Opinion ID: 2168838
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Enactment and Presentment

Text: When examining enactment and presentment, it is important to recognize the reasons that the Enactment and Presentment Clauses of the United States Constitution were key to Chadha. Chadha depended on the separation of powers doctrineby using the legislative veto to alter individual rights other than by legislation, the legislative branch was stepping outside its prescribed powers. Id. at 957-958, 103 S.Ct. 2764. However, the federal constitution, unlike our state constitution, contains no express Separation of Powers Clause. The separation of powers argument was reached by making reference to federal precedent, and by noting the checks and balances that the federal constitution does explicitly impose. Id. Presumably, because Michigan's Constitution does expressly provide for a separation of powers between branches, the result in Chadha could be reached without reference to bicameralism or presentment even though Chadha explains how enactment, presentment, and bicameralism are directly linked to the separation of powers doctrine. Id. at 946, 103 S.Ct. 2764. If we are to analogize the present case to Chadha, then we must carefully consider Chadha's presentment and enactment arguments. The lead opinion concludes that JCAR review involves policy determinations akin to those at issue in Chadha. Op. at 536-537. Yet, I find that the lead opinion misses the mark. The question is not simply whether the Legislature is engaged in making policy determinations, but whether the Legislature is engaged in making the type of policy determinations that need to be made in the form of legislation. The analysis of the lead opinion is tied to its misconception that any legislative action taken by a subset of the Legislature is legislation. I disagree for the reasons stated in part III of this opinion. [11] In my view, the action taken by the DOC was more akin to legislation than is the JCAR review process. Because this Court has already decided that agency rulemaking does not constitute impermissible legislation as long as necessary guidelines are followed, I would further conclude that review of agency rules as part of the promulgation process is similarly not legislation. Therefore, JCAR review does not violate the Enactment and Presentment Clauses of our constitution.