Opinion ID: 1737377
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: description of the commission.

Text: For 37 years, 1918 through 1955, the budget for the government of Mississippi was prepared by the Office of the Governor and submitted to the legislature for its consideration. See Laws of 1918, Ch. 225; Laws of 1932, Ch. 120; Laws of 1952, Ch. 320. In 1955 the composition of the Budget Commission was altered when, by statute, four members of the Mississippi Legislature assumed positions on the Budget Commission and began to participate in all of its functions. See Laws of 1955, Ch. 24. In 1968, five additional legislators joined the commission, bringing the total to nine. Laws of 1968, Ch. 513. The Commission of Budget and Accounting now consists of the following persons: William F. Winter Governor and Ex Officio Chairman Brad Dye Lieutenant Governor W.B. Alexander President Pro-Tempore Ellis Bodron Chairman of Senate Finance Committee Glen DeWeese Chairman of Senate Appropriations Committee Robert L. Crook Member of Senate named by the Lieutenant Governor C.B. (Buddie) Speaker of House of Newman Representatives H.L. Merideth, Jr. Chairman, House Ways & Means Committee F. Edwin Perry Chairman, House Appropriations Committee James C. Simpson Member of House of Representatives named by the Speaker Ted J. Millette Member of House of Representatives named by the Speaker Mississippi Code Annotated § 27-103-1(1) (Supp. 1982). Nine Commission members, Alexander, Bodron, DeWeese, Crook, Newman, Merideth, Perry, Simpson, and Millette, hold office in the legislative department of government and are appellants here. The Commission of Budget and Accounting has the authority to appoint a director to administer its affairs, including, subject to the Commission's approval, the right to appoint and employ support personnel necessary to perform the duties of the Commission. Miss. Code Ann. § 27-103-11 (1972). The activities in which the Commission has been engaged may be divided into five general areas:

The Attorney General contends each of these activities is an executive function belonging solely to the executive department of government and by virtue of Article I, Section 2, the above named appellants are constitutionally forbidden to perform such functions, either directly or indirectly. The Legislators contend otherwise. First, they argue the separation of powers article should be given a flexible construction to permit an overlap in the exercise of powers. Second, the Legislators vigorously contend the present system is efficient, that it works well. The legislators argue that the affairs of state have been well managed with our government structured so that legislators have substantial influence upon boards and commissions which exercise powers we regard as essentially executive in nature. If such boards and commissions are essentially executive, then, in that event, the legislators' degree of control is of practical benefit to the state in that efficiency is promoted, or so we are told. The second point, in our opinion, is legally irrelevant. [T]he fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution. INS v. Chadha, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2780-81, 77 L.Ed.2d 317, 340 (1983). If the system be found efficient and nevertheless in violation of the constitution, our duty is clear. See Runnels v. State, Walker (1 Miss.) 146 (1823). The first point is dispositive. Our ultimate inquiry is the correct meaning of Article I of the Constitution without regard to whether our interpretation be labeled flexible or rigid, liberal or conservative. We are engaged with what the people in convention assembled in 1890 intended and with what the document they made our supreme law means for us today. We hold that the whole of the legislative power has been vested in the legislature of this state. We further hold that the whole of the executive power has been vested in a separate and distinct department of our government, and that no person a member of the legislative branch may consistent with the constitution exercise any powers essentially executive in nature.