BLAIR LEE III, Acting Governor

3159

Assembly; rather, we lock for a specific prohibition against
such an enactment, and finding none we accord the measure a
presumption of constitutionality. Consequently, where, as
here, we find persuasive reasons for at least doubting that
the measure violates either the separation of powers mandate
or any other provision of the Constitution, "the necessary
and proper clause can [amply] authorize a given method of
obtaining a desired result," and the underlying authority of
the General Assembly will be presumed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we advise that, although
House Bill 619 poses several significant and close questions
of constitutional law, it is not clearly unconstitutional.
On the contrary, we are persuaded that there are substantial
arguments in favor of such legislation, however unwise as a
matter of policy it arguably might be.

Very truly yours,
Francis Bill Burch
Attorney General

George A. Nilson
Deputy Attorney General

Judson P. Garrett, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General

FOOTNOTES

1    This statutory committee exists by virtue of Code,
Article 40, §40A. Its present authority and its
history are discussed at 62 Op. Atty. Gen. ____(1977)

(Rules Service Edition No. 77-10). See also, Sachs,

The Joint Legislative Committee On Administrative,

Executive and Legislative Review (AELR): Its Past,
Procedures and Proposals for Reform, legislative Study
Group, Inc. (February 1, 1977).

2    See, Bosivert, A legislative Tool For Supervision of
Administrative Agencies: The English Laying System, 25
Ford. L. Rev. 638 (1956-57).

3    "The actual form of the veto can vary greatly depending
on the way in which three sets of variables are
combined. First, the wielder of the device can vary.
The veto can be-and has been—vested in the whole
Congress, in one House of Congress, in the committees,
and even in a committee chairman. Second the manner in