|
deviation which does not impair the object
of the constitutional language set aside and
caused to be declared invalid and otherwise
valid enactment of the General Assembly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I would
address a question to the Chairman of the
Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher,
do you yield to a question?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man, in the sentence on lines 15 to 17, I
may have misunderstood you but that sen-
tence reads, "A vote in joint session, or by
either house on any bill or resolution, or
for -the election or confirmation of any state
office shall be taken only in public session,"
and did I understand you to say that it is
the recommendation of the Committee that
that be mandatory and that there be literal
compliance with it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: If I did not
say it be mandatory and that there should
be a literal compliance, I should have said
because it was the intention of the Com-
mittee that the vote in public session be
literally complied with. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Are we establish-
ing a new legal concept, mandatory, sub-
stantial compliance?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: To the best
of our ability we are establishing a con-
cept, and if it is new, so be it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
just let me say in defense of the Commit-
tee's action here, that this action was taken
to eliminate one of the arguments that Sen-
ator James has raised consistently with re-
spect to the Eastland case.
Now, if that situation should occur again,
where through some oversight of some
clerk, beyond the control of the legislative
body's legislative leaders that would not
invalidate the legislation. We assume this
is what he was after. We think this is the
best solution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the Committee Chairman?
|
If not, we will proceed with debate on
Amendment No. 20.
Does any Delegate desire to speak in
favor of the amendment?
Delegate Barrick.
DELEGATE BARRICK: Mr. Chairman,
it seems to me that this is a very unusual
procedure to write in a Constitution.
I do not profess to be an expert in con-
stitutional writing, but this, to me, is get-
ting almost to the point where it is ridicu-
lous. I quite frankly cannot follow every-
thing Chairman Gallagher has said, and in
order to vote intelligently on this, it seems
to me we would have to have a copy of this
in order to determine what these various
sections will mean.
I suggest that we support Senator James'
motion and take this sentence out of para-
graph 3.17, and thereby solve all these
problems.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: I wish to speak in
opposition to the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE GILL: I think two of the
main reasons we are all down here are
first, to strengthen the legislature itself,
and second, to make democracy a great de-
mocracy closer to the people and one way
to bring it closer to the people is to let
them have a part in it. So often, when
major committees decide whether or not to
allow a piece of legislation to come out of
committee, favorably or unfavorably, no-
body knows who voted for what. People
concerned are not visible, they are not re-
sponsible. The people who are interested in
whatever the issue is have no way of going
to their elected representatives and present-
ing their point of view and trying to get
support for it, and it is not until it comes
on the floor, if it does get to the floor, that
they have a chance to work for that legis-
lation.
If they knew ahead of time who was vot-
ing for it or against it, they would be able
to contact them in advance and try to work
for it.
I think that is one reason why so many
people are not interested in what is going
on in the legislature, because the action of
those who vote for or against the bills is
secret.
|
