4100

VETOES

rev'd on other grounds, 377 U.S. 656 (1964); State v. Magaha,
182 Md. 122 (1943); Hoke v. Lawson, 175 Md. 246 (1938); Keane v.
State, 164 Md. 685 (1933); Mayor and City of Baltimore v. Foster
& Kleiser, 46 Md. App. 163 (1980).

Thus, the General Assembly does not have the power to
declare its acts or the acts of administrative agencies to be
unconstitutional; rather, this power rests with the judicial
branch. Whittington v. Polk, 1 Har. & J. 236 (1802); Crane v.
Meginnis, 1 Gill & J. 463 (1829). See also Ahlgren v. Cromwell,
179 Md. 243 (1941).

Additionally, the Power of the judiciary to correct
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable actions by the executive
branch is not merely a delegated power; rather it is inherent in
the judicial branch. Therefore, it is well settled that:

"The legislature is without authority to divest
the judicial branch of the government of its inherent
power to review actions of administrative boards shown
to be arbitrary, illegal or capricious, and to impair
personal or property rights; ..." Heaps v. Cobb, 185
Md. 372, 379 (1945).

The General Assembly itself has, in the Administrative Procedure
Act, defined the traditional judicial functions in the context of
the review of administrative rules and regulations. Article 41,
Section 249 provides:

"(a) The validity of any rule may be determined upon
petition for a declaratory judgment thereon addressed to the
circuit court of the particular county either where the
petitioner resides or has his or its principal place of
business, when it appears that the rule, or its threatened
application interferes with or impairs, or threatens to
interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of
the petitioner. The agency shall be made a party to the
proceeding. The declaratory judgment may be rendered
whether or not the petitioner has first requested the agency
to pass upon the validity of the rule in question.

"(b) The court shall declare the rule invalid if it
finds that it violates constitutional provisions or exceeds
the statutory authority of the agency or was adopted without
compliance with statutory rulemaking procedures.

"(c) The provisions of a rule are severable unless
the rule expressly states that its provisions are not
severable. The finding by a court that a provision of a
rule is void or unenforceable does not affect the validity
of any other provisions of the rule unless the court finds
that the remaining valid provisions alone are incomplete and
incapable of being executed in accordance with the
regulatory intent."