|
to reject something which is good, that we
used to embrace something which we said
was good, which requires the same kind of
action on the part of the legislature? I
would like Chairman Boyer to explain to
me if he sees a difference between the
"shall" which requires the post-audit, and
the "shall" which requires the state militia,
and the "shall" which requires the General
Assembly to do something about natural
resources? Naturally I shall vote for that
concept.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer, did
you understand the request?
DELEGATE BOYER: As I understand
the request, he is asking me for a diction-
ary definition of the difference between the
words "shall" and "may". I can not an-
swer.
THE CHAIRMAN: He asked you to con-
trast the use of the word in certain other
specific provisions, militia is one.
DELEGATE BOYER: First of all, in
the militia, the wording we adopted was
not "shall"; it was "may."
Secondly, as to the post-audit, I refer
to Judge Sherbow to explain that, since it
came out of his Committee.
As to this, GP-2, to me at least it is
crystal clear that we want in this Con-
vention to speak with a voice that is loud
and clear, that the General Assembly
"shall", obligatorily, mandatorily, provide
for the protection of natural resources. To
take the opposite site of the coin would be
that the General Assembly may do so, and
if this is adopted it appears to me to be
meaningless, because I personally believe
at this time that the General Assembly
may do so.
The adoption of GP-3 as a recommenda-
tion by your General Provisions Committee
is an attempt on behalf of the conserva-
tionists who appeared before us, and I say
again, intensely, immensely interested in
this, that the General Assembly no longer
have the option of what they might do; but
that they shall be required to act; it is a
directive to do so.
I can only answer again by repeating
that we would sincerely hope that we could
vote on this. It is a very clearcut question.
Either you want the General Assembly to
do it, or you want to continue their efforts
that they may do it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
|
The Chair recognizes Delegate Pullen to
speak in opposition.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
you replied that the answer lies in the
ballot.
Now, the public understands very clearly
that there is a difference between "shall"
and "may," and when you say "shall" and
the legislature does not act, they have to
stand up and be counted and explain to the
people why they did not do something.
Let us move away from the legalistic to
the field of practical politics.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
would Chairman Boyer yield for a ques-
tion?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer, do
you yield to a question from Delegate John-
son?
DELEGATE BOYER: I yield gladly.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Chairman
Boyer, because I do not understand fully
how the legislature could pass a law that
would encompass the objectives of this par-
ticular proposal, I am wondering whether
or not your Committee considered the possi-
bility of the General Assembly providing
by law for a general situation to deal with
conservation, enhancement, improvement,
et cetera.
DELEGATE BOYER: I think that this
directive that the General Assembly shall
by law provide, et cetera, certainly indi-
cates our wishes and voice to them to do
so. As to how this is to be done, there must
be trust and faith that the General Assem-
bly, with this directive, shall and will be
compelled, I repeat again, to do something
in this area.
How implementation is to be done, I have
no way of knowing now. My crystal ball
broke down last night. It could possibly be
done through the General Assembly's estab-
lishment of another natural resources board
or an agency or bureau or something, just
as in the post-audit.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner,
do you desire to speak in opposition or in
favor of the amendment?
DELEGATE WILLONER: In favor.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Mr. Chair-
man, it seems that this debate has degener-
|
