|
Now I remind you that perhaps the best
example of the exhortatory statement and
its value is the classic one from the U. S.
Constitution, to which Dr. Pullen referred,
"to secure the blessings of liberty." For
the long way you needed to go, this was
enunciated, and made it clear to the world
that we needed to get there.
Finally, and I think this is my funda-
mental point, because a constitution should
reflect the deep concerns of our times, and
that the 1967 Constitution should give seri-
ous attention to these particular standards.
As an example, I believe that the Constitu-
tion should give attention to the economic
and social requirements of our times, and
herein I disagree strongly with Delegate
Scanlan, I believe that these concerns re-
flect our most deep-seated needs, just as in
the 18th and 19th century, political re-
quirements did.
Perhaps housing as such should not get
into the Constitution, but this document
would indeed be remiss in terms of our
times if it did not concern itself with the
economic well-being of man, or what good
is the ballot without bread and without
the joy of living.
It seems to me that the question, for
whom does this recommendation exist, was
not really answered well, and I am sorry
that it was not. It exists fundamentally
for man; the conservation of resources, the
enhancement of natural beauty, the puri-
fication of our air, is for man's benefit. It
is not for the birds and bees, and I think
unless on this particular recommendation
we make it clear that those of us who are
here shall go beyond political structure as
our sole task, we are going to get into diffi-
culty because we will not reflect the major
differences between the concerns of man
in the last third of the 20th century.
Mr. Chairman, we are living in times
that are demanding, and I mean to crowd
into each moment of life that which is
possible, but I want to get back to my
crescendo point, that conservation exists
fundamentally, as I see it, for man, not
for the bird, and for the beast.
I want to make a special appeal finally
to those who wanted the word "shall".
There will be an amendment to substitute
"may". It may well be that you will be
disappointed with this but the significance
is that this is the beginning, and this
fundamentally is the first of a number of
recommendations that is deeply concerned
with this broad area which I have set
forth, and now may I yield to Delegate
|
Adkins? Is that possible for an amend-
ment?
THE CHAIRMAN. No.
Delegate Boyer, Delegate Bard suggested
a modification in line 8 to change the word
"shall" to "may". I take it from your
earlier presentation that you would be un-
willing to agree to that. Am I correct?
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes, sir. We felt
this would dilute the entire intent of the
Committee and that it should be mandatory
and not optional with the General Assem-
bly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard, do
you have an amendment?
DELEGATE BARD: Delegate Adkins
has.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: I have such an
amendment prepared, on page 1, line 8, to
strike out the word "shall" and insert in
lieu thereof the word "may".
THE CHAIRMAN: We have an amend-
ment. The clerk will read the amendment.
It will be Amendment No. 2.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 2
to Committee Recommendation GP-3, by
Delegate Adkins: On page 1, line 8, strike
out the word "shall" and insert in lieu
thereof "may".
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment
seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was duly
seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Adkins to speak to the
amendment.
DELEGATE ADKINS: I feel, Mr.
Chairman, in some sense in this debate we
have lost sight of the purpose for which we
are here. We are not here to draft a legis-
lative program for the solution of Mary-
land's problems. We are here to structure
a state government which can in turn solve
Maryland's problems.
Mandatory legislation in a constitution
is not wise. I would therefore urge that if
the proponents of this proposal feel that
the policy must be declared to be a state
policy, at least it be left to the orderly
processes of law for that policy to be de-
veloped.
I urge it be made permissive and not
mandatory.
|
