procedure. It has become a word and
nothing more, and the definition has been
ignored. I think that if you will reflect
upon the fact that after 100 years this
Convention had to be called into being by
an emergency law, which could not wait
an additional thirty or forty days before
going into effect, and which could not be
suspended because of the urgent need for
a Convention at this moment, and not a
few months later, I think you will see that
the word "emergency" had lost all of its
meaning.
Objection had been raised last Friday
with regard to the use of the word "spe-
cial". I am suggesting the use of another
word, which should not result in any of
the objections that had been raised to the
use of the word "special".
I am suggesting that we require the
General Assembly simply to say that when
they have determined that a law shall not
be suspendable by a petition for referen-
dum, that they say so in language that the
public and all the members of the General
Assembly can understand, but they simply
say this law shall not be suspendable.
This amendment would accept the other
suggestions that are implicitly embodied in
Delegate Hostetter's amendment, that is,
it would require that this be stated in a
separate section in the law, so that it could
not be buried in the middle of an other-
wise lengthy paragraph and go unnoticed.
It accepts the recommendation of Dele-
gate Hostetter that it is not necessary that
this statement be made at the introduction
of the law; simply that it appear in the
law at some time before it has been passed
by a three-fifths vote of either House. In
this manner, once again it follows the pro-
visions of the present Constitution. Conse-
quently, the effect of adopting this amend-
ment would be to follow through the pres-
ent salutary procedural requirements of
the present Constitution, except to elimi-
nate the, what I have termed, Mickey
Mouse and potentially misleading term
"emergency", and substituting I think a
far more straightforward term, "nonsus-
pendable".
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
niges Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President and members of the Convention,
I rise to oppose the Amendment No. 6, be-
cause the Amendment No. I to Amendment
No. 6 in my mind is a perfectly useless |
amendment, to corrupt a very good amend-
ment, No. 6, introduced by Delegate Hostet-
ter. I am sorry the proponent of this
amendment to the amendment looks upon
the Maryland public as having lived with
this language for so many years and not
having understood it. However, I believe
that all the members of the legislature
have understood this language.
I do not think the Court of Appeals has
been deluded and I do not think the public
of Maryland has been deluded by the deci-
sions of the Court of Appeals, nor have
they been deluded by the actions of the
legislature.
In four years' experience in the House,
I would say that there is not a member of
the legislature who does not clearly under-
stand what the words "emergency legisla-
tion" on the head of a bill mean, and also
what the concluding paragraph of any piece
of emergency legislation means. It means
that it is emergency legislation and not
susceptible to immediate suspending. You
can take it out on referendum but the law
stays in effect until the public has voted
on it.
That is what the interpretation means.
It has meant that for years.
Now we come along and abandon this
language and for the sake of a few words
in the constitution, we come up with a new
word, "nonsuspendable".
I would say this, Mr. President, this new
word "nonsuspendable" did not originate
in Anne Arundel County; it could only have
come from Montgomery County.
Mr. President, I say that when we de-
part from the known verbiage and inter-
pretive verbiage of our present Constitu-
tion to get the same result, I say we are
stepping into deep water and into a sea
of trouble, and therefore I would urge you
to defeat this amendment to the amend-
ment and eventually to go for Delegate
Hostetter's Amendment No. 6.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
wish to speak for the amendment?
Is there any further discussion?
(There was no response.)
The question arises upon the adoption
of the amendment to the amendment. All
in favor say Aye; opposed, No. The Noes
seem to have it.
Now the question arises upon the adop-
tion of Amendment No. 6, as presented by
Delegate Hostetter. |
