3162                                                   VETOES

77-1900); the Attorney General of Connecticut has
rendered no opinion thereon and has taken no position
thereon in litigation which presently is pending at the
trial level; the Attorney General of Michigan has
expressed the opinion that the legislature may not,
except by the enactment of a law, validly suspend the
operation of a rule or regulation; the Attorney General
of South Carolina has expressed the opinion that the
General Assembly may disapprove rules or regulations
only by means of an act or a joint resolution having
the effect of law; and the Attorney General of
Wisconsin has twice expressed the view that the
Legislature lacks the constitutional ability to empower
a committee to void an administrative rule.

11 On March 4, 1971, a member of this office informally
advised the Chairman of the House Constitutional 6
Administrative Law Committee that then House Bill 517,
which would have authorized the AELR Committee to
disapprove or amend a proposed rule or regulation, was
unconstitutional because it: (1) contravened the
separation of powers mandate; (2) attempted to delegate
the authority to legislate to a body of legislators
which was less than a majority of both houses; and (3)
constituted a delegation of authority unsupported by a
standard sufficient for its reasonable exercise.

15   See, Atkins v. U.S., supra; Clark v. Valeo, 559 F. 2d,
(D.C. Cir. 1977) (en banc), aff'd mem. sub nom. Clark
V. Kimmitt, 97 S. Ct. 2667; Buckley v. Valeo, infra;
Opinion of the Justices, 266 A.2d 832 (N.H. 1970) ;
Opinions of the Justices 83 A. 2d 738 (1950); Watrous v.
Golden Chamber of Commerce, 218 P. 2d 198 (Colo. 1950) ;
People v. Tremaine, 168 N.E. 817 (N.Y 1929). See also,
Jay v. Boyd, 351 O.S. 345, 351 (1956) (in which a
"legislative veto" provision of the Immunity and
Nationality Act of 1952 is discussed, although not at
issue); Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952) (in
which a concurrent form of the veto was referred to,
although not at issue); and Morgan v. Tenn. Valley
Authority, 115 F. 2d 990, 993 (6th Cir. 1942), cert,
den. 312 U.S. 701 (1941) (in which the court suggested
doubts about the constitutionality of a legislative
veto provision).

16   Atkins v. U.S., supra, 556 F.2d at 1057-1071 (in which
the court sustained the "one—house veto" provision of
the Federal Salary Act of 1976).

17   See, Code, art. 40, §40A(g) (AELR Committee approval of
emergency administrative rules); § 107 (Joint
Legislative Committee on Metropolitan Mass Transit's
review and approval of plans for the future development
or extension of the rapid rail system in Baltimore;
art. 41, §15B (AELR Committee approval of certain