to eehive before the administrative law judge was permissible and did not violate due process. ¶ 36 Having determined that no notice violations occurred during the Commission proceedings below, we next examine Beehive’s contention that the Commission violated separation of powers principles. 2. Separation of Powers ¶ 37 Beehive appears to argue that the Commission’s general ability as an administrative agency to exercise executive, legislative, and judicial powers at various stages of these proceedings violates separation of powers and due process principles. We do not address this argument in any great detail because such a combination of functions has long been upheld as consistent with due process. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 58, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Thomas J. Peck & Sons, Inc. v. Pub.
holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency recognizing the combination of functions within an agency such as prosecutorial and adjudicative without more does not violate due process by virtue of being exercised by the same agency holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that administrative agency may adjudicate appeals by panels composed of other persons within the same agency who did not participate in investigative or prosecutorial capacities holding that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions in one judicial disciplinary agency does not violate due process