MacManus v. Love
| Decision Date | 31 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 25398,25398 |
| Citation | 499 P.2d 609,179 Colo. 218 |
| Parties | Donald H. MAC MANUS and Clarence A. Decker, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John A. LOVE, Governor of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
David J. Hahn, C. Thomas Bastien, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Jerry W. Raisch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellant.
In the spring of 1971, the General Assembly of Colorado adopted the so-called 'Long Bill,' to provide for the payment of the expenses of the executive and judicial departments of the state and of its agencies and institutions for and during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1971. The Governor approved the bill, but with a number of exceptions. The plaintiffs, who were State Senators, brought this action in the district court to obtain a declaration that the exceptions of the Governor were improper vetoes. The Governor counterclaimed, alleging that a rather large number of attempts by the General Assembly to limit appropriations in the bill were in violation of Colo.Const. art. III (separation of powers) and art. V, § 32. The trial court ruled substantially in favor of he Governor, but adversely in several particulars.
One of the adverse rulings concerned § 2(d) of the bill, a portion of which read as follows:
'. . . Any federal or cash funds received by any agency in excess of the appropriation shall not be expended without additional legislative appropriation.'
The trial court made the following ruling:
This ruling is the sole matter before us. We hold that the legislative limitation was in violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and, therefore, we reverse.
Colo.Const. art. III provides that:
'The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments,--the legislative, executive and judicial; and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.'
The parties are in agreement that, subject to constitutional limitations, the General Assembly has plenary or absolute power over appropriations and that it may attach conditions upon the empenditure thereof. It follows that the General Assembly can appropriate state moneys conditioned upon the receipt of matching federal moneys.
In contrast, there is not here involved any appropriation of state funds. Rather, § 2(d), is an attempt to limit the executive branch in its administration of federal funds to be received by it directly from agencies of the federal government and unconnected with any state appropriations. In fact such funds, to be received in the future, may often be unanticipated or even unknown at the time of the passage of the bill.
The Colorado Constitution merely states in effect that the legislature cannot exercise executive or judicial power; that the executive cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm
...how to administer the programs chosen by the legislature. The district court acknowledged that the language in MacManus v. Love, 179 Colo. 218, 499 P.2d 609 (1972), and Anderson v. Lamm, 195 Colo. 437, 579 P.2d 620 (1978), "if literally construed, would inescapably lead to the conclusion th......
-
Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm
...district court reached the same conclusion. 4 We do not view Anderson v. Lamm, 195 Colo. 437, 579 P.2d 620 (1978), or MacManus v. Love, 179 Colo. 218, 499 P.2d 609 (1972), as authority mandating the order of consideration of issues contended for by the governor. In Anderson v. Lamm, the dis......
-
Salary of Juvenile Director, Matter of
...P.2d 304 (1975); Department of Natural Resources v. Linchester Sand & Gravel Corp., 274 Md. 211, 334 A.2d 514 (1975); McManus v. Love, 179 Colo. 218, 499 P.2d 609 (1972). Despite its generality, the separation of powers doctrine 'is currently notable not for its demise, but . . . for its ex......
-
Cooper v. Berger
...to state funds" and that "federal contributions are not the subject of the appropriative power of the legislature." MacManus v. Love , 179 Colo. 218, 499 P.2d 609, 610 (1972). In a later case involving federal block grants, that Court determined, after reviewing the structure of the federal......
-
Chapter 337, SB 248 – School Finance
...an infringement upon the executive function of administration in violation of Article III of the Colorado Constitution. MacManus v. Love, 499 P.2d 609 (Colo. 1972); Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, 738 P.2d 1156 1987). With regard to my vetoes in this bill, under article IV, section 12 of......