Opinion ID: 1364850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Separation-of-Powers Mandate

Text: Judicial invasion into the legislature's managerial prerogative to allocate subjects within a bill offends the separation-of-powers doctrine enjoined on this government by Art. 4, § 1, Okl. Const. [43] No department of government may possess directly or indirectly an overruling influence over the others. [44] Each branch has a right to manage itself free from the intrusion of the others. The fairly-debatable standard of review gives due and proper deference to the legislature's managerial prerogative  a by-product of its constitutional liberty to govern itself. Although each branch of government is not hermetically sealed from one another, [t]he hydraulic pressure inherent within each of the separate Branches to exceed the outer limits of its power, even to accomplish desirable objectives, must be resisted.  [45] Courts should not be drawn into the political process and into interparty disputes on issues of policy unless there is a clear constitutional violation. [46] The germaneness test is neither explicitly nor implicitly mandated by § 56 or by any other constitutional provision; neither is it a test to which this court has previously committed itself. The teachings in Rupe v. Shaw [47] are consistent with the view I espouse today and vary from that of the court. I would counsel that if the allocation of subjects within a bill presents a fairly debatable issue, the court should abstain from judicial intervention. E.