|
lature could provide for "other courts not
inconsistent with the unified judicial court
system", but we decided that that perhaps
was not very good constitutional drafts-
manship and we abandoned it.
So our amendment in effect will say that
the word "exclusively" should be deleted
from section 5.01 and we should add to that
section "and other courts that may be pro-
vided by law."
As indicated in the Minority Report, the
reason for this is to permit the legislature
to create whatever additional special courts
future needs may call for. We had various
proposals asking us to set up other con-
stitutional courts such as a tax court and
a court of claims; I do not believe we had
a proposal on labor courts of that nature.
In my opinion, the majority felt that by
inserting the language we would prefer to
see in the constitution it would destroy the
unified court system. We are confident this
is not the case. I have already indicated to
you it is not our intention. The reason we
are certain this would not be the case is
because sections 5.09 dealing with the
jurisdiction of the district courts and sec-
tion 5.07 dealing with the jurisdiction of
the Superior Courts specifically provide
that the jurisdiction in those two levels
shall be uniform through the State.
We submit it is absolutely impossible to
destroy this uniformity inasmuch as it is
already provided for in the constitution.
Together with that, may I add that cer-
tainly one of the most venerated documents
in this nation is our U. S. Constitution. We
all recognize also this document has served
ably as a model for numerous other consti-
tutions.
The veneration of the minority in this
particular point is not due to the fact that
this outline of government was framed by
a body of both dedicated and able men, but
rather because it has served admirably as
a framework for a responsible government.
The fact that only 25 amendments have
been added to it in over a century and
three-quarters indicates full well the flexi-
bility of the document. An important factor
in keeping this in mind is seldom does the
Constitution absolutely prohibit this action.
The organization of the judicial branch
is indicative of that. Only one court is
specifically authorized by the U. S. Consti-
tution. I believe Delegate Chabot com-
mented upon this. This of course leaves the
Congress the task of filling out the judicial
system for the nation.
|
The minority, as we indicated previously,
is not at all unhappy with the idea of a
four-tier court system and on the contrary,
may I reiterate we indeed support it. One
may argue quite logically that this has of-
fered great flexibility for the state ju-
diciary but are we absolutely certain that
this system will be sufficiently flexible to
handle the future needs of the judicial
branch.
Our amendment will allow for modifica-
tions in the court organization without en-
dangering the idea of a unified system.
The overwhelming majority of state
constitutions currently in force provide for
the creation by law of varying kinds of
courts. One may also argue that a few
states limit this authority, I believe less
than four.
Quite frankly, even a couple of constitu-
tions prohibit the creation of any new
courts. I believe that that occurs in only
two constitutions.
The weight of precedents is on our side.
It seems we should be concerned here with
the principle of flexibility rather than just
rely on the majority of what other states
enforce. It is on this principle of flexibility
that we wish to remove from our constitu-
tion the limitation of judicial powers to
only those courts named in the document.
Mr. Chairman, that is essentially, to-
gether with the Minority Report, my re-
marks on section 5.01.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the minority spokesman with re-
spect to section 5.01 to section 5.11? If not,
Delegate Bradshaw.
DELEGATE BRADSHAW: I would like
to ask Delegate Johnson whether or not
his proposal would permit continuation of
the present system of appointing magis-
trates and judges of lower courts.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: To that I will
answer absolutely not. If we are going to
have a unified district court, which I be-
lieve we all understand to be the lowest
court, on the lowest level, this would seem
to me to clearly do away with the magis-
trate court system as we have it today. In
other words, in the minority view it would
be impossible, I submit, unconstitutional,
to provide for a major straight type court
in some small county and not provide for
it in another county. We do not think this
can be done when you have a unified ju-
dicial system.
In other words, if your district court sys-
|
