|
and on that point I certainly agree with
his interpretation of the law, and certainly
agree that Mr. Hanson pointed out the
significant differences in the reapportion-
ment cases.
The courts have struck down cases as
unconstitutional, and there was a void, and
if the void had not been filled by legisla-
tive action as a temporary expedient, un-
der the equity powers, the court could have
acted. That is a far different thing from
suggesting that a court of this State can
force a legislature to pass a particular law
in order to carry out a platitude or state-
ment of policy or aspiration; to suggest
the latter would be a dangerous thing, in-
deed.
I think if we fail all along the line, if we
do not come out with a decent judiciary,
local government, or legislative, article, but
yet go home having trimmed our constitu-
tion, modernized it, and eliminated some of
the platitudes that permeate it, at least we
will have done something. But I think if we
admit at this stage that this type of pro-
vision has an appropriate place in our con-
stitution we are opening the doors to the
ones that stand back of it.
There is one on the very next page, pro-
tection for consumer information, and a
good argument could be made that the city
voters are entitled to have that statement
of policy placed in the constitution, an argu-
ment that could stand on equally firm
ground with the argument of the conserva-
tionists.
Next week the farmers will be in here
with a statement of policy for the protec-
tion of agricultural land. We have seen
others-coming in with a statement of an
economic bill of rights. For goodness sakes,
we are drafting a constitution, not laying
out the principles of the new social order.
And no matter how enlightened and noble
those aspirations may be, whether they be
as noble as those of St. Augustine's CITY
OF GOD OR Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW
WORLD, they have no place in the Consti-
tution. Please keep them out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman, it
seems to me that there is one thing that
maybe Delegate Scanlan has overlooked. In
putting in "The General Assembly shall,
provide by law," et cetera, I think this
|
makes it a little simpler for the General
Assembly to retain and have the power to
enact local legislation regarding conserva-
tion; and there are so many sections of the
State that will require more or less local
legislation in reference to conservation, for
example, because of the difference in the
duck season within one section of the State
and another.
America in miniature is so different that
I think the conservation of natural re-
sources has to be protected by the General
Assembly, rather than parcelled out. Some
of the local government people may be able
to tell me whether or not my thinking on
this is correct.
In addition, Delegate Hardwicke's sug-
gestion, and I am certainly sympathetic
with him, that it shall be the policy of the
state government seems to me to broaden
the power to include even the judiciary,
which appears most of the time to be part
of the state government. It seems to me
the Hardwicke amendment would give them
more power than they now have; so I speak
in favor of the Committee's Recommenda-
tion, and urge everyone to support it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Gleason, do you desire to op-
pose the amendment?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chair-
man, I have concern that the pending
amendment to the Committee report would
have just the reverse effect that the dele-
gate envisages for it, because if this power
is granted to the State, it seems to me
that any citizen can go into a court with
an injunctive process and challenge any
action of any board or any agency of the
State government if such a law did not
meet the criteria established within the
proposed amendment.
I see, frankly, nothing wrong with the
Committee amendment in this respect.
Delegate Scanlan has pointed out that
there is in the existing Constitution a pro-
vision that the General Assembly shall pass
laws necessary for the preservation of the
purity of elections. I do not know, and I
do not think he does, whether the Corrupt
Practices Law relates to that basic power,
but we are dealing here, unlike in the fed-
eral Constitution, with basic values within
a state, whereas in the federal Constitution,
although the Congress has the power to do
a lot of things, it is not mandated to do
certain things.
|
