|
then each article successively, and then
each schedule successively for the purpose
of final reading. The third reading will
have been completed. The various articles
will no longer be open to amendment. You
will only have final voting and then debate
if anyone desires to debate.
Questions have been asked as to division
of the question and as pointed out hereto-
fore, under Convention Rule 51, a division
of the question may be called for. A call
for a division of the question is not a mo-
tion, nor is it submitted to a vote of the
Convention. The Chair rules on the question
of division, either allows the division or
refuses to allow the division. At that time,
whichever way the ruling of the Chair is,
there may be an appeal from the Chair. I
call to your attention that it is not a mo-
tion. You do not move for a division. You
simply request a division.
Rule 51 is very precise as to the circum-
stances under which division may be al-
lowed. We have followed that rule in allow-
ing or not allowing divisions throughout
the Convention, and we will continue to
follow the same practice now.
However, it is important that you have
in mind the precise terms of that rule and
the basis for any ruling by the Chair on
the matter of division. The application of
the same principles is one thing in consid-
ering an amendment to a section, for in-
stance, and quite another in considering a
division called for on the final reading.
Rule 51 provides that any question upon
request of any delegate may be divided,
provided, but only provided, that each part
of the question when divided presents a
matter of substance, that is, may stand
alone.
To illustrate the application of the rule,
let us suppose that Article 1 is under con-
sideration. We have concluded the business
of amendment. We are on the stage of final
voting and a division is called for by, let
us say, a request that section 3.05, any sec-
tion, be divided from the remainder of the
article. The test applied by the Chair and
the test which you must apply in determin-
ing whether the division will or will not be
allowed is simple.
If in the situation which I have supposed,
namely, when Article 3 is being voted on
finally, a division is called for as to one
section, say, section 3.03. The test applied
by the Chair in determining whether the
division is proper is this: If the question is
divided, section 3.03 would be voted on
separately and then the entire remainder
|
of Article 3 would be voted on. One must
ask himself what would happen if either
failed and if section 3.03 were adopted and
the entire remainder of the article were not
adopted so that the entire Article 3 would
then consist of section 3.03, would it make
sense?
If it would not, then the division is not
proper. On the other hand, if section 3.03
failed of adoption and the entire remainder
of the article were adopted, would it make
sense? If not, the division is improper. The
important thing to keep in mind is that
this is a simultaneous test. You must deter-
mine that whichever way the voting, what
is left will in the language of the rule pre-
sent a matter of substance. In other words,
it will make sense.
Now, this is relatively simple in the case
of one amendment to one section because
all you are considering is whether or not a
particular section standing alone would
make sense with or without the amendment.
It is quite a different question now because
you are considering the section in the con-
text of the entire article and of the entire
constitution.
We no longer have the situation that if
any article fails, the corresponding article
of the previous constitution would remain
in effect because section 10.02 provides that
upon the effective date of this constitution,
July 1, 1968, the preceding Constitution
ceases to have effect and, therefore, we
apply the test in the light of this document
alone. That would mean, to come back to
my illustration, that if we had one section
on which a division was called for that
provided how members of the General As-
sembly were to be elected, the Chair would
have to rule that it was not divisible. If it
alone were adopted and the remaining por-
tions of Article 3 were not, there would be
no provision for a General Assembly. How-
ever, you would have a provision for elec-
tion of legislators to a non-existing Gen-
eral Assembly. This would not make sense.
The net result is that on such examina-
tion of the entire constitution, as the Chair
has been able to give, I do not think it is
possible to have a division of any section
from any article with the possible excep-
tion of some sections in Article 1, possibly
some in Article 10, possibly some in the
schedule of transitional provisions, and
some in the schedule of legislation.
This is important because its means that
if you desire to present separately some
question as to a particular section, your
only real opportunity to do so is when the
|
