DELEGATE CHABOT: I would prefer
to leave the Style and Drafting Committee
any problems along that line. I think that
the question and answer that I engaged
in with Delegate Scanlan a moment ago
clarifies, and I hope clearly limits our in-
tention as to the possible application of
this set of sections.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant, for
what purpose do you arise?
DELEGATE GRANT: I rise for a point
of parliamentary inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE GRANT: I would like to
know what the extent of the authority of
the Style and Drafting Committee will be
to revise this particular article, in view of
the many remarks that have been made this
afternoon about changes making it coordi-
nate with other articles. It appears to me
that until we know what authority and
what freedom they will have in redoing
this article, it would probably make a great
deal of difference how many amendments
we can take up this afternoon.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair make
two comments in response to that inquiry.
The first is that the Committee on Style,
Drafting and Arrangement has no power
to change any language adopted by the
Convention on second reading. They have
power only to recommend changes, so that
any further changes which are made must
be changes adopted by the Convention on
recommendation of the Committees on
Style, Drafting and Arrangement or in
opposition to their recommendation.
In addition to that, however, the Com-
mittee on Style, Drafting and Arrange-
ment confines itself to matters of style,
form, and arrangement. It does not make
any substantive changes, accept, or suggest
any substantive changes, except to suggest
to the Convention situations which they
may notice in which the Convention has
taken conflicting positions on different sec-
tions.
It is therefore of the utmost importance
that the Convention's intention on substan-
tive matters, or the intention of the Com-
mittee of the Whole on substantive matters
be entirely clear on the record. Does that
answer your inquiry? Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I have one fur-
ther point of inquiry: Where it was sug-
gested that several of these items would be
more satisfactorily the subject of legisla-
tion rather than constitutional provisions, |
would the Committee on Style and Draft-
ing have the authority to recommend to
this Committee of the Whole that the pro-
visions not be included in the constitution?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is very
difficult to answer that in general terms.
There are situations in which they could
make such a recommendation, if the inten-
tion of the Committee of the Whole were
clear. I would not want to say the universal
answer would be yes. Are there any further
questions? Delegate Pullen. For what pur-
pose does Delegate Pullen rise?
DELEGATE PULLEN: A point of in-
quiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: State your inquiry.
DELEGATE PULLEN: I do not know
who would answer this, but does this
amendment guarantee the power of refer-
endum to local communities, counties and
cities in respect to local laws?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ask
Delegate Koss to respond to this question,
and the Chair would like to point out that
the answer here is very important because
it may be the guiding criteria for the Com-
mittee on Style. If I could elaborate on the
question, I would like to ask Delegate Koss
to indicate whether it was the intention of
her Committee in section I, to touch in any
way upon the power of referendum with
respect to local laws, if one assumes the
Convention adopts the Constitution under
which the General Assembly has no power
to pass local laws, and that power is en-
tirely in local government; and, two, this
Convention adopts a Constitution in which
the General Assembly does have power to
pass local laws, jointly with local subdivi-
sions.
DELEGATE KOSS: Mr. Chairman, in
answer to your first question, on the as-
sumption that only public general laws
would be passed, my answer is no. How-
ever, I would at some point, since the per-
fecting amendment was introduced by Mr.
Chabot, appreciate it if you would also
ask him in terms of the language he added.
As far as the second part of the question,
the answer is yes. I am somewhat confused.
We had no intention of limiting the power
of referendum under local instruments of
government, if localities enacted local laws.
If the General Assembly enacted public
local laws at some point when this became
apparent in this body, we would then at-
tack that problem; but under the language
now here, it would not limit local govern-
ments in terms of referenda in their own
instruments of government. |
