first section, bears the same relationship
to the rest of the Article.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I do not know
that the issue under the present Constitu-
tion was ever posed in the context raised
by Judge Sybert. Judge Sybert's point was,
as I gather in his question to me that you
vested the full legislative power in the
legislature. Now if you think the refer-
endum power of the people also should be
protected, you should vest the full refer-
endum power; but for instance, if in the
legislative article we had vested what pur-
ported to be the legislative power of the
legislature, and then enumerated certain
powers that they had, the question would
be raised whether indeed they had more
powers.
I think that the section can only be
wrongful if it is ever cast in the future.
In other words, in the future a situation
could arise, not covered by sections 2
through 6, and the question would be, un-
der section I, is this the power that the
people have, that the legislature cannot
deal with, that nobody else can deal with?
I just think it is necessary. If the refer-
endum power that you want to vest, the
referendum power that you want to pro-
vide for, are the sections or the powers
and limitations set forth in sections 2
through 6, then I think to be on the safe
side, aside from the unnecessary aspect of
it, you should delete Section 1.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot, do
you desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
DELEGATE CHABOT: I would also
like to ask Delegate Scanlan a question if
I may.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think we will have
to give the floor to someone speaking in
opposition first. Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
Speaker, members of the Convention, inas-
much as all of the power resides in the
people, and inasmuch as they are making
specific grants and they have granted
the legislative function to the legislative
branch, I think that any reservation of
power should be clearly expressed in the
constitution as a right. It might have be-
longed in the Declaration of Rights, but
we have always seen fit to carry it in the
referendum provisions.
There may be some merit to what Dele-
gate Scanlan says, but I will say this: that
it could be easily rectified by putting a
comma after the word "referendum" in- |
stead of the period, and adding the words,
"as in this article set forth". Then the
subsequent paragraph becomes definitive
and describes the powers reserved to the
people, and I do not think that there could
be any doubt but that the power there is
clearly reserved and as set forth in the
article.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan,
do you now yield to a question from Dele-
gate Chabot?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Of course.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Weide-
meyer stated affirmatively what I was going
to ask in the form of a question as to
whether or not that language would satisfy
the substantive point that had been raised
by Delegate Scanlan.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I am not quite
sure of the language that Delegate Weide-
meyer had in mind. I think it would be
less objectionable than the section as it is
now, but again I do not think it would an-
swer my argument that it is truly un-
necessary. If what you really intend to be
the referendum provisions of the Consti-
tution exclusively are those that follow in
sections 2 through 6, if your answer to
that is Yes, section I is still unnecessary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson,
do you rise in opposition or in favor?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I would
like to ask a question of Delegate Scanlan,
if I may.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan,
do you yield to a question?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Yes, your
Honor.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Is it not
true that there is an historic reason for
the inclusion of this language? As I under-
stand it, this referendum provision, which
started up sometime prior to 1915 and has
rather swept the country, was a qualifica-
tion of the accepted age-old principle that
the legislature had plenary power and that
having delegated that power, the people
had to abide by it. What I have also is the
decision holding that the legislature itself
could not make its action contingent upon
a referendum; that it had to act Yea or
Nay on a proposition put up to it. Is it not |
