 10.03 now read: "Any
proposal recommended by the Convention
for changing the Constitution shall be sub-

mitted to the voters of the State for adop-
tion and shall be effective only if approved
by the affirmative vote of a majority of
those voting on the proposal."

Is there any further discussion?

Delegate Marion has already spoken
twice. Is there any objection to his speak-
ing a third time?

(There was no response.)

The Chair hears none; unanimous con-
sent.

The Chair recognizes Delegate Marion.

DELEGATE MARION: Mr. President,
in view of your explanation, I want to di-
rect a further question to you, if I might,
sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

DELEGATE MARION: If the construc-
tion of amendment in section 10.02 is
limited to the extent that you indicated it
is, or might be, in popular usage, would
that mean then that the General Assembly
through its amendment process by submit-
ting to the voters by a previous vote of
members of both houses could not submit
a proposal, or in broader context, an
amendment, which would have the effect of
changing the entire constitution and sub-
stituting therefor a new constitution?

THE PRESIDENT: No, indeed. And the
Chair did not mean to indicate that the
word "amendment" in section 10.02 was
limited as you have indicated.

The Chair said, or thought he said, that
technically I think you are correct. I think
the term "amendment" in 10.02 is coex-
tensive with "proposal" in 10.03.

I am suggesting only that in popular un-
derstanding, even though the General As-
sembly may submit an amendment under
section 10.02 which would accomplish a
complete revision of the constitution, and
even though a Constitutional Convention
under section 10.02 could do the same thing,
this is not the normal procedure, and what
most people would be thinking of under
section 10.02 is something less than that.

Delegate Marion.

DELEGATE MARION: This further
question:

If that is the case, and if the power of
the General Assembly to submit amend-
ments and the power of the Constitutional
Convention to submit amendments is to be
coextensive, should not the word "amend-



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3159   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives