The question immediately at hand,
however, remains without solution. Al-
though Section 15 of the Ober Law is
viewed as necessary for the implementa-
tion of Article XV, Section 11 of the
Maryland Constitution,13 is the latter
(constitutional) provision necessary in
order to sustain the constitutionality of
the former (statutory) provision? On this
specific point the court in Shub v. Simp-
son is not clear.14
means of redress are ineffectual, the People
may, and of right ought, to reform the old
or establish a new Government ; the doctrine
of non-resistance against arbitrary power
and oppression is absurd, slavish and de-
structive of the good and happiness of
mankind."
One might assert that even an affidavit
of qualification for office would offend the
above-quoted constitutional declaration.
13 196 Md. 177, at 190 (1950).
14 Professor Sanford Rosen of the University
of Maryland School of Law is of a similar
opinion (that the court's disposition of the
particular question is not clear).
|
CONCLUSION
Since the court in Shub v. Simpson
relied so heavily upon an equation of the
purposes of Article XV, Section 1 1 of
the Maryland Constitution, and Section
15 of the Ober Law, the implication
exists that the two are interdependent.
However, the court also stressed the
theory that the Ober oath is not an oath
at all, but rather an "affidavit of quali-
fication for office." Under this view, the
Ober Law standing alone (without Ar-
ticle XV, Section 11) would not contra-
vene Article 37 of the Declaration of
Rights.
There has been no relevant ruling by
the attorney general.15 As yet, the ques-
tion continues to compel, but lacks, a
definitive answer.
15 Robert C. Murphy, Deputy Attorney
General, has "no difficulty" in resolving the
question: the Ober Law can stand on its own
strength and does not need the support of
Article XV, Section 11 of the Maryland
Constitution.
327
|
