Because the case presented a justiciable controversy, we reached the merits and declared as unlawful legislative appointments beyond the term prescribed by law. Hardee illustrates the fundamental distinction between a legal question and a political question. In the separation of powers context, the JMSC has acted in its political capacity. As a result, there has been no showing of an article I, § 8 separation of powers violation concerning the JMSC. This returns us to Respondents’ claim that Petitioner’s complaint presents a nonjusticiable political question. “The nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers.” S.C. Pub. Interest Found. v. Judicial Merit Selection Comm’n, 369 S.C. 139, 142, 632 S.E.2d 277, 278 (2006) ( 2d 241 (2001) (<HOLDING>). “In the instance of nonjusticiability,
holding that the colorado constitution reserves no authority in the state legislature to change add to or diminish the qualifications for constitutionally created offices holding that the idaho constitution provides no greater protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution holding that the constitutional qualifications for the office of sheriff were exclusive and the general assembly had no authority to impose additional qualifications as a prerequisite to holding the office of county sheriff holding state constitution provides senate with authority to judge election returns and qualifications of its members recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution