We considered and approved as constitutional the act under authority of which the allocation here involved was made to the Department of Public Safety, H.B. No. 518, Title 74, S.L. 1945, ch. 1, p. 376, in Wells v. Childers, 196 Okla. 339, 165 P.2d 358. In disapproving the allocations considered in Wells v. Childers, 196 Okla. 353, 165 P.2d 371, we said: "Allocations or expenditures made under item 8, sec. 5, or sec. 6, H.B. 518, Title 74, S.L. 1945, ch. 1, p. 376, 62 O.S. Supp. 1945, §§ 139.2(8), 139.3, for 'extraordinary protection of the State' are limited to those compelled by some unforeseen condition such as 'to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or defend the State in war' — flood, famine, fire, earthquake, pestilence, or epidemics of disease which compel the State to put forward its highest endeavors to protect the people, their property, liberty and lives."
While restricted authority such as the power to implement legislative policy and perform administrative details may be delegated, there must be objective guidelines or standards to control the actions of the executive. Wells v. Childers, 196 Okla. 353, 165 P.2d 371 (1945); City of Sand Springs v. Dept. of Public Welfare, Okla., 608 P.2d 1139 (1980). Art. 5, sec. 55 vests the function of appropriating public funds exclusively in the legislature and also establishes constitutional specifications of legislative appropriations. It provides:
The Okla. Const. art. 6, §8 provides: See, CompsourceMutualIns. Co. v.Stateex rel. OklahomaTaxComm'n, 2018 OK 54, ¶43, 435 P.3d 90; Wellsv.Childers, 1945 OK 365, 165 P.2d 371. The Governor shall cause the laws of the State to be faithfully executed, and shall conduct in person or in such manner as may be prescribed by law, all intercourse and business of the State with other states and with the United States, and he shall be a conservator of the peace throughout the State.
Johnson v. Walters, 1991 OK 107, ¶5-7, fn. 10-13, 819 P.2d 694, Kauger, J., concurring 819 P.2d 694. See, Compsource Mutual Ins. Co. v. Stateex rel . Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 2018 OK 54, ¶43, 435 P.3d 90 ; Wells v. Childers, 1945 OK 365, 196 Okla. 353, 165 P.2d 371. ¶4 In Wentz v. Thomas, 1932 OK 636, 159 Okla. 124, 15 P.2d 65, the Court explained how Oklahoma's Chief Executive differed substantially from the United States Chief Executive, the President.
To do so would violate not only Article V, Section 55 of the Oklahoma Constitution, but also Article I, Section 4, "by which the government is divided into three separate and distinct departments." Wells v. Childers, 1945 OK 365, ¶ 36, 165 P.2d 371, 376. "'The Legislature, unless prohibited by the Constitution, has a right to declare fiscal policy.'" In re State Bldg.
Const., art. 5, § 55 relating to specificity of appropriated funds and Okla. Const. art. 10 § 16 relating to the purposes of borrowing. Protestants offer a blanket assertion that § 16 is violated and also contend that § 55 is violated, citing Wells v. Childers, 1945 Ok 365, 165 P.2d 371. This argument is unconvincing.
See also, Okla. Const., art 5, §55 relating to specificity of appropriated funds and Okla. Const. art. 10 §16 relating to the purposes of borrowing. Protestants offer a blanket assertion that §16 is violated and also contend that §55 is violated, citing Wells v. Childers, 1945 Ok 365, 165 P.2d 371. This argument is unconvincing.
The concept upon which both of these cases rely is the notion that an "appropriation" is akin to that which is defined in the dictionary [money set aside for a specific purpose] or by the Legislature [a legislative allocation of funds for a specific purpose]. ¶ 19 The Court further addresses this subject of improper delegation of the legislative appropriation process in Wells v. Childers, 1945 OK 365, 196 Okla. 353, 165 P.2d 371 at ¶ 36: . . . [G]ubernatorially created objects of expenditures would constitute an appropriation, a function exclusively legislative.
This Court has committed itself to the proposition that the essence of the legislative function is the determination of policy; indeed, the dichotomy between administrative acts and legislative acts hinges upon the declaration of policy, which is a legislative function, and the implementation of that policy, which is traditionally an administrative function. See Wells v. Childers, 196 Okla. 353, 165 P.2d 371 (1945), School District # 25 of Woods County v.Hodge, 199 Okla. 81, 183 P.2d 575 (1947), State ex rel. and Hart v. Parham, supra. Under Article XXV, Section 4 of this State's Constitution, the only limitation upon the Commission's rule-making ability is that they be made in furtherance of the department's duties as provided by law.
1961); State ex rel. Bd. of Education of City of Sapulpa v. State Bd. of Education, 197 Okla. 324, 170 P.2d 540, 541 (Okla. 1946); Wells v. Childers, 196 Okla. 353, 165 P.2d 371, 374 (Okla. 1945). See, Sharp v. Tulsa County Election Bd., see note 3, supra; See also, State ex rel. Cartwright v. Ogden, note 3, supra; and State ex rel. Poulos v. State Bd. of Equalization, note 3, supra, which recognize that where the matter is publici juris we assume original jurisdiction and proceed to consider the case on the merits.