|
stance? The implication of the question is
that if it should be determined to be a
matter of substance, then if the amend-
ment is adopted the rule-making power
would not apply, and it can then only be
decided by the General Assembly.
My question is, is it quite clear to the
Committee that this is a matter of prac-
tice and procedure, and not a matter of
substance?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: That would be my
interpretation; it is practice and proce-
dure, not a matter of substance.
DELEGATE DELLA: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Della.
DELEGATE DELLA: Will Delegate
Mudd yield to a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
DELEGATE DELLA: When the Court
of Appeals was increased from five to
seven, did the legislature not state how
many judges should hear a particular case?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I think so, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Della.
DELEGATE DELLA: When the inter-
mediate court was created, did the legis-
lature say how many judges should form
a panel?
THE CHAIRMAN: Could you indicate
more clearly by the legislature saying so?
Do you mean by constitutional amendment?
DELEGATE DELLA: By statute.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure Dele-
gate Mudd understood your prior question.
Would you restate your first question?
DELEGATE DELLA: When the Court
of Appeals was increased from five to
seven, did the legislature not say that there
shall be four judges to hear a case?
DELEGATE MUDD: My recollection,
Delegate Della, is that it is in the Consti-
tution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Della.
DELEGATE DELLA: Did the legisla-
ture not place in the Constitution that four
judges shall hear a case?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: That is in the
Constitution.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Della.
DELEGATE DELLA: That is right, and
the legislature took it upon themselves to
put that figure in the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Well, do you mean
by the legislature, by the drafting of the
constitutional amendment that was
adopted?
DELEGATE DELLA: That is right.
DELEGATE MUDD: Probably so, but
it is a constitutional amendment. It is not
prescribed by law.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Della.
DELEGATE DELLA: If they had that
power then, was that abused?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Certainly not in
my view.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Della.
DELEGATE DELLA: Could it be abused
today if this amendment is adopted?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: The distinction I
get, Delegate Della, is that the constitu-
tional amendment proposed, with language
suggested by the legislature, perhaps, was
adopted with that language in it.
It was not a secondary thought or sub-
sequent amendment by the legislature. It
was part of the constitutional amendment
creating the court, and niot by action of the
legislature, except in initiating the consti-
tutional amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion? Are you ready for the question?
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 5 to Committee Recom-
mendation JB-1 with respect to section
5.06. A vote Aye is a vote in favor of
Amendment No. 5. A vote No is a vote
against.
Has every delegate voted?
Does any delegate desire to change his
vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 85 votes in the affirmative
and 44 in the negative, the motion carries.
The amendment is adopted.
|
