Court Opinion

ID: 9845170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:16:08.364505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:53.435038
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
{dissenting). Article 5, § 3, Constitution of 1963, provides, inter alia:
“When a single executive is the head of a principal department, unless elected or appointed as otherwise provided in this constitution, he shall he appointed by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate and he shall serve at the pleasure of the governor.” (Emphasis added.)
This section is not expressly made dependent upon accomplishment of reorganization of the executive branch of government into 20 principal departments as required by preceding section 2 of the same article, nor do I believe we should infer *28that it is. Three other sections of article 5, sections 4, 8, and 9, as well as sections 2 and 3, refer to the principal departments of government. Except for section 2, there is no constitutional mandate nor other logical reason, for deferring the operative effect of any of the four remaining sections beyond the effective date of the new Constitution. On and after January 1, 1964, the effective date of our 1963 Constitution, therefore, article 5, § 3, was fully operative.
It is our responsibility to determine whether, during the interim between the effective date of the new Constitution and the effective date of the executive organization act, PA 1965, No 380, the State’s military establishment was one of the principal departments of the State. That it was then, as it is now by virtue of Act No 380, seems to me to be self-evident. Hence, on May 20, 1965, the adjutant general, as head of the State’s military establishment, served only “at the pleasure of the governor”.
I conclude, therefore, that Governor Romney’s removal of Major General McDonald from his office as adjutant general of the State was a valid exercise of power granted him by article 5, § 3, Constitution of 1963, and that neither a court-martial nor any other hearing needed to be held. I would affirm the action of the Court of Appeals.