|
fresh water. Any legislative dealing with
natural resources is very difficult to get
passed.
We have a Department of Natural Re-
sources which works with other conserva-
tionists in the State, and they say, our
hands are tied. We cannot make them act.
I oppose this amendment. I think the
Committee report is a good one. It man-
dates the General Assembly to act, and I
hope that everyone in this room, in the
many years in the future, will be able to
breathe clean air and drink fresh water;
this is our goal. This is legislation in the
field of natural resources. It is lobbied very
heavily in the General Assembly. The Bu-
reau of Natural Resources' hands are tied
unless there is a mandate in this Consti-
tution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Chair-
man, and members of the Committee of the
Whole, my proposal certainly was not in-
tended to have a negative effect upon the
conservation policy of the State. My prob-
lem with the Committee report was that
it is simply not workable, and those of us
who favor natural resources legislation,
and consider the thing very seriously, just
simply could not vote for amending the
constitution for the legislature to act any
time on legislation. It is my purpose in
proposing the amendment to make some-
thing palatable and to do what I see would
be accomplished by the committee report.
I take it from remarks of delegates such
as Delegate Scanlan that they are opposed
both to the policy statement that I have
proposed in my amendment and they are
opposed to the statement of the committee
report, because they consider both of them
to have the same effect.
Frankly, I would like to say that I have
no objection whatsoever to exhortatory
language in our constitution, and I hope
when the time comes to consider other ex-
hortatory language that we will give con-
sideration to it not on the basis that it is
exhortatory or not exhortatory, but on the
basis of the language in the case.
I hope we will not set out here an anti-
septic constitution which will be so sterile,
which will consist of such meaningless and
|
dried, hard, legal phrases that it will make
such dull reading that nobody will look at
it.
I do not object to exhortatory language
in the constitution. It has a good effect,
sets guidelines. If you cannot put exhorta-
tory language in the constitution, I sub-
mit there is no place for it whatsoever. A
constitution is an exhortatory instrument.
Let me say this, that I do not really care
what happens to the amendment insofar as
conservation is concerned. I would like to
see some conservation provision in our
constitution. It seems to me that this is a
palatable way to have it, but there is noth-
ing magic in the amendment and there may
be other ideas which will be good.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Commit-
tee of the Whole would like me to take note
of the fact that Delegate Miller is out of
the hospital and back with us, and to say
to him we are delighted to have him with
us again.
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Does Delegate Pul-
len desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
DELEGATE PULLEN: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes you.
DELEGATE PULLEN: If I follow the
logic underlying this amendment, then I
see no reason but to write nine-tenths of
what we are reading. Exhortatory language
is not bad if we read the preamble of the
Constitution of the United States. We the
people of the United States, in order to
form a more perfect union, establish jus-
tice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general
welfare" — think of what Roosevelt did un-
der that — "and secure the blessings of lib-
erty to ourselves and our posterity, do or-
dain and establish a Constitution of the
United States."
In my opinion, it is my opinion that the
position of a Constitutional Convention is
mandatory upon the legislature.
I should like Delegate Hardwicke to tell
me, and I ask this in all sincerity, under
what legalistic or constitutional provision
did the federal court substitute its judg-
ment for that of the legislature in regard
to reapportionment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke,
do you desire to respond to the question?
|
