|
1
|
Commission in connection with unicameralism vs. bicameral-
|
|
2
|
ism that it would be a good idea to have alternative
|
|
3
|
possibilities which we would submit to the convention in
|
|
4
|
our working papers and perhaps in the proposal itself.
|
|
5
|
Not only with the nature of the presentation, but what
|
|
6
|
shall be our views concerning what we do with it.
|
|
7
|
Dr. John H. Michener has already turned over to
|
|
8
|
us a statement on the structure of the Maryland Legislature
|
|
9
|
and we may want to go along through this and say to him
|
|
10
|
take as much time as he feels that he would need to make
|
|
11
|
this paper clear.
|
|
12
|
DR. MICHENER: We will start out with the
|
|
13
|
statement that there are a number of claims and arguments
|
|
14
|
in this paper pro and con, and these are largely based on
|
|
15
|
assertions which are not documented by objective facts
|
|
16
|
where they are attested to by documents. They basically
|
|
17
|
rest on value judgment you have to either accept or reject,
|
|
18
|
such as, is there a higher quality legislature that comes.
|
|
19
|
from a unicameralist system. That claim is made, for
|
|
20
|
example, in Nebraska. This gets back to basically value
|
|
21
|
judgment, of what is a higher quality of legislature.
|
