STATE OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1947
COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AMENDMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Tuesday, July 22, 19471 These minutes were prepared by the Secretary of the Committee. (Morning session)
(The session began at 11:00 A. M.)
PRESENT: Carey, Delaney, Ferry, Glass, Katzenbach, Park, Pursel, Randolph, Schenk, Stanger and Taylor.
Chairman John F. Schenk presided.
The ninth meeting of the Committee on Rights, Privileges, Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions was held in Room No. 5 of the Music Building.
The minutes of the fifth meeting, morning session, were approved as submitted.
The Chairman announced that Mr. Winston Paul, Mrs. Myra Hacker, and Mr. Frank G. Schlosser desired to be heard.
Mr. Paul stated:
“Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I want to discuss the amending process and the 20-year periodic referendum. I have one or two thoughts of adjustment or possible compromise which might be helpful to you.
I shall discuss the amending process first. I want to quote from a statement that Mr. Randolph made at the 1844 Convention: ‘The only way we can meet objections which can be made to our Constitution is to see that we have made a Constitution by compromise and concession and we have left you an easy and fair way of amending it.’
The great desirability in a Constitution is a reasonable degree of flexibility. I would like to quote Mr. Hendrickson: ‘Since the people are ultimate sanction over the change in fundamental law, the procedure which proceeds their action should be made as simple as possible.’
I would also like to read excerpts of Mr. Eli Chiney’s conclusions from the Proceedings before the New Jersey Joint Legislative Committee in 1942:
‘The proposed two-thirds requirement seems to have little justification other than the Commission’s desire to prevent “thoughtless submission” of amendments. The evidence would seem to indicate that the number of votes cast has little to do with the earnestness and thoroughness with which amendments are considered by the Legislature.
‘It seems unfortunate that the Commission committed itself to a proposal with such an insubstantial basis in fact. Surrounding the amending process with certain procedural safeguards, such as compulsory public hearings, could probably achieve the desire thoughtful consideration without sacrificing constitutional flexibility.
‘The two-thirds requirement is the only procedural safeguard, against thoughtless submission of amendments, suggested by the Commission. Two-
Previous Page in Book | Table of Contents | Next Page in Book