|
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of the
Amendment No. 3 to strike the word ex-
clusively. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote. There
being 44 votes in the affirmative and 73 in
the negative, the motion is lost. The amend-
is rejected.
Is there any other amendment to section
5.01?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any amend-
ment to section 5.03?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any amend-
ment to section 5.04?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any amend-
ment to section 5.05?
Delegate Singer.
DELEGATE SINGER: Excuse me, Mr.
President. There was an amendment to
5.03 being prepared. I do not know whether
it is ready yet.
THE CHAIRMAN: Has it been printed?
DELEGATE SINGER: I do not know
that, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has not yet been
printed.
We will proceed and come back to section
5.03.
The Chair heard no amendment to sec-
tion 5.05, is that correct?
Section 5.06. There is an amendment pro-
posed by Delegate Bamberger, is that right?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: The pages will
please distribute the amendment. This will
be Amendment No. 4.
I am sorry. Since there is an amend-
ment to be offered to 5.03, please mark that
Amendment No. 5.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 5
to Committee Recommendation JB-1, by
|
Delegate Bamberger: On page 2 Section
5.06 titled Composition of Intermediate Ap-
pellate Court in line 39 strike out the
words "as prescribed by rule".
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment
seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was duly
seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment hav-
ing been seconded, the Chair recognizes
Delegate Bamberger to speak for the
amendment.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Section
5.06 authorizes the General Assembly to
establish the number of judges, five but
not less than five or more judges who will
sit on the intermediate appellate court. The
General Assembly may decide there may be
six or eight or any number of judges in
excess of five.
The next section, 5.06, does not give the
General Assembly, but gives only the high-
est court, the Court of Appeals, the power
to say, we have six judges there. They need
not all six sit together in any one case. The
business of that court is such that they
ought to divide into panels, let's say, of
three, and the constitution or the proposed
section 5.06 does say that the panels, the
divisions of the court, should be not less
than three.
The purpose of the amendment is to give
also, not exclusively, but to give also to the
General Assembly the right to say when it
establishes the number of judges that these
judges shall sit in panels.
I am concerned that the General Assem-
bly might say there ought to be nine judges
in order to take care of the business of the
court, but if all nine sat together they
would never take care of that business.
They would take care of that business if
they sat in panels of three so that in effect
you really would have three courts, pos-
sibly three panels of three operating at any
one time.
The amendment accomplishes this by
striking out those words on line 39 in sec- '
tion 5.06 which say that the Court of Ap-
peals not the intermediate appellate court, .
but the highest court can by its rule set
up the panel. Then, as I understand it, the
last section of the Committee's proposal,
which is section 5.31, would be operative
in that it says "except as to matters spe-
cifically provided to be taken care of by
rule". Then both the Court of Appeals and
the General Assembly would have the
|
