Opinion ID: 2394238
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Separation of Powers โ Appointments and Removals

Text: Beasly v. Ridout, 94 Md. 641, 52 A. 61 (1902), was primarily a case where an amendment to the Constitution had given the Legislature the power to take away the operation of jails from the constitutional office of Sheriff. But, when the Legislature acted pursuant to that power, it substituted in the Sheriffs' stead a Board of Visitors who were to be appointed by the Judges of the respective counties. It was this last appointment provision that we held violated the separation of powers provisions of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and Constitution because it imposed a duty on judges to exercise the appointment power over non-judicial appointees. In that case we noted: Officers [Visitors] so appointed [by judges], when once inducted into power, are doubtless regarded as de facto officers, and their official acts upheld pro bono publico. Their title even may be recognized in proceedings against indifferent parties, necessary to the conduct of the office, but we are aware of no case in which the title of officers so appointed has been sustained in a proceeding like the present seeking to oust an incumbent, who but for the Act in question, must be conceded to be the lawful incumbent. The rule of physics is the rule of law, that no stream can rise higher than its source, and an Act which violates a constitutional provision cannot confer valid title upon one whose title is traced to, and must depend upon, the very feature of the Act which renders it obnoxious to that charge. This Court has said . . . that `when the Court is satisfied that the Legislature has exceeded its authority, we should no more falter in denouncing the Act as void, than we should hesitate in deciding the most unimportant matter within our jurisdiction. Beasly, 94 Md. at 660, 52 A. at 66 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). While most of the early cases were either attempts by the Legislature to impose non-judicial duties on judges or to usurp judicial functions, there is also a case involving attempts by the Legislature to confer legislative powers on the Executive Branch. In a case also involving the status of State employees, we held unconstitutional an Act of the Legislature because it conferred power on the Governor to add persons to the merit system that had been created by the Legislature. We said in Ahlgren v. Cromwell, 179 Md. 243, 17 A.2d 134 (1941): What this section does, if valid, is . . . to give the Governor the power to recognize and follow it, or to repeal it at his pleasure; in other words, so far as [the Act] is concerned, grant to the executive power to legislate. It was a legislative act to adopt the provision for the appointment of the watchmen; it requires action by the Legislature to repeal or amend it, and we have not been shown, nor do we find, that this has been done. . . . To enforce [this section of the Act] would be a violation of the Declaration of Rights. Id. at 246-47, 17 A.2d at 136 (citations omitted). Murphy v. Yates, 276 Md. 475, 348 A.2d 837 (1975), has some similarities with one of the specific issues in the case sub judice. Murphy involved the attempt by the Legislature to create the office of State Prosecutor as `an independent unit in the executive branch . . . for administrative purposes only. . . .' Id. at 476, 348 A.2d at 838. The Act required that the Special Prosecutor be nominated by a Commission created by the Act. The Commission would be required to nominate three names and one of those names had to be appointed by the Governor for a fixed term, subject to confirmation by the Senate. The State prosecutor was empowered by the Act to independently investigate alleged violations of certain prescribed laws. Upon the finding by the State Prosecutor of an alleged criminal violation the State's Attorney of the relevant jurisdiction would have 45 days to commence prosecution and if he did not, the State Prosecutor could prosecute. The Commission that was to nominate the State Prosecutor included the Chief Judges of the Court of Appeals, Court of Special Appeals, and the District Court, all ex officio, the President of the Maryland Senate, the Speaker of the House of Delegates and others. The trial court ruled that the provisions requiring the Chief Judges to be ex officio members were unconstitutional, but that some of the remaining sections were constitutional and severable. We were asked, among other issues, to address the constitutionality of having judicial officers participate in the appointment process. Section 10 of Article II, which provides for the Governor's powers of appointment contains similar language to that contained in the section of the Constitution being interpreted in Murphy, supra . Section 10 provides: He [the Governor] shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint all civil and military officers of the State, whose appointment, or election, is not otherwise herein provided for, unless a different mode of appointment be prescribed by the Law creating the office.  (Emphasis added). At the time of the creation of the Public Service Commission, and at the time the current members were appointed, there was no other mode of appointment that was created by the Public Service Commission Act. As previously noted, Section 15 of Article II of the Maryland Constitution provides in relevant part: The Governor . . . may remove for incompetency, or misconduct, all civil officers who received appointment from the Executive for a term of years. It is clear that in the present case the Governor did not remove any of the members of the current Commission for any reason. It is also clear that the Legislature has attempted to exercise by statute that power which the Constitution expressly confers on the Governor. We went on to say in Murphy : The rule which can be distilled from the cases is essentially this. If an office is created by the Constitution, and specific powers are granted or duties imposed by the Constitution, although additional powers may be granted by statute, the position can neither be abolished by statute nor reduced to impotence by the transfer of duties characteristic of the office to another office created by the legislature. We regard this as but another facet of the principle of separation of powers, guaranteed by Article 8 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights . . . . 276 Md. at 492, 348 A.2d at 846 (citations omitted). The case of Commission on Medical Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 435 A.2d 747 (1981), included three separate appeals by a doctor whose license to practice medicine had been revoked by an administrative agency. It involved several constitutional issues, including issues relating to the separation of powers. Maryland Code (1957, 1980 Repl.Vol.), Art. 43, ง 130(a) delineated the membership of the Commission to be the President of the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of the State of Maryland, and other members were to be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene from lists submitted to him by the Chirurgical Faculty, several other members to be selected by the head of an administrative department of State Government and others. After addressing other issues, we addressed the doctor's argument that the appointment process contained in the statute unconstitutionally removed `the Governor's right to make executive branch appointments,' presumably in contravention of Art. II, ง 1 of the Maryland Constitution which vests the `executive power of the State . . . in a Governor.' Stillman, at 408, 435 A.2d at 757. We noted: In Davis, [47] the question was whether, under this constitutional provision, the legislature could provide for appointment to an office created by statute. Concluding that it could, the Court said: `[W]e think this provision [Art. II, ง 11] means, simply, that the Governor shall have the power to fill all offices in the State whether created by the Constitution or by Act of Assembly, unless otherwise provided by the one or the other. When, therefore, the legislature has created an office by Act of Assembly, the legislature can designate by whom and in what manner the person who is to fill the office shall be appointed.' Id. at 161. In [Mayor of] Baltimore, [ [48] ] the Court reconciled the interpretation in Davis with the separation of powers provision contained in the Declaration of Rights. In answer to the contention that the power of appointment was `an intrinsic executive function,' beyond the legislature's authority, the Court observed: `[T]he Legislature makes the laws, the Judiciary expounds them, and the Governor sees that they are faithfully executed. . . . It does not follow, as a necessary conclusion, that, in order to perform this duty, [the Governor] must have agents of his own nomination. Our form of government, in its various changes, has never recognized this power as an executive prerogative.' 15 Md. at 456. The Court in [Mayor of] Baltimore said that the Constitution `so far from treating . . . [the appointment power] as an inherent executive power, indicates that it belongs where the people choose to place it.' Id. at 457. . . . . . . It is thus clear that when the legislature creates an office by statute . . . the separation of powers provision of Article 8 does not of itself prevent the legislature from placing the power of appointment in the hands of someone other than the Governor. As stated in Scholle, [ [49] ] when the legislature has created an office by statute, it `can designate by whom, and in what manner the person who is to fill the office shall be appointed.' 90 Md. at 743, 46 A. 326. . . . We need not probe the limits of the Scholle doctrine in this case, for we are satisfied that placing the appointment authority [where the statute placed it] does not offend the separation of powers provision of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Stillman, at 409-12, 435 A.2d at 757-58. We upheld the legislative scheme applicable in Stillman. In the present case there are two provisions of the statute that have been placed at issue. One terminates the terms of the present members of the Commission. In layman's terms it fires them. This was an unconstitutional act by the Legislature. Another provision creates a new method of appointment of the Commission members, via nomination by a Legislative entity, but only for one term. If the Governor fails to appoint from the list nominated, the statute contains a fall back position that the Legislature's leaders may then, themselves, make the appointments. Under our holdings in Stillman, Baltimore, Scholle and Davis, it is clear that if it is done properly, i.e., abolishment or actual reconstruction of the Commission and the provisions of the statute originally authorizing it, the appointment process prospectively may be placed in the hands of persons other than the Governor. This, however, is not what occurred in the case sub judice. Maryland Classified Employees Association v. Schaefer, 325 Md. 19, 599 A.2d 91 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1090, 112 S.Ct. 1160, 117 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992), involved a claim by state employees that the Governor usurped the plenary power of the General Assembly and exercised a legislative function in setting the number of work hours that would constitute a work week for most State employees. Id. at 28, 599 A.2d at 95. In upholding the lower court's action which had confirmed the power of the Governor, we noted: He [the trial judge] further said that, as head of the Executive Branch of government, the Governor was authorized to direct and supervise the officers of that branch, including the Secretary of Personnel who serves at his pleasure. Id. The court then stated: As we have already observed, the Governor, as the head of the Executive Branch, has broad powers with respect to Executive Branch State employees. . . . Id. at 34, 599 A.2d at 98. We have held, however, that the Legislature can by express provision in a prospective statute commit the appointment process to entities other than the Executive. Over one hundred and forty years ago, [50] this Court answered the question as to whether when creating by legislation a subordinate governmental entity with appointed members, the Legislature could provide that such members be appointed by a process in which the Executive was not involved. In Mayor of Baltimore v. State, 15 Md. 376 (1860), we affirmed that the Legislature may create methods of appointment for entities which it creates by legislation which do not involve the Governor. We reiterated: The Constitution of 1776, contained the first portion of the Article in our present Constitution, yet it devolved on the Legislature the election of the Governor and Council, and on the Executive the appointment of judges, and, in certain contingencies, of officers connected with the judiciary. It also provides for the appointment of other officers . . . . A [] departure is observable in the union of the Senate and the Governor, in making appointment to office. . . . On this Article the relators insist, that it authorizes the appointment by the Legislature, because it confers on the executive the appointment of all officers, not otherwise provided for, ` unless a different mode of appointment be prescribed by the law creating the office, ' and that, as the law in question creates the office, the designation of the Commissioners in the Act is within the intent and meaning of the Constitution; to which it is answered on the part of the respondents, that this section gives the Legislature, in creating an office, power only to prescribe the mode of appointment, and can by no legitimate rule of construction be interpreted to grant the power of legislative appointment. It is conceded that the Legislature was not under any obligation to confer the power of appointment on the executive . . . . In the absence of any such requirement of the Legislature, we do not perceive that they were under a duty to make such delegation [to the people] of the appointing power. Id. at 460 (emphasis added). As relevant here, we have never overruled our decision in Mayor of Baltimore that, when creating entities not established by the Constitution, the Legislature need not involve the Governor in the appointment process. Notwithstanding some of the commentators' reservations about the use of federal cases in the interpretation of state separation of powers issues, we will briefly discuss one of the Supreme Court cases most closely related to the issues presented for our review. That Court has addressed the separation of powers principle on a number of occasions. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 101 L.Ed.2d 569 (1988), Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 736, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 3193, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976). In relation to the appointment and removal of Executive officers, the Supreme Court, in Bowsher, held that the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act codified as 2 U.S.C. ง 901 et seq. was unconstitutional. Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 736, 106 S.Ct. at 3193, 92 L.Ed.2d 583. The Court stated: The critical factor lies in the provisions of the statute defining the Comptroller General's office relating to removability. Although the Comptroller General is nominated by the President from a list of three individuals recommended by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, see 31 U.S.C. ง 703(a)(2), and confirmed by the Senate, he is removable only at the initiative of Congress. He may be removed not only by impeachment but also by joint resolution of Congress `at any time'. . . . Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 727-28, 106 S.Ct. at 3189, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (footnotes omitted). In arriving at its conclusion, the Court explained the implied separation of powers principle as it applies under the federal constitution and how it affects the power of the Legislative Branch to remove appointed officers: We noted recently that `[t]he Constitution sought to divide the delegated powers of the new Federal Government into three defined categories, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.' INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951[, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2784, 77 L.Ed.2d 317] (1983). The declared purpose of separating and dividing the powers of government, of course, was to `diffus[e] power the better to secure liberty.' Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635[, 72 S.Ct. 863, 870, 96 L.Ed. 1153] (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Justice Jackson's words echo the famous warning of Montesquieu, quoted by James Madison in The Federalist No. 47, that there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates. . . . The Federalist No. 47, p. 325 (J. Cooke ed.1961). Even a cursory examination of the Constitution reveals the influence of Montesquieu's thesis that checks and balances were the foundation of a structure of government that would protect liberty. The Framers provided a vigorous Legislative Branch and a separate and wholly independent Executive Branch, with each branch responsible ultimately to the people. The Framers also provided for a Judicial Branch equally independent with `[t]he judicial Power . . . extend[ing] to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States.' Art. III, ง 2. Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 721-22, 106 S.Ct. at 3185-86, 92 L.Ed.2d 583. The Court further stated:  The Constitution does not contemplate an active role for Congress in the supervision of officers charged with the execution of the laws it enacts. The President appoints `Officers of the United States' with the `Advice and Consent of the Senate . . . .' Art. II, ง 2. Once the appointment has been made and confirmed, however, the Constitution explicitly provides for removal of Officers of the United States by Congress only upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. An impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate can rest only on `Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Art. II, ง 4. A direct congressional role in the removal of officers charged with the execution of the laws beyond this limited one is inconsistent with separation of powers. Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 722-23, 106 S.Ct. at 3186, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (emphasis added). The Court then pointed to two other cases for the proposition that Congress was not allowed to participate in the removal process, other than by impeachment: This Court first directly addressed this issue in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52[, 47 S.Ct. 21, 71 L.Ed. 160] (1926). At issue in Myers was a statute providing that certain postmasters could be removed only `by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.' The President removed one such Postmaster without Senate approval, and a lawsuit ensued. Chief Justice Taft, writing for the Court, declared the statute unconstitutional on the ground that for Congress to `draw to itself, or to either branch of it, the power to remove or the right to participate in the exercise of that power. . . would be . . . to infringe the constitutional principle of the separation of governmental powers.' Id., at 161, 47 S.Ct., at 40. A decade later, in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602[, 55 S.Ct. 869, 79 L.Ed. 1611] (1935), relied upon heavily by appellants, a Federal Trade Commissioner who had been removed by the President sought backpay. Humphrey's Executor involved an issue not presented either in the Myers case or in this caseโ i.e., the power of Congress to limit the President's powers of removal of a Federal Trade Commissioner. 295 U.S., at 630[, 55 S.Ct. at 874-875]. The relevant statute permitted removal `by the President,' but only `for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' Justice Sutherland, speaking for the Court, upheld the statute, holding that `illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President [with respect to Federal Trade Commissioners].' Id., at 628-629[, 55 S.Ct., at 874]. The Court distinguished Myers, reaffirming its holding that congressional participation in the removal of Executive officers is unconstitutional. Justice Sutherland's opinion for the Court also underscored the crucial role of separated powers in our system: `The fundamental necessity of maintaining each of the three general departments of government entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others, has often been stressed and is hardly open to serious question. So much is implied in the very fact of the separation of the powers of these departments by the Constitution; and in the rule which recognizes their essential co-equality.' 295 U.S. at 629-630[, 55 S.Ct., at 874]. . . . In light of these precedents, we conclude that Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment. To permit the execution of the laws to be vested in an officer answerable only to Congress would, in practical terms, reserve in Congress control over the execution of the laws. As the District Court observed: `Once an officer is appointed, it is only the authority that can remove him, and not the authority that appointed him, that he must fear and, in the performance of his functions, obey.' 626 F.Supp., at 1401. The structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws; it follows that Congress cannot grant to an officer under its control what it does not possess [the right of removal]. . . . To permit an officer controlled by Congress to execute the laws would be, in essence, to permit a congressional veto [over Executive branch operations]. Congress could simply remove, or threaten to remove, an officer for executing the laws in any fashion found to be unsatisfactory to Congress. This kind of congressional control over the execution of the laws, Chadha makes clear, is constitutionally impermissible.  The dangers of congressional usurpation of Executive Branch functions have long been recognized. `[T]he debates of the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalist Papers, are replete with expressions of fear that the Legislative Branch of the National Government will aggrandize itself at the expense of the other two branches.' Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 129[, 96 S.Ct. 612, 687, 46 L.Ed.2d 659] (1976). Indeed, we also have observed only recently that `[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.' Chadha, supra, 462 U.S., at 951[, 103 S.Ct., at 2784]. Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 724-27, 106 S.Ct. at 3187-88, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (footnote omitted) (some emphasis added). The final words of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the removal clause in Bowsher are helpful in our analysis: [A]s Chadha makes clear, once Congress makes its choice in enacting legislation, its participation ends. Congress can thereafter control the execution of its enactment only indirectlyโby passing new legislation. Chadha, 462 U.S. at 958[, 103 S.Ct. at 2787-2789]. By placing the responsibility for execution of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act in the hands of an officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress in effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and has intruded into the executive function. The Constitution does not permit such intrusion. Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 733-34, 106 S.Ct. at 3191-92, 92 L.Ed.2d 583. There is no dispute in the case at bar as to the nature of the creation of the Commission. It was created by statute and expressly placed by the statute in the Executive Branch of government and, thus, is neither a Constitutional nor a Legislative office. The Legislature however, retains the power to abolish it and to specify its duties and responsibilities so long as in the process the Legislature does not usurp the powers of, or grant improper powers to, the other branches of Government. In other words it can actโif it acts properly. At oral argument the State argued that the Constitutional provision that grants power to the Governor to remove civil officers is not exclusive because it does not expressly prohibit the Legislature from removing the particular Executive Branch officers. Because the Legislature (according to the State) has plenary power, [51] it can do virtually anything it wants to do in respect to firing any civil officer (presumably all State employees including merit system employees) by merely changing the respective statute, regardless of what the Constitution expressly confers upon the Executive. As we have indicated, generally, under the express separation of powers requirements of our State Constitution, it is provided that the Governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advise and consent of the Senate, appoint all civil . . . officers of the State . . . unless a different mode of appointment be prescribed by the Law creating the office. Md. Const. art. II, ง 10. There is no dispute among the parties that the current members of the Commission were nominated by the (or a) Governor and that all were confirmed (by the assent) of the Senate. The issue presented here is primarily whether the Legislature may terminate or fire non-constitutional Executive Branch employees by the simultaneous repeal/re-enactment process. [52] The State asserts that the absence of an express prohibition forbidding the Legislature to terminate Executive Branch officials, establishes an implied power of the Legislature to terminate such officials. The Framers expressly provided for the power of removal. They did not confer it on the Legislative Branch; they conferred it on the Executive. Nothing remains to be implied. Here the only relevant changes as to Sections 12 and 22 of Senate Bill 1 do not, in effect, abolish or restructure the Executive Branch administrative agency, except to terminate the present duly appointed and confirmed members of the Commission and to provide for a different method of appointment of the interim replacements. The early constitutional history of the Governor's removal power, under what is now Article II, ง 15 of the Constitution, was discussed in the case of Cull v. Wheltle, 114 Md. 58, 78 A. 820 (1910). The case involved the power of the Governor to suspend an officer, pending proceedings to remove him. [53] There we discussed the removal power under the various Maryland Constitutions: The primary question is: `Had the Governor the power, under the Constitution and laws of this State, to suspend these officers, pending the proceedings to remove them on the charges and complaints of incompetency and misconduct in office?' . . . Section 15 of Article 2 of the Constitution is: `The Governor may suspend or arrest any military officer of the State for disobedience of orders or other military offense; and may remove him in pursuance of the sentence of a Court Martial; and may remove for incompetency or misconduct all civil officers who received appointment from the executive for a term of years.' That language of itself must be admitted to be at least suggestive, for when the same section authorized the Governor to ` suspend or arrest' a military officer for the causes given, and to remove him in pursuance of the sentence of a court-martial, and then, when it deals with civil officers, only authorizes him to ` remove ' them, the maxim ` expressio unius est exclusio alterius ' [to include one thing implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative] naturally suggests itself. There is no other power of removal of these officers expressly given to the Governor, either by the Constitution or by statute, and there is not only no express power of suspending them given him, but a striking contrast is made between his powers in reference to military officers and those concerning civil officers. . . . . . . . . . The express power to suspend was thus left out of the Constitution of 1851, and it was likewise omitted in those of 1864 and 1867. If the framers of those three Constitutions had intended that the Governor should not only have the power to remove civil officers, for incompetency or misconduct, but also to suspend them. . . it is impossible to understand why they should deliberately have omitted the term `suspend.'. . . . . . . If the people of the State of Maryland, who framed the Constitution through their representatives and then by their votes ratified it, are to be judged by their actions, they have unmistakably declared that it is not their will that those occupying important public offices be deprived of them, merely because they are charged with incompetency or misconduct. It is not in accord with the spirit that has characterized the people of Maryland at least since 1851 to say, that one deemed worthy by the Governor and Senate of Maryland of a high and important office is to be even temporarily deprived of it, before he is convicted by the tribunal which they, through the organic law, or their representatives in the Legislature, have said shall give him a fair and impartial trial. Far better would it be to possibly suffer some occasional inconvenience, or loss to the State by reason of the incompetency or even misconduct of some public official, than to subject one believed to be worthy of election or appointment to the mortification and indignity of being even temporarily removed, merely because charges are preferred against him, for it is useless to suggest that an officer is not seriously injured in both his individual and official capacities by a suspension from office, although he may be eventually acquitted of the charges against him. . . . JUDGE MCSHERRY said, in Miles v. Stevenson, 80 Md. 358, 30 A. 646: `It is the utmost stretch of arbitrary power and a despotic denial of justice to strip an incumbent of his public office and deprive him of its emoluments and income before its prescribed term has elapsed, except for legal cause, alleged and proved, upon an impartial investigation after due notice.' Id. at 78-85, 78 A. at 821-23. While the discussion in Cull concerned an implication (the power of suspension) that a Governor was attempting to engraft onto a constitutional provision, and the present circumstances are somewhat different, both situations involve the same provision of the Constitution. The Maryland Constitution grants the power to the Governor to remove for incompetency or misconduct those officers appointed by him for a term of years. This is the removal power expressly conferred by the Maryland Constitution. If the framers desired to cause the removal power as to officers appointed by the Governor for a term of years to be shared by the Legislative Branch they knew how to do so. They did so with the appointment process. Article II, ง 10 provides in relevant part, He [the Governor] shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint all civil . . . officers of the State, whose appointment, or election, is not otherwise herein provided for, unless a different mode of appointment be prescribed by the Law creating the office.  The emphasized language of Section 10 is nowhere found in Section 15, although it is clear that the constitutional framers who used the emphasized language in Section 10, obviously knew how to create executive powers subject to approval by the Legislative Branch or subject to change by statute enacted by the Legislative Branch. They did not include such a provision in Article II, ง 15 of the Maryland Constitution. In the circumstances of Section 15โthe creation of the power in the Governor with no mention of the Legislature, acts under the maxim,  expressio unius est exclusio alterius,  to exclude the Legislature from sharing the removal power of the Governor at least as to those officers appointed by the Governor for a term of years. [54] We are unwilling to interpret the absence of a specific prohibition forbidding the Legislature to remove Executive Branch officials to be the granting of an implied power to the Legislature to do that which the Constitution expressly confers on the Executive Branch. This is especially so when the actโin this case the removal of Executive Branch officialsโis generally inherent in the character of an Executive Branch function. As can be seen from our discussion, we have on numerous occasions since 1776 prohibited the conferring of non-judicial powers on the Judiciary by the Legislature. As jealously as we have guarded against the granting of administrative and legislative powers to the courts, we have the duty to protect all of the branches of government from granting power to, or seizing power from, each other when such a grant or seizure is in violation of the separation of powers, either implied or as expressed in our explicit constitutional framework. Certainly, this issue is fraught with friction between the Executive and Legislative branches, but, a desire for friction is one of the reasons the concept was created in the first instance. We hold that the power to remove officers appointed by a Governor, during the term of the officers' appointment, for misconduct or incompetency, is solely the Governor's and the attempt by the Legislature to terminate those officers, previously appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, prior to the expiration of their terms of office, was an usurpation of executive power in violation of Article II, งง 1, 9 and 15 of the Maryland Constitution and in violation of Article 8 of the Declaration of Rights of Maryland. The General Assembly retains (and it always has) the power to decline to consent to the re-appointment of the members of the Commission and has the power to prospectively change the membership and the appointment processes in respect to the Public Service Commission, but it had no power to fire the members, even by a statute. In attempting to do so the Legislature is exercising an executive power. Acting by legislation does not make the matter legislative in natureโif it is an executive function (firing officials of the Executive Branch) it remains an executive function. If this were not so the Legislature would have the power to legislate the other two branches of Maryland's government out of existence. This would clearly violate the provisions of the Maryland Constitution and Declaration of Rights that we have discussed. The provisions of Senate Bill 1, Section 12, prematurely terminating the terms of the Commissioners of the Public Service Commission, are null and void. In respect to the provisions of Senate Bill 1, as they relate to the Legislature's involvement prospectively in the appointment process for the proposed new interim Commissioners, it would ordinarily be incumbent upon the Court to determine if the Legislature acted properly in creating a new method of appointment. Because the removal provisions of Senate Bill 1 exceeded the Legislature's constitutional powers, and are null and void, there are no vacancies to fill (except as to a member who may have resigned). As Senate Bill 1 was written, the different provisions including the Legislature in the appointment process only related to the immediate replacement successors of the Commissioners the Bill sought to terminate. The Bill was crafted as a one time process relating only to the termination of these Commissioners and the process for replacing them, after which all provisions of the appointment process that pre-dated Senate Bill 1 were to automatically return. [55] The appointment process of the Maryland Constitution, Art. II, ง 10, contains a clause unless a different mode of appointment be prescribed by the Law creating the office, and the termination provision of the Maryland Constitution does not. Article II, ง 15, as relative to civil officers simply provides that: The Governor . . . may remove for incompetency, or misconduct, all civil officers who received appointment from the Executive for a term of years. It is absolutely silent on any other mode of termination. [56] This Court has long recognized that the Legislature may, in a proper manner, effectively terminate the tenure of civil officers not having a fixed Constitutionally-set term. If the General Assembly chooses to abolish or reconstitute the Public Service Commission or any other statutory board or commission, it is competent to do so, even if the effect of that abolition or reconstitution would be the shortening or ending of existing terms of incumbent members. The Legislature has not abolished or reconstituted the Commission, however. It has left the Commission essentially intact and has instead ended the terms of the five incumbents and effectively precluded the incumbent Governor from reappointing them by requiring that his appointees be from a list submitted by the Legislature. That presents issues not presented in an abolition or restructuring of the agency, issues that arise from Article 8 of the Declaration of Rights and Article I, ง 1 of the Maryland Constitution. Article 8, which has been part of our Constitution since 1776 and relatively shortly thereafter amended, provides that . . . the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers of Government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other; and no person exercising the functions of one of said Departments shall assume or discharge the duties of any other. In allocating power among the three branches, Article II, ง 1 provides that [t]he executive power of the State shall be vested in a Governor. . . . We have held that the power to appoint Executive branch officials is not entirely an executive function committed exclusively to the Governor and that the Legislature may provide for a different method of appointment. If, however, as the Attorney General opined at oral argument in support of the legislative action at issue here, it is within the province of the General Assembly to fire any or every gubernatorial Executive Branch appointee not having a fixed Constitutionally-set term of office and without any restructuring of the agencies or offices, proceed itself to appoint the replacements for all of those Executive officials, to serve at its pleasure or the pleasure of its agent, the Legislature could very effectively emasculate the Governor's Constitutional duty, authority, and ability to execute the laws. It could, as a result, create a parliamentary form of Government, which Article 8 of the Declaration of Rights and Article II, ง 1 of the constitution prohibit. The Legislature has not, of course, gone that far in this case. It has merely fired all of the incumbent Commissioners of but one Executive Branch agency, taken control over the method of appointment of their immediate replacements, and returned the general appointment power to the next Governor. The authority asserted for it to do that, however, if recognized by this Court, would permit a much more pervasive, almost Cromwellian, intrusion as well. The Constitutional brake on that must therefore serve as a brake on this. The Legislature is free, if it wishes, to abolish or restructure the Public Service Commission, even if that causes the incumbent Commissioners to lose their offices. In restructuring the agency, it may provide a method of appointment other than by the Governor; it may provide for different terms; it may provide for additional or different qualifications for the office; and it may provide for additional or different duties for the agency. What it may not do is to leave the agency more or less intact and simply fire the gubernatorial appointees it does not like by prematurely ending their terms and immediately replacing them with its own choices. If it has the power to do that, it has the power to make the Governor a mere cypher, which the Constitution does not contemplate or permit. Judge Battaglia's dissent also goes to great length to discuss the checks and balances aspect of the separation of powers concept of government. The dissent fails utterly to recognize that the application of those principles is exactly what is occurring here. Madison in The Federalist Papers: No. 48 discusses the issue of checks and balances, stating in a part relevant to the present situation: . . . It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, and overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. . . . The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex. . . . But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealously and exhaust all their precautions. . . . Its [the Legislature's] constitutional powers being at once more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with the greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the encroachments which it makes on the coordinate departments . . . . (Emphasis added.) Then discussing the experience in Virginia, Madison notes: . . . `It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. . . . An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of the government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others . . . .' (Emphasis added.) After discussing Pennsylvania's experience, Madison concludes: The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands. It is clear from Madison's writings, that he foresaw the need for the respective branches of government to check the encroachments of the other branches, an exercise that we have here undertaken to restrain the encroachments of one branch on the powers of the Executive Branch. Finally, in respect to the dissent's discussion of Legislative motives we note that, a primary issue in the case is whether the Legislature was restructuring the agency or whether it was actually firing the Commissioners, thus encroaching on the Executive Branch's function. In such an instance, the legislative history of the enactment must, of necessity, be examined. We do not question the motives of the Legislature, we merely restate what the Legislature and its counsel states were its motives. There is really no dispute as to why the Legislature did what it did. We merely acknowledge, not question, its motives.