|
his time, but we think of this in our Com-
mittee as the Chabot problem, and I think
it got solved by having "at noon". You get
the same result. You get one man out and
the other one in.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: In this particu-
lar case, however, I am afraid that you can-
not use "until his successor qualified" lan-
guage because every time there has been
a redistricting it would be difficult to de-
termine who is the successor of whom, but
in the other situations the "as qualified"
language meets the problem perfectly well.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Presi-
dent, I would like to object belatedly to
changing the title of 3.19. It deals more
specifically with laws. The more important
provisions of 3.19 relate to the bill after it
is enacted, particularly the last part of
that paragraph.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Delegate
Bamberger would be correct if he noted
that the word "bills" is not to be found
in that particular section — excuse me.
THE PRESIDENT: There is an objec-
tion made to the proposed modification. In
the absence of an amendment, we would
have to revert to the style proposed in the
committee report.
Well, we will come to that later, unless
you desire, Delegate Penniman, to suggest,
even though it is a departure from the
usual rule that you use both words.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I have no
objection either way.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: It has been
pointed out, Mr. President and Delegate
Penniman, that section 3.19 does apply to
laws throughout, as you read the section,
perhaps it would be better to go with the
laws the way it originally is.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Any other questions as to Article 3?
The Chair hears none.
Proceed to Article 4.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: In Article 4
we make no change except to add large
type governor and lieutenant governor until
we get to 4.05. This has to do with gover-
nor which will reappear for comptroller
and attorney general. It will take care of
the problem that was raised on the floor by
|
Delegate Chabot. What would we do if we
end up with two governors or two attorneys
general? However, I think we solved the
problem for all of it, "for a term beginning
on the first Wednesday in January follow-
ing his election and ending on the first
Wednesday in January in the fourth year
thereafter", and then the words, "and shall
serve until a person has qualified to be-
come governor or to serve as acting gover-
nor." That will take care of it in each of
the circumstances where it comes up under
executive branch.
On page 13, we have added the subhead-
ing "Gubernatorial Succession". Then there
have been no changes in 4.06, 4.07, 4.08,
until we come to the problem on line 14.
We had a problem here of explaining in
the same manner as described above so as
to take care of for the governor elect and
the lieutenant governor elect the same man-
ner of looking into their disability as for
the governor or for the lieutenant governor
and we used this to refer back in a less
ambiguous manner than we had done it
last time to the procedure already de-
scribed.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently you also
struck the comma at the end of line 1.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Yes, that is
correct.
There are no changes in 4.09 or in 4.10.
In 4.11, you may remember there was
some discussion on the floor involving the
custom of adding first of all the president
of the Senate as acting governor, that was
done by Chairman Morgan, but we were
instructed in the Committee on Style to re-
insert a portion of a sentence which had
been struck and that is the reason for the
reinsertion of the service of the lieutenant
governor and then we speak of their service
as acting governor, not acting as governor,
which I think is more correct.
The new subhead of the legislative re-
sponsibilities of governor, there are no
changes in 4.12 or 4.13 or 4.15 or 4.16.
In 4.17, there was again a question from
the floor saying that it was not clear that
the attorney general should represent the
State in civil cases beyond the cases in the
Court of Appeals or the intermediate court,
so we covered that by saying "shall repre-
sent the State in all civil cases in which the
State is the party." I think that probably
does the job.
There are no further changes to section
4.17.
|
