*1 OF et al. 29546. GREER et al. v. STATE GEORGIA Gunter,

This is an from a that declared appeal members of the Georgia Assembly ineligible serve on the of the World Center Congress decided Authority. adversely appellants issue to the was whether there was a violation of powers II "George Act,” Smith World Center Congress Ga. L. which amended Ga. L. 245. p. p. Act created construct, erect, public corporation plan, own, remodel, maintain, to, extend, acquire, repair, add improve, equip, operate manage the Georgia World Congress Center. The Act provided the Authority members, would consist of twenty six of whom would be members of the Act, The question raised was whether because placed I, of Art.

Authority, was unconstitutional as violative Sec. I, XXIII Par. of the Georgia Constitu- tion, which states: "The legislative, and executive powers shall forever remain and no person one, shall, the duties of discharging at same time, others, exercise the functions of either of the as herein provided.”

The judgment of the trial court declared that provisions of the Act Authority of the Act remaining sections were severable and

constitutional, and that a adopted by resolution 19,1974, was valid. That resolution Authority August had ratified all previous actions of the and was adopted by participation legislator-members. contend that as members

Authority are not violative of the Constitution. that the powers provision the Constitution is to prevent one of the three any traditional branches of usurping other branch. contend any They and functions is a of each of the three traditional outside therefore, of the government. They argue,

branches performs "proprietary,” the constitutional and that "governmental,” *2 branches of separate government balance between of in be disturbed six members way by permitting can twenty-member governing to sit on the the Authority. board of v. State School rely Sheffield (68 SE2d, 590) (1952). There, in the 208 Ga. 575 this court held proceeding,

context of a bond validation of Speaker Representatives of the House of of the School Building could sit as a member Georgia offending 2-1606) (Code § Ann. a prohibits Constitution member of the General from "civil holding any in the General office” created his term of service during court held that not body Building Authority of the School governing a "civil office” within the of this constitutional meaning The of issue was provision. "pure” separation in neither raised nor decided Sheffield. a prohibition the "civil office” is Conceding of it does not powers proscription, "narrow” the broader contained encompass question, "pure” of as proscription, persons whether are governing performing executive rather than functions. The "pure” proscription bars a member of the branch executive branch. the functions of the exercising It must be conceded that of is not a "While the Constitution declares that the rigid principle. and three departments government distinct, not from the nature of separation is and &c. Americus v. things Mayor Perry, cannot be total.” Beall, Beall v. must departments government "While be kept separate and it is to impossible draw a mathematical line by action every can be exactly not which do classified; are some matters and there one department essentially appertain inherently R. Co. v. than to another.” rather Melton, 133 Ga. 277 sufficiently is powers principle complex arrangements permit practical

flexible to not to draw a always easy though government, functions line between executive in this case that functions, to us quite plain by performed executive. exclusively, primarily, is the function of the As a general principle, enacted. specific legislation executive detail, function, to the last down implementing attacked by legislation to the Authority assigned this case. can the legislature is whether question create then implement specific legislation process implementation

retain some control over appointing is no is that there

instrumentality. Appellants’ *3 Carried to its arrangement. constitutional defect the extreme, would arrangement logical committee of its an ad hoc Assembly appoint The case specific legislation. own members extreme, but logical at bar does not such present have to infirmity. We evidences the same constitutional member of as a participates conclude that a legislator the such as public corporation the ex- is performing World Congress ecutive functions. 449) 151 W. Va. 79 Bailey, State v.

(1966), Virginia of West Supreme the have issue that we ruled on almost the same squarely decisions of this "From the above-cited here. It stated: the that courts it is manifest court and other appellate the State imposed upon and the duties powers granted the Virginia by Commission of West Building of the involved, Acts Chapter enactment or Session, 1966, are executive Regular Legislature, in character not administrative president the of Section of the statute that the senate, delegates, of the of the house of speaker the minority of the senate and leader of minority leader members of the commission the house of delegates Article V of the Constitution of this State is violative of executive or impose to confer and attempts and duties those members of upon administrative null and for that reason is and void and Legislature force and effect. In enacting statutory provision of the shall be members of the Legislature that members Legislature Commission has power to confer executive or administrative attempted executive or administrative duties impose upon of the commission which reason of members inhibition in Article V of the Constitution of express they this State cannot exercise per- P. 91. form.”

See also Ashmore v. Sewer Greater Dis Greenville trict, 211 C. 77 S. correct declaring below was provisions on the

legislators

unconstitutional. that if the of the next

Act relating appointment legislators then the entire Act must They argue be declared unconstitutional.

removal of the

Authority defeats the It from the easily plain answered. face of the Act that main operate construct and a World Congress Center. Sec. 2 of the Act "No vacancy states: shall eleven impair right [of all duties of rights perform to exercise all members] 176. Even with the Authority.” pp. removed, remain on the *4 to constitute Where an and to accomplish whole, the courts will uphold Act cannot be sustained as a to do so would certain reasonably it in part which the intent and the main correspond with

671 if, accomplish after sought stricken, remains part unconstitutional there Bennett Wheatly, v. accomplish 154 Ga. purpose. (115 83) v. Bell Tel. &c. Wright Co., (56 Ga. 227 There is reason apply principle this where defect arises from a violation State, v. Fuller v. Bailey, supra, See

principle. 85) (1974), J., (Hall, concurring Ga. 581 specially). held the Act to be unconstitutional do opinion

and stricken from the Act Division 1 of not render entire Act unconstitutional. severance surgery performed by judge the trial was correct. concur, Judgment All the Justices affirmed. Hall, J., Hill, J., disqualified. who concurs specially. Argued January 20, 1975 Decided February 11, 1975. Tidwell, E.

Charles appellants. for General, J. Bolton, Attorney Timothy Arthur K. General, Sweeney, Attorney Assistant appellees. for Hall, Justice, concurring specially. in my

I for the stated concur in the reasons State, Fuller v. opinion concurring 85). PORTERFIELD. GILMER v. Hill, court on certiorari.

This case came to is restated the Court statement of facts modification. slight with for convenience brought case citizenship diversity prior Middle District for the District United States recovery sought his wife Otis Porterfield Georgia,