|
Is there any further discussion on these
sections?
Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. President,
I have a question for Delegate Boyer re-
lating to section 9.10.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: In discussion of
section 9.10 in the Committee of the Whole
we centered the whole discussion around
the trial for impeachment, but in the sen-
tence beginning on line 22 where you state
"concurrence of three-fifths of the judges
of the Court of Appeals shall be required
to convict," was it the intention of your
Committee that more than a majority of
the judges of the tribunal be required in
order to obtain conviction?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: No, Delegate
Hanson. The intention of the Committee
was concurrence of three-fifths as it came
out of the GP Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the earlier
discussion indicated in this situation that
majority and three-fifths were the same.
I think it was the suggestion that if the
number on the panel were ever changed
the intent that it be three-fifths shall be
indicated.
Am I correct about that, Delegate Boyer?
DELEGATE BOYER: As usual, Pro-
fessor.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Hanson.
Are there any further questions?
Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: On page 30, provi-
sion for all elected officers, is that all
elected state officers?
THE PRESIDENT: It says "all elected
officers of the State of Maryland."
Your question is what?
DELEGATE GILL: Would you leave it
like that, or just say "elected state officers,"
like you have in line 13?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: This is a
question of the intent of the Committee on
the Legislative Branch.
|
THE PRESIDENT: I think Delegate
Gill's question is purely one of style. She
is asking whether instead of using the term
"elected officers of the State of Maryland"
you could use the term "elected state offi-
cers" to mean the same thing.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Yes, of
course.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you desire such
modification?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objec-
tion to modifying the report of the com-
mittee on line 1, on page 3, to insert the
word "state" before the word officers and
to strike all of line 2?
Delegate Winslow.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Is that not
possibly a matter of substance?
Could "an officer of the State of Mary-
land", could that possibly be intended to
include more than just "State officials"?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: It is Dele-
gate Gallagher.
THE PRESIDENT: Sorry.
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I presume
you are addressing me with respect to 9.08.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
whether or not in lines 1 and 2 on page 3
the expression that has been modified to
read "elected officers of the State of Mary-
land" is intended to mean "elected state
officers", or whether it could include elected
officers in the State who are not officers of
the State but of a county, for instance.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Presi-
dent, I believe it was the intention of our
Committee and Mrs. Miller, the principal
sponsor of this, that it would apply to
elected state officers rather than all officers
who happen to be elected in the State of
Maryland.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: In that case
I would accept the proposal of Delegate
Gill.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Is there any objection to modifying the
recommendation of the Committee by in-
serting the word "state" before officers in
line 1 and striking all of line 2?
|
