Hostetter amendment, if that is in order.
My reasons are these: As to the proposal,
to make it baldly, anything which the legis-
lature says is non-suspendable could not be
suspended. The proposition we voted down
was the substance of the amendment, the
previous amendment to number 6. That
was voted down by a much larger vote than
the Hostetter amendment itself. So really,
that means we have already considered
that change. I suggest that we are de-
voting far too much time to what seems
to me to be a rather inconsequential matter.
1 greatly prefer leaving to the legisla-
ture the ability to declare the emergency
at any time for the reasons that have been
so ably pointed out by Judge Sherbow.
I also deplore the use of the words "spe-
cial legislation." This phrase, "emergency
law necessary for the preservation," and
so forth, has been construed by the courts
many times. They have a pretty definite
meaning. I suggest that we cannot go
wrong. It does leave some latitude to the
courts to possibly review legislation along
that ground, which I think is not a bad
thing. But in the main, it seems to me that
this Hostetter amendment puts us back on
the right track.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question arises,
in the absence of further discussion and
further requests to be heard, upon the
adoption of amendment no. 6 to Commit-
tee Recommendation S&E-1.
I point out to Delegate Hanson that he
can follow the suggestion of Delegate
Scanlan and offer his amendment at an
appropriate time.
All in favor of the motion in amendment
no. 6 say Aye; opposed, No. The Ayes
seem to have it.
In the absence of request for a roll call—
roll call is requested.
Has everyone registered his vote? The
Clerk will record the roll.
This being a very flexible group, the
amendment is adopted.
Would Delegate Powers approach the
rostrum? I want to explore the possibili-
ties of terminating the proceedings at this
point.
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: We will attempt to
take a recess at 6:00 P.M. The Chair will
ask, is there any further amendment to
section 2? |
If there are no further amendments to
section 2, we will go to section 3.
I am wrong. The Chair is confused for
a moment.
Are there any further amendments to
section 3? Are there any further amend-
ments to section 3, the one we have been
discussing?
If there are no amendments, we will
proceed to the next section, number 4. Are
there any amendments to section 4?
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Amendment
No. 1, introduced by Mrs. Bothe and myself
the other day, was divided. The first part
of it referred to section 1. That part of the
amendment was voted upon and rejected by
a vote of 54 to 56.
The second part of our amendment is
found on pages 4 and 5 in which we rec-
ommend that on page 2 the Committee of
the Whole strike all of lines 15 through 25.
In short, we recommend that section 4 be
stricken. I believe this part of the amend-
ment was properly divided and therefore
I think it would be in order now.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there copies of
this amendment? There is some question
about the form of it. I am advised by the
parliamentarian at the time it was pre-
sented there was not a division in the ques-
tion adopted.
The language in section 4 on page 2,
striking out all of lines 15 through 25 were
stricken from the parliamentarian's copy,
which indicates it was just submitted really
on the single question.
Does everyone have a copy of this amend-
ment?
Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man, I suppose to bring this to the house I
appeal from the ruling of the Chair. It is
certainly my recollection when the amend-
ment was offered it was divided and we
voted on that part of the amendment which
is in lines 1 and 2 of Amendment No. 1.
1 appeal from the ruling of the Chair
that Amendment No. I was not divided and
that the amendment proposed on lines 4 and
5 of Amendment No. 1 are not before the
house.
THE CHAIRMAN: You want to go to
a vote on the ruling of the Chair? |
