clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 639   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
[Nov. 10] DEBATES 639
the Committee, it seems to me, the way it
stands, is as good as this amendment might
provide.
I should point out to the members of the
Committee of the Whole that even if the
90-30-30 is fully used, if that should be the
case, that the General Assembly itself
could, by a three-fifths vote, even before it
went home at the end of the second 30 days,
provide for a special session beginning on
the 15I day.
I think that because of that, it is really
not necessary to add this particular amend-
ment, because it would seem to me that all
this would do would be to provide that
somewhere down the line, either I, 2, 3 or 4
years from the time it was enacted, or
acted under, there would be an extension
of the 90 days, whereas the same thing can
be accomplished, either by the Speaker of
the House or the President of the Senate
acting under the proposed committee ma-
jority recommendation, or three-fifths mem-
bers of the house doing the same thing. I
do not really see that the amendment as
has been suggested here does very much
at all, and as a matter of fact, it has a
little bit too much of the crystal ball gazing
aspects to it, it seems to me, to be of any
real significant value; and therefore, I
would oppose it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I wish
to ask the Chairman of the Committee a
question, if he would yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Which Committee?
Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Delegate
Gallagher.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher,
do you yield for a question?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
Chairman, would it be possible for one
legislature in the closing days of its ses-
sion, feeling that the public would not ap-
prove of its actions, and very few of them
would come back, would it be possible un-
der those circumstances for that legislature
to say that the next legislature could come
in and do the job in 20 or 30 days, and be
bound by it under this amendment?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Well, un-
der this amendment, it is true that the
first meeting period could be anything less
than 90 days or anything more than 90
days, but since the amendment does not
seek to take out the two additional 30 day
extension periods as contained in the ma-
jority recommendation, I think you would
have to assume that the majority could ex-
tend 30 days beyond your theoretical initial
20, and three-fifths could extend an addi-
tional 30 days, and then in reality three-
fifths could extend into a special session.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: This
amendment as drawn provides for an in-
crease or a decrease in the 90 day session,
and the question I asked was whether one
legislature, feeling it would never come
back, could impose the succeeding legisla-
ture with a 20 or 30 day session, have it
imposed by law pursuant to the constitu-
tion, and bind the subsequent legislature.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, it
could reduce the initial 90 day meeting
period down to one day if it so wanted, but
then that General Assembly can act under
the two 30-day extensions that I referred
to in the majority report, which this amend-
ment does not seek to eliminate and could
convene itself into special session for 250
days, if it so desired.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
it seems to me that what is being over-
looked by reference to the special session
being able to take care of the situation is
the degree of disruption that results when
a special session is imposed upon the dele-
gates. By the plan that has been suggested
by Delegate Carson, there is a degree of
permanence by way of planning and pro-
viding for allocation of time by the dele-
gates.
It is quite obvious that what he is try-
ing to do here is to anticipate the growing
need over a period of time in the future
for a change in the 90-day session, and by
this approach the legislative act which pro-
vides for the change would then be one
which would be known to those candidates
who were running for election at that elec-
tion.
This has many of the virtues of flexi-


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 639   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives