3140

VETOES

the legislative veto [provision presented therein] was

constitutional." Stewart, Constitutionality of the

Legislative Veto, supra, at 595.

Consequently, "the question of legislative review of
Executive and Administrative agency actions is a sweeping
[and constitutionally significant] subject to be treated in

a gingerly fashion..." Clark v. Valeo, 559 F-2d 642, 650

n. 10(D.C. Dir. 1977) aff'd 97 S.Ct. 2667.

I

THE STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The legislative, Executive, and Judiciary are all
creatures of the Constitution, each confined in its action
to the circumscribed sphere assigned it, and cannot
rightfully exercise any power which is repugnant to that
instrument, or not within their respective sphere of
action." Regents v. Williams, 9 G. & J. 365, 410 (1838).
However, since the powers of the General Assembly are not
derived from specific or enumerated constitutional
restraints, "plenary power in the Legislature for all
purposes of civil government is the rule, [and] a
prohibition to exercise a particular power is an exception,
... [which] can be founded only on some constitutional
clause plainly giving rise to it," Leonard v. Earle, 155 Md.
252, 260 (1928), aff'd 279 0. S. 392. Thus, it is now well
settled that, unlike its federal counterpart (which has only
such authority as the federal constitution expressly or by
necessary implication confers upon it, Afroyim v. Rusk, 387
U.S. 253, 257 (1967)), the General Assembly of Maryland,
like the legislatures of virtually all of its sister states,
inherently "possesses all legislative power and authority
except in such instance, and to such extent as the
constitutions of the State and the United States have
imposed limitations and restrictions thereon," Kenneweg v.
Allegany Co. Commissioners, 102 Md. 119, 123 (1905).
Accordingly, an Act of the General Assembly, however unwise
it arguably may be, is presumptively constitutional;
Miedzinski v. Landman, 218 Md. 3 (1958), app. dism'd. 358

U.S. 644; Salisbury__Beauty School v. State Board of

Cosmetology, 268 Md. 32, 48 (1972); Aeromotors v.
Administrator, Motor Vehicles Administration, 27 4 Md. 56 7
(1975); and is not to be declared constitutionally
impermissible "unless it plainly contravenes some provisions
of the Constitution; a reasonable doubt as to its
constitutionality ... [being] sufficient to sustain it,
...," Hennegan v. Geartner, 186 Md. 551, 555 (1945).
Consequently, our analysis must focus upon whether the bill
under review would, if approved, be clearly
unconstitutional. Lane Const. Corp. v. Comptroller of the
Treasury, 228 Md. 90 (1962); Fell v. State, 42 Md. 71
(1875). We conclude that it would not.