is to see that the laws of the state are
executed or enforced. It seems quite anom-
alous to me that we designate him as the
commander-in-chief and then state that
the General Assembly by law may provide
some diminution of this power. For ex-
ample, as I understand the amendment, if
the Governor called out the militia, the
General Assembly might designate the
mayor of a city, or sheriff or county com-
missioner as a civilian, to control the mili-
tia when it is used. In effect this would
countermand or in some way diminish the
chain of command or line of authority of
the governor.
I submit that if we strike out this con-
cept, we are really putting in an illusory
promise that we have created for the
people of the state a militia for their pro-
tection and for the enforcement of the
laws. In effect we are saying that a militia
may or may not be created and if it is, the
governor, as chief executive, really may or
may not have direct command and author-
ity.
It would put the governor in a very em-
barrassing position, I submit, to call out
the militia and, then, perhaps to have this
power diminished by act of the General
Assembly to the point where others might
be giving orders ostensibly under his direc-
tion.
For that reason, I think it fitting that
we do standardize and streamline the chain
of command which we have had for many
years and continue it in the governor. Let
us not put something in the Constitution
that presents somewhat of a placebo to the
public in thinking we still have a militia
under the Governor's control. For that rea-
son, Mr. Chairman, 1 oppose the amend-
ment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion? Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I do not
disagree with Delegate Wheatley that the
governor be commander-in-chief; the sec-
ond sentence of the amendment says he
shall be commander-in-chief. There is only
one chief, only one commander-in-chief,
and nothing the legislature can do can
either make anybody else commander-in-
chief or a commander-in-chief less than a
commander-in-chief.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, it was my understanding that in re-
sponse to the question of Delegate Boyer,
the record indicates that the mover of the |
amendment suggested that the legislature
by enactment might provide alternative
means of control of the militia. If I am in-
correct in that, I would like at this time to
have the maker of the amendment restate
his answer. I thought 1 heard it quite
clearly, and to my mind it did not indicate
a straight line of control from the gover-
nor on down nor would it preclude the
legislature from providing alternative
means for control once the governor, as
commander-in-chief, had called out the mi-
litia.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
(There was no response,)
Are you ready for the question? Dele-
gate Clarke?
DELEGATE E. CLARKE: I rise in op-
position.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry. I should say
E. J. Clarke. You may proceed.
DELEGATE E. CLARKE: I rise in op-
position to the amendment for reasons
stated by Delegate Wheatley. I would like
to add that the testimony by General Gel-
ston indicated there was a situation where
the authority of the governor could be
challenged. This is why we put it in to
emphasize it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 3 to Committee Recom-
mendation GP-I.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of the
amendment. A vote No is a vote against
the amendment. All those in favor, signify
by saying Aye; contrary, No. The Noes
have it. It is so ordered. The motion is lost.
Delegate Chabot, there has been a series
of amendments prepared and passed to the
Chair. They have already been numbered.
I will recognize you when we reach the
amendment that bears your name. The
Chair recognizes Delegate Bamberger for
the purpose of presenting Amendment No.
4.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger. |
