Title: In Re Opinion of the Supreme Court

State: south-dakota

Issuer: South Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

209 N.W.2d 668 (1973) In re OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT, Relative to Section 52 of Executive Order 73-1. No. 11320. Supreme Court of South Dakota. July 20, 1973. *669 TO HIS EXCELLENCY, RICHARD F. KNEIP, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA: Your letter of July 2, 1973, requests an opinion of the Supreme Court "upon important questions of law involved in the exercise of my executive powers as Governor, and upon matters which I deem to be of utmost `solemn occasion.'" This opinion will outline in broad terms the contents of your letter. At the general election of November 7, 1972, Article IV, § 8 of the Constitution was amended to read in part: Pursuant thereto, you timely submitted Executive Order 73-1 reorganizing the structure of the Executive branch to be effective July 1, 1973, to the Forty-Eighth Session of the Legislature. See e. g. In Re Opinion of the Justices, S.D., 203 N.W.2d 526. The Order included the following: No resolution was introduced into, or approved by, either House. This indicated the Legislature's intent to permit Executive Order 73-1 to become effective and have force of law pursuant to Article IV, § 8 of our Constitution. Though the Legislature amended Executive Order 73-1 with respect to other matters and departments, the House of Representatives defeated House Bill 893 which would have had the effect of returning the Office of the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs to the Office of the Attorney General. You further state that the Attorney General on June 25, 1973, issued an official opinion to the acting Commissioner of the Office of Consumer Affairs in which he advised that that office could not be removed from the Attorney General's Office by such an Executive Order. Your letter then continues: Article V, § 5, of the Constitution of South Dakota now provides: As this is substantially the same as § 13 of Article V of the predecessor Constitution, prior opinions under it are pertinent. After referring to this provision as "unusual", the court wrote: Our first task is to determine under those guidelines whether your inquiry comes within the purview of the Constitution as to the exercise of your executive power. The Governor's request for an opinion was answered in Opinion of the Judges, 61 S.D. 107, 246 N.W. 295, for the reason that it was the Governor's duty as chief executive to recommend to the Legislature enactment of such measures as he deemed expedient. See also In Re Opinion of Supreme Court, S.D., 204 N.W.2d 184, which includes with approval a quotation from that opinion and was the basis upon which the questions there propounded were answered. Having executed and submitted *671 Executive Order 73-1 to the Legislature you have performed that duty. If a Commissioner of Consumer Affairs or other officers have been appointed under that Order and other persons are assuming to act as such under appointment of the Attorney General, their rights can be expeditiously determined in some adversary proceeding. See In Re Opinion of the Judges, 85 S.D. 390, 182 N.W.2d 849. We also conclude that, while the matter is understandably of serious concern to your office, the circumstances giving rise to your inquiry cannot properly be deemed a solemn occasion within the meaning of Article V, § 5 of the Constitution. For these reasons the Court most respectfully declines to answer your inquiry. All the Justices concur.