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 391   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
[Nov. 6] DEBATES 391
mission of Baltimore City, members of the
County Liquor Board, and members of the
Board of County Commissioners of the
County.
All of these have been determined either
by the attorney general or by the Court of
Appeals to be offices of profit or trust. I
thought that this might help in answering
Delegate Sickles' question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any
further questions for purposes of clarifica-
tion?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would
like to make two comments with respect to
this before we leave this period. I have not
had the opportunity to read the majority
opinion in the Whitehill case carefully. I
think it is evident from the concluding
portion of the opinion that the Supreme
Court has not held that a statute similar
to the Ober Law is necessarily unconstitu-
tional, but has held that the statute as
drawn does not meet the constitutional
test; and in referring to the necessity of
having, and I quote, "narrowly drawn
legislation", has apparently left the door
open for a statute similar, but perhaps
more clearly stated than the present Ober
Law.
The second comment is really a question
addressed to the Chairman of the Commit-
tee on General Provisions for purposes of
clarification. Do I understand, Delegate
Boyer, from your earlier comment that the
last sentence in lines 22 and 23 is not in-
tended to forbid the enactment of a statute
similar to the Ober Law, at least if the
affirmation required under such a law is
similar to that in the present law, which
the Court of Appeals has held is not an
oath?
DELEGATE BOYER: The Chairman
has correctly identified and interpreted
that sentence. This does not intend to com-
pletely prohibit any further statutory legis-
lation of a declaration. This would only
eliminate the requirement for any addi-
tional oath or affirmation, as opposed to a
declaration.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions for purposes of clarification?
(There was no response.)
If not, we will proceed to a consideration
of the Committee Recommendation GP-2.
In further answer to Delegate Rybczyn-
ski's question of a few moments ago, I have
had handed to me just now, a copy of the
provisions of the Constitutions of 1776,
1851, 1864 and 1867 with respect to oath.
That is, just the section which requires an
oath. A very quick look at each one of
them indicates that none of the oath sec-
tions has made reference to a Deity. I
would be glad to send this to you, Dele-
gate Rybczynski, so you may look at it
more carefully.
The question arises on the approval of
Committee Recommendation No. GP-2. Are
there any amendments? Delegate Rybczyn-
ski?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr.
Chairman, I have ordered an amendment,
and I understand that it was in the works
or was being printed approximately fifteen
minutes ago. It will be a very short thing,
and I can describe it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a type-
written copy available?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I do not
think so. No, sir. The answer is no.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that
the amendment is being printed. In view
of the fact that the rule adopted a few
days ago requires that the amendment be
on the desk before it can be considered, I
will ask the Committee of the Whole to
wait just a few moments, and we will find
out just how quickly it will be here.
While we are waiting for that, may I
take the opportunity to again urge the
delegates who are contemplating the prepa-
ration of minority reports that you please
do so just as quickly as possible. Do not
wait for the printing of the report of the
committee or the recommendation of the
committee or the supporting memorandum.
It poses considerable problems for the
print shop to get out the recommendations
of minority reports when they all go to the
print shop at the same time. This means
that somebody has to establish priorities,
and this is sometimes difficult to do. So
please cooperate by getting them in and
getting them in promptly.
Let me also say that if you have mi-
nori'ty reports or similar memoranda to be
circulated, and they are ready in the eve-
ning, and you do not find anyone in the
Clerk's office, that my office will be open.
Somebody will be there until quite late
every evening. Leave them there. I can see
that they get to the print shop very early
in the morning.
Committee Recommendation JB-I is now
being distributed.


 
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 391   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives