JUDGE ADKINS: May I ask a question?
Is the compact theory of government still the
generally accepted philosophy of government
under which we are operating? It has been
pretty well repudiated.
Is the philosophy that a government is a
compact among people current? I realize that
it was well ingrained in our political philoso-
phies at the time this document was written.
I am querying if it is now the modern con-
cept. I do not know, I am asking professors on
the other side of the room.
DR. MICHENER: (In response to a ques-
tion by Professor Asper.) I think the compact
theory of government is not accepted now.
DR. BURDETTE: The compact theory of
the origins of government has been largely
discredited on the grounds that nobody could
find the compact. It is significant that this
Constitution is a compact between the people
of Maryland and those elected to represent us.
This supports the second clause which says
that the people, adequately represented as a
totality, have a right to alter the government
in such a manner as they deem expedient.
This wording does not deal with violent revo-
lution. I favor Mr. Case's basic position that
the traditional language can be preserved to
great purpose, but that it can be tightened in
places. I think that it is valuable to preserve
the right to disagree with state government.
DR. WINSLOW: Article 1 of the present
Declaration of Rights does not say "peaceable
revolution." It says "abolish their form of
government in such manner as they may
deem expedient." Article 1 says that we may
take up our arms and upset the government
and set up a new State. I doubt if we believe
this or sanction it any longer.
MRS. FREEDLANDER: People tend to
get emotional about the Bill of Rights. We
should stick to a consistent policy; namely,
include things that are enforceable, brief and
expressive of consistent thinking.
35 3 proceedings of the maryland
constitutional convention commission
1966, Meeting of August 21, 1966, at 117 ff
(unpublished papers of the Commission in
enoch pratt free library, university of
maryland library, maryland state li-
brary, johns hopkins university li-
brary).
|
MR. GENTRY: In Section 1, the Com-
mittee on Elective Franchise and Declaration
of Rights departed from the approach of an
enforceable Declaration of Rights. We pro-
vide everything that is in Article 1 of the pres-
ent Declaration, except for the right of revo-
lution which we did not want to recommend.
MR. CLAGETT: The philosophy of gov-
ernment has changed from the day of the 1867
Constitution. Certainly, now the attitude of
all people should be peaceful, rather than
violent. On the basis of your reading, is
reconciliation between the historic and modern
approach possible?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is possible
in some instances to incorporate ideas from
both more than is done in this draft. On the
other hand, Mr. Case's motion to substitute
Article 1 of Section 1 raises the question of
whether the Declaration should contain a
recital of the right of revolution by forcible
means, as opposed to governmental change by
constitutional means. In this case, the ideas
of the proposed section and the existing one
are wholly irreconcilable.
MR. CASE: I am advocating primarily the
language of the 1867 document, not the phi-
losophy.
If my motion loses, I would move that the
philosophy of Section 1 be accepted by the
Commission but that the section be returned
to the Committee to be rephrased in the lan-
guage of the present Declaration of Rights as
much as possible.
The Chairman suggested that the motion be
amended to refer Section 1 back to the Com-
mittee to include the substance of Articles 1
and 6 without provisions for violent over-
throw. Mr. Scanlan added: "and include
as much of the original language as possible."
Mr. Case accepted the amendments.
MR. GENTRY: Some of this beautiful
language in the Maryland Constitution is not
unique, but appears verbatim in other constitu-
tions. The Committee felt that it was not
peculiarly the language that the Maryland
forefathers developed, but a justification of
the Revolution of 1776.
MR. SCANLAN: I am against Mr. Case's
motion because I think the exhortation should
be in a preamble, rather than in the first
section.
13
|
