Constitutional Convention (Monday, March 29, 2004)
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
Rep. DeMacedo said I rise to make a point that this amendment would have been one thing, but the reality is there is a further amendment that precludes anything else from coming forth. That was the Travglini-Finneran amendment. But I believe ultimately they knew our amendment would not be heard. You may say that is fair, but everyone here knows we have been precluded from offering our amendment. The only thing that has the votes is to separate the amendment, but we are not going to get there.
Sen. Melconian said I support the ruling of the chair. I ask for your support, no matter what your positions. We saw the mad scramble where members rushed the rostrum to offer amendments. It was chaos. The clerk simply accepted the amendments. And a yes vote here would create a terrible precedent for conventions to come. This is a contentious and emotional debate. No one can say they have not had an opportunity to have their views heard and debated. No one has been fairer than Sen. Travaglini. He has brought dignity and respect to these deliberations. I ask you to vote yes.
Rep. Murphy said I hope the decision stands. The issue is one of procedure and politics -procedure because some members are not happy with your ruling because they do not like the amendment. I commend Rep. Grafton for going to the instant replay. But we should get on with the orders of the day.
Sen. Tarr said I as well hope the ruling prevails. We have conducted ourselves with decorum and I hope we do not open this floor to pandemonium. This debate is not deserving of races to the rostrum. We should accept the rules of procedure.Time for debate expired. Sen. Travaglini said a yes vote supports the ruling; a no vote would overturn.RULING AFFIRMED ON ROLL CALL VOTE, 143-48
Rep. Peterson said this amendment is not properly before this convention. Under the spirit of previous rulings, this further amendment is not in order.
Sen. Travaglini said the chair and the clerk specifically accepted the amendments at the same time. There was no in appropriate action by the chair or clerk to influence the action we are presently involved in.
Rep. Jones doubted the ruling and Rep. Peterson seconded the motion.
Rep. Peterson said I am trying to get this straight in my head. Amendments were filed and accepted by the Senate clerk and no one had seen those amendments.
Sen. Rosenberg said he could not hear the speaker. Sen. Travaglini asked members to take their conversations outside.
Rep. Peterson said amendments were filed and the clerk received them. Almost simultaneously, you had to have read the underlying amendments to properly file further amendments. The amendments filed on the floor that day were not allowed to be viewed publicly until the Thursday after – so how could you file a further amendment? How are they properly before this convention? How could you file a further to something you have seen yet? It doesn’t make sense. I urge the members to overturn the decision of the chair.
«Previous Page · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 · Next Page»