|
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
DELEGATE BOYER: Mr. Chairman, I
have already previously indicated our oppo-
sition to the amendment. We feel that this,
as a suggested amendment, would make the
entire section meaningless. It is perfectly
obvious now that the General Assembly
may do this. We want to make it obligatory,
mandatory, and have this Convention indi-
cate its intent that the General Assembly
shall do it.
I think the one thing I do like about the
amendment is that it is very concrete, suc-
cinct, very clear, and changes only one
word. I think everyone understands it. I
sincerely hope that we could expeditiously
and currently vote on this now.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Henderson?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Mr. Chair-
man, I have listened with great interest to
the discussion here this morning. I have
been a conservationist all my life, and I
have the greatest sympathy with the ob-
jectives to be obtained, but I have been
very much concerned by the discussion,
which seems to suggest that by using the
word "shall" in this amendment it would
open, or it would require or permit any tax-
payer who is disgruntled or does not think
the legislature has gone far enough, to
take the matter into court. If that sort of
thing is permitted, and I know of no pre-
cedent for it in this field, certainly in this
State or anywhere else, that the court can
compel the legislature to act, I think it
would open a Pandora's box. It would vio-
late fundamental principles.
I find no support in the reapportionment
cases for anything like this and therefore,
ladies and gentlemen of the Convention, I
urge that this amendment changing "shall"
to "may", which leaves it permissive with
the legislature, but still states an objective
in which some people are interested, pre-
vail.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Burdette to speak in opposi-
tion to the amendment.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Mr. Chair-
man, I really should like to ask a question
of Delegate Adkins, which flows to —
THE CHAIRMAN: You are not in order
at this point, if that is your purpose. I will
recognize you in a moment.
|
Delegate Gleason, do you desire to speak
in opposition to the amendment?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
we are losing sight of what we are doing
here. If this amendment is adopted, then I
have to suggest that the whole provision
has absolutely no place in the Constitu-
tion, because it is basic that the General
Assembly already has plenary power to
carry out and pass legislation in this field.
I might just suggest to Judge Henderson
that it is also basic court history that no
person can go in and mandate a legisla-
ture. The essential purpose of the commit-
tee proposal as I understand it is that the
waste of our natural resources has become
a problem of such significance, not only in
Maryland but around the country, that the
Constitution of Maryland, the new Consti-
tution, should place a positive mandate on
the legislature to do something about it.
If the legislature decides not to do some-
thing about it, the only recourse is to the
voters of the State, and that is the issue.
I hope this amendment is defeated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins, do
you yield to a question from Delegate Bur-
dette?
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Yes, sir. I
tried to see if I could not answer it pri-
vately but I could not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: I should
like to deal on the record with a problem
which perhaps appears in both the Adkins
amendment and in the Committee position.
If we were to read these proposals in the
light of another proposal not yet on mo-
tion, but before us, that counties have
powers not denied to them, is there any in-
tent, Delegate Adkins, in your motion to
make this an exclusive legislative power,
or may this question still be left to later
determination as to whether or not it is
legislative power or a concurrent power?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: I should think
it was concurrent. All my amendment pur-
ports to do is to indicate that if there is
question, as there seems to be, about the
right of state government to act in this
area, this provision clearly permits it to so
act.
|
