BLAIR LEE III, Acting Governor                        3099

Brawner v. Supervisors, 141 Md. 586, 595 (1922).

Accordingly, we are unable to approve House Bill 70 as
to constitutionality for the reason that it constitutes an
impermissible attempt to delegate the lawmaking function in
contravention of the requirement that laws be made by a
majority of both Houses of the General Assembly, subject to
the veto power of the Governor.2

Very truly yours,
Francis Bill Burch
Attorney General

In our view, the authority which this measure would
vest in the AELR Committee also is substantially
different from that which Transportation Article,
§8-610 vests in local delegations with respect to the
inclusion of items in the 20 year highway needs study;
for, unlike the instant measure, approval under Section
8-610 is merely a preliminary decision which does not
directly affect private property rights and in which
the General Assembly must concur through the budget
process. Similarly, the authority vested in the Joint
Legislative Committee on Metropolitan Mass Transit
under Art. 40, §107 is simply to review plans and make
recommendations to the General Assembly.

We observe, without deciding, that there also may well
be substantial due process and equal protection
problems with the approach of this bill; for, there is
a wide [and perhaps constitutionally significant]
difference between exercise of the police power in
accordance with a comprehensive zoning plan, which
imposes mutual restraints and confers mutual benefits
on property owners, and arbitrary permission to A and
prohibition to B to use their own property, at the
pleasure of neighbors or at the whim of legislative or
administrative agencies." Benner v. Tribbit, 190 Md. 6,
20 (1948).

House Bill No. 89 - Circuit Breaker - Qualification
for Benefits

AN ACT concerning

Circuit Breaker - Qualification for Benefits