|
it would provide a greater degree of flexi-
bility for future power that might be de-
sirable in the commissioners. Obviously
flexibility is a worthwhile objective and cer-
tainly the Committee could recommend, and
we could have adopted, a provision that
would simply establish the Court of Ap-
peals and such other courts as the legisla-
ture might wish to enact. Having to pass
that pinnacle of flexibility, we are now
faced with every second on reaching some
sort of compromise between flexibility on
one hand and reasonable restriction on the
other.
It occurred to me in this case that if the
commissioner is given the total power or
possibility of total power, this 'amendment
would have his office become the dumping
spot for every undesirable function of the
district court. We would be faced not with
a four-tier system of courts, but a five-tier
in which the commissioner becomes all the
things he is under the Committee Recom-
mendation plus all those things which the
district courts usually give him in terms
of master or terms of other specialty func-
tions which he should not have and which
I feel he should be restricted from having.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: I have an inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any dele-
gate who desires to speak in favor first?
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Chair-
man, I desire to speak in favor of the
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: It seems
to me when we voted a moment ago to
cause these commissioners to be appointed
by the court that implicit in our decision
was the fact that we were going to get
better people in this job.
If we are going to get better people in
the job, then the amendment is in order
because people who are saying these com-
missioners have been poor in the past or
magistrates have been poor in the past are
not speaking to the new concept of the
commissioner, who will be court-appointed.
Furthermore, the powers will be accord-
ing to the amendment as prescribed by rule.
In other words, one individual judge is not
|
going to be able to extend this power. It
will be done by rules of court. Consequently,
it seems to me that that gives ample pro-
tection.
One further point. We are trying to
write a timeless constitution. The limita-
tions of warrants for arrest, collateral, in-
carceration, these concepts will keep our
constitution from being timeless and we
will have to amend the constitution with
this kind of language in it from time to
time.
So I urge you ladies and gentlemen, if
we are creating an improvement here, then
why not permit the persons who will occupy
this office to perform fully as the times
will demand over the coming generations?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Storm to post a question
to Delegate Mudd if he will yield.
DELEGATE MUDD: I yield, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Chairman Mudd,
who may prescribe by rule if this amend-
ment is adopted?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: The Court of Ap-
peals.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Am I correct
then in assuming only the Court of Ap-
peals may prescribe this by rule?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, consistent
with section 5.31 of our recommendations.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I want
to speak against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second.
Does any other delegate desire to speak
in favor?
Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Mr. Chair-
man, it would seem to me that the least we
can do this afternoon is be consistent. We
have consistently said that the authority
ought to be given to the Court of Appeals
to do this, to do that, on the highest levels
|
