necessary, therefore, in view of the history
of the thing, to reserve the power and take
it back from the legislature somewhere in
this constitution?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Judge Hen-
derson's historical summary is quite accu-
rate, but if you have a legislature of ple-
nary powers, unless something is specified
in the Constitution regarding the refer-
endum, there would be no such power. We
propose or hopefully we propose in sections
2 through 6 to vest the power of refer-
endum and to set it forth in all of its par-
ticulars with all its limitations. If that is
true, it is unnecessary to say that some-
thing further is reserved in the people, un-
less we want to indeed reserve something
further in the people that is not covered in
sections 2 through 6.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition? Dele-
gate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
my opposition will be phrased somewhat
in the form of a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom is the
question addressed?
DELEGATE HANSON: To Delegate
Scanlan.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will have to see
if someone wants to speak in opposition?
Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, the reasoning stated by Delegate
Weidemeyer was an exact reflection of the
Committee's action. It was designed to
state the power of reservation. First of
all, there is a definition of that power. I
would suggest that as it stands, it looks
quite well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, Delegate Scan-
lan, do you yield to a question from Dele-
gate Hanson?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Of course.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson,
state your question.
DELEGATE HANSON: In light of
what Delegate Henderson just said a few
minutes ago, if we do not reserve the power
of referendum to the people, would the case
not be in spite of what is said in sections
2 through 6 that the General Assembly
might under its plenary power have the
ability to enact legislation and to refer
that legislation to the people? |
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: No. I believe
Judge Henderson gave you the answer to
that when he cited the decision in this case
and said the legislature would not have the
power to refer back to the people the power
that had been delegated to it. I think his
answer to that is accurate, and my answer
to that would be no.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition? Delegate
Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,
would it be in order at this time to pre-
sent a perfecting amendment to the Com-
mittee Report, to add the word "referen-
dum" on line 1I, the words "as set forth
in this article"?
THE CHAIRMAN: You would have to
treat it as an amendment, and I would like
to find out where the amendment is.
The amendment is still not here. It will
be here. Is your perfecting amendment to
section I one that we can treat without
having it written? Would you state what
it is, Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: It would add on
line 1I, after the word "referendum", ", as
set forth in this article"; and then the
period would came after the word "article".
I submitted it to Dr. Phillips just a min-
ute or two ago. I am sure that it will not
be ready for a little while.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objec-
tion to considering the perfecting amend-
ment, even though it is not printed at the
moment? In the absence of objection, the
Chair will entertain a motion to perfect
the original question, section I, by adding
after the word "referendum" and before
the period in line 1I the words "as herein-
after set forth in this article". Is that your
language?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Except for the
word "hereinafter"; just, "as set forth in
this Article".
THE CHAIRMAN: The words "as set
forth in this Article". Is there a second to
that amendment?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Seconded.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: With some re-
luctance in the interim I would with-
draw my amendment and accept Delegate
Chabot's amendment, despite the fact that |
