Signs of the times: The ACLU is at it again:

Well, those darn ACLU folks in New Jersey who want democracy and open government are at it again. They want to allow those who advocate for the election of local candidates to actually have the right to place political signs on the lawns of their own private property. Imagine that!

Some towns in New Jersey place a limit on the amount of time a private citizen can place a political sign on their lawn.

The shrews in Shrewsbury want those signs out for no more than sixty days before the election, it seems. High-falutin’ Hawthorne does not allow signs up for more than seven days after an election. If you have a political opinion, seems you’re gonna get screwed before or after an election in New Jersey.

I have a high opinion of the fine folks of the ACLU [being a card carrying member myself], and I make no bones about being miffed about laws that prevent people from placing political signs on their own lawns for whatever time period they want. They have been successful before eliminating such silly laws---in Franklin Lakes, for example.

Heck, if it’s your private property, you should be able to put up a political message 24/7/365 for all I care. What about a peace symbol on a flag that hangs year round? What about the American flag that says, ‘we’re a patriotic family’? Is there to be a time period for that, too?

These local ordinances are non-partisan---they have impacted supporters of Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Folks: Political speech knows no time limits. It’s endless.

For the record, I have called Mayor Patrick Botbyl of Hawthorne and Mayor Emilia M. Siciliano of Shrewsbury to see what’s up with the political sign issue. I await their calls, and will report when they do call.

Many more Mensches and the Pick of the Putzes

As a professional stand-up comedian, I use the First Amendment each and every weekend at a comedy club somewhere in the country. So, I am proud to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU of New Jersey. These folks are like the DELTA Force for free speech here in the Garden State, and you don’t want to mess with these bad-asses.

Relentless is defined as, “not to be placated or appeased or moved by entreaty; ‘intense determination'”. The ACLU-NJ folks are relentless. They most recently went relentless on the City of Newark.

Back in 2004, the ACLU found that “the City [of Newark] required anyone who wanted to hold a march to secure a $1 million insurance policy and indemnify the city from harm or damage.” This requirement was over turned in court.

Long story short, Executive Director Deborah Jacobs and Legal Director Ed Barocas followed up this week in court yet again because of Newark’s failure to live up to that 2004 court ruling. They are truly and absolutely relentless.

For their never-ending story of fighting the entrenched bureaucracies of the cities of New Jersey against First Amendment violations, Jacobs and Barocas are once again Mensches of the Week.

The Power of Being a Putz

"When did you become an illegal alien?" questioned Essex family court Judge James B. Convery of lawyer Ivette Ramos Alvarez. Alverez is a former president of the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, and she was the recipient of the 2005 Professional Lawyer of the Year by the New Jersey State Bar Association.

What would compel Judge Convery to pose such an offensive question? Who cares, because it does not matter.

Alvarez has filed a complaint against the judge with the New Jersey Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC), so that the issue can be brought to the attention of Chief Justice Stuart Rabner.

The Hispanic Bar wrote to Chief Justice Rabner, “…immediate and aggressive action to ensure that comments by members of the judiciary, either on the record or off the record ... never again fall outside the boundaries of common sense and propriety."

For this bad judgment show by Judge Convery, he is our pick for Putz of the Week.

Mensch of the Week and [almost] Putz of the Week

Mensch of the Week 12/28/07

I have been a card carrying member of the ACLU of New Jersey for several years, having attended their state Board meetings, and helped raise money for their fine work with a comedy show. They do great work and Executive Director Deborah Jacobs and Legal Director Ed Barocas are outstanding at their respective jobs.

In 2004, I participated in an Election Day “Election Protection” action, making sure that new voters coming to the polls were informed of their rights. The ACLU was one of the groups that sponsored that action, and they do the same each year.

Said the ACLU in a press release:

“In previous elections, the ACLU-NJ, in conjunction with other public interest organizations, organized volunteers to hand out voter rights cards on election days to inform individuals of their rights at the polls. The voter rights cards provide general information and contain no mention of any individual running for office or any public question to be voted upon.”

With regard to Election Day and Primary Day in New Jersey, Attorney General Anne Milgram “banned all contact with voters entering polling sites and all contact, except 'exit polling', with people leaving polling sites." The Attorney General's Directive also requires "media representatives or representatives of a public interest groups to obtain advance approval from their county Board of Elections to conduct exit polling, and also provide the Board with two weeks notice of the exact locations where exit polling will take place, and the names of each person conducting the polls.”

The ACLU recognized that “Free speech and voting rights are core American values," and that the “Attorney General's decision to restrict such democratic activities on Election Day goes against everything this country stands for and aspires to.” Well said.

This week the fine folks at the ACLU filed a Motion seeking to stop the State AG from enforcing her prohibition on free speech activities within 100 feet of a polling place, including handing out voter rights cards.

For their commitment to free speech, and to the their ongoing efforts for election protection---especially in this year’s very important presidential Primary Day election February 5th, the ACLU of NJ is our Mensch of the Week this week at NJPoliticsUnusual.com.

[Almost] Putz of the Week

Last week’s Putz of the Week was Congressman Ron Paul, for his absolute refusal to return a campaign contribution from a white supremacist who founded the StormFront.org website. The site espouses racism and anti-Semitism rhetoric.

Assemblyman Mike Doherty is the only elected official in New Jersey who has publicly endorsed Congressman Paul. Earlier this week, I called the Doherty office to see if he had a position on whether or not Paul should have returned the contribution.

I spoke with his Constituent Services director, and sent a follow-up email. Thus far, I have received no response. Given the fact that it is a holiday week, perhaps he has been out of his office, and not attending to business. So, that makes him an ‘almost-Putz’ of the Week.

I will follow up with a final call and follow-up email after the holidays. So, until then he is merely an “almost”.

Stay tuned for more next week.

Help Make the Death Penalty History

From the ACLU:

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties. Over the past 30 years, over 100 wrongfully convicted people were released from death row. The legislature is expected to vote on S163 to abolish the death penalty and replace it with life without parole before the end of the year.

State officials and opinion leaders have finally acknowledged what advocates have said for years, the death penalty is a public policy disaster that is expensive, discriminatory, cruel and immoral. In January, the New Jersey Death Penalty Commission issued a report that found that the death penalty costs more than life in prison and doesn't deter crime.

New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982 but hasn't executed anyone since 1963. Currently eight people sit on New Jersey's death row. The Legislature imposed an execution moratorium in December 2005 when it formed the commission that studied the death penalty.

If approved by lawmakers and Governor Corzine, New Jersey would be the first state to legislatively abolish capital punishment since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976. Capital punishment is in force in 38 states. If the measure passes, New Jersey would be the 13th state with no death penalty.

Contact your legislators and Governor Corzine today to support an end to the death penalty in New Jersey.

From Senator Raymond Lesniak

Repeal the death penalty

A few months ago I hosted a reception at my home in Elizabeth to welcome back Brian Halsey to the community. Brian spent 19 years in prison for murdering an 8 year old boy and a 7 year old girl. The boy was sexually assaulted, large nails were hammered into his brain and his face was slashed with scissors. The girl was brutally raped, beaten, and strangled to death. He confessed to the crime and failed a polygraph test.

Only one juror refused to vote to sentence Halsey to death. 19 years later DNA evidence proved Halsey did not commit the crime.

There are hundreds of Brian Halseys throughout the United States who were wrongly convicted of murder. No doubt, some were sentenced to death and executed. You can't say it can't happen in New Jersey. It can. It's impossible for human beings to devise a system free of the risk of human error.


It's difficult to think of a more heinous crime than the Halsey case. Yet we almost made a fatal mistake. A mistake for which there is no cure. Despite the wonders of science, we have not found a way to bring someone back from the dead.

There are some who believe that keeping the death penalty is worth the risk of killing an innocent person. I don't. But the possibility of killing an innocent person is not the only reason to do away with the death penalty.

Think of the families of the victims. While we did hear testimony before the Judiciary Committee in favor of the death penalty from a wife and a mother who had their loved ones murdered , we also heard from dozens of others who were against the death penalty. Most stated that the lengthy appeal process brought extra and unnecessary suffering into their lives.

Simple solution. Shorten the appeal process. Not so simple. The lengthy appeal process is necessary to decrease the chance of executing an innocent person.

Then there's the cost of the death penalty. To me, it's the weakest reason to repeal the death penalty, but it should be noted that the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission reported that the costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs of life in prison without parole.

More important is the waste of money and law enforcement officers' time spent investigating and proving the factors necessary in a death penalty case. Money and time that could be put to better use fighting gangs, gun runners and drug dealers.

There are those who would single out types of crimes, like child sexual abuse and types of victims, like police officers, or children, or senior citizens, to keep the penalty of death. But an innocent person can be sentenced to death under any of these exceptions.

Some would keep the death penalty for terrorists. Yet terrorists are the least concerned with the death penalty. They blow themselves up and fly planes into buildings. Being executed would only serve to make them martyrs in the eyes of their followers. They belong in jail for the rest of their lives without any chance of parole.

Thousands of murders have been committed in New Jersey since I voted to reinstate the death penalty in 1982. Only a handful of those murders resulted in a death sentence. What makes those sentenced to death different from the others? Nothing, other than the sentence of death itself.

Repealing the death penalty under the legislation before you today will put more murderers in jail for the rest of their lives, relieve victims' families of added pain and suffering and allow law enforcement officials to concentrate more on gangs, gun runners and drug dealers.

Repealing the death penalty will also guarantee that we will not execute an innocent person.

The United States is one of the few countries in the world that has a death penalty, keeping company with the likes of Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Afghanistan. Let's change the company we keep starting here in New Jersey.

Hugely disappointed with the Democrats?.....just who won back control in 2006?

Sixteen Senate Democrats, and Senator Joe Lieberman, an Independent, voted in lockstep with all 43 Senate Republicans late Friday evening in supporting an expanded surveillance bill that is virtually identical to the proposals written by the Bush administration.

Makes you ponder just who won control of Congress in 2006.

The bill, as written, does not contain any safeguards to ensure average Americans are not caught up in the surveillance activities. Additionally, the Senate put oversight of the surveillance process into the hands of the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, and embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, granting the officials extraordinary powers to approve spying activities without any independent oversight or review.

The key points of the legislation allow the Bush administration to bypass the secret court set up nearly thirty years ago to authorize intelligence officials to conduct surveillance activities. The secret court will be permitted to review the approval process - but not until 120 days after the spying has already commenced.

And this piece from the Associated Press:

Senate Passes Bush Terrorism Spy Bill

Saturday 04 August 2007

Washington - The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown
over national security, voted late Friday to
temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to
eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without
court warrants.

The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic
version of the bill.

Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to
bring up the Senate-passed measure and vote on it
Saturday in response to Bush's demand that Congress
give him expanded powers before leaving for vacation
this weekend.

The White House applauded the Senate vote and
urged the House to quickly follow suit.

The bill "will give our intelligence professionals
the essential tools they need to protect our nation,"
said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent
that this legislation become law as quickly as
possible."

Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan
largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised
to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a
court review to begin within 10 days.

The Senate bill gives Bush the expanded
eavesdropping authority for six months. The temporary
powers give Congress time to hammer out a more
comprehensive plan instead of rushing approval for a
permanent bill in the waning hours before lawmakers
begin their month-long break.

The Senate vote was 60-28. Both parties had agreed
to require 60 votes for passage.

Senate Republicans, aided by Director of National
Intelligence Mike McConnell, said the update to the
1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA,
would at least temporarily close gaps in the nation's
security system.

"Al-Qaida is not going on vacation this month,"
said Sen. Republican leader Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky. "And we can't either until we know we've
done our duty to the American people."

In the House, Democrats lost an effort to push a
proposal that called for stricter court oversight of
the way the government would ensure its spying would
not target Americans.

"The rule of law is still critical in this
country," Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said before the
losing the mostly party-line 218-207 vote that fell
short of two-thirds majority needed for passage. "It
is exactly when the government thinks that it can be
the sole, fair arbiter that we most need a judicial
system to stand in and strike the balance."

"We can have security and our civil liberties,"
Tierney said.

Current law requires court review of government
surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United
States. It does not specifically address the
government's ability to intercept messages believed to
come from foreigners overseas.

The Bush administration began pressing for changes
to the law after a recent ruling by the special FISA
court that barred the government from eavesdropping on
foreign suspects whose messages were being routed
through U.S. communications carriers, including
Internet sites.

Democrats agreed the law should not restrict U.S.
spies from tapping in on foreign suspects. However,
they initially demanded the FISA court to review the
eavesdropping process before it begins to make sure
that Americans aren't targeted.

By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled
down that demand and approved a bill that largely
mirrored what the Bush administration wanted. It
requires:
Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence
Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The administration relented to Democrats leery of
Gonzales by adding McConnell to the oversight.
FISA Court review within 120 days. The final
Democratic plan had called for court review to begin
immediately and conclude within a month of the
surveillance starting
The law to expire in six months to give Congress time
to craft a more comprehensive plan. The White House
initially wanted the bill to be permanent.

Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP
plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said
"provides a weak and practically nonexistent court
review."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., angrily chastised his
colleagues for bending to the administration's will.

"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a
member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S.
Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy - not the
executive branch."

Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were
outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with
the White House.

"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats,"
said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for
the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let
themselves be manipulated into accepting the White
House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it,
when they're in control - it's mind-boggling."

It was not immediately clear whether House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi would endorse the Senate bill after days
of rejecting White House offers.

"I hope that there are no attacks before we are
able to effectively update this important act," said
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House
Judiciary Committee.

Bush has said he would reject any bill that his
intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an
attack on the country."

"We've worked hard and in good faith with the
Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to
put our national security at risk," Bush said after
meeting with counterterror and homeland security
officials at FBI headquarters Friday morning. "Time is
short."

Presidents have authority to call Congress back in
session from a recess, but the last time it was used
was in 1948, by Harry Truman.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the
administration plan "more likely to protect the
American people against terrorist attacks by those who
want to do us harm."

The Laws of the Great Garden State

Our good friends at the ACLU of New Jersey asked the New Jersey Law Revision Commission to recommend that the New Jersey state legislature remove two laws from the New Jersey statutes --- two laws that have been held unconstitutional. The ACLU succeeded. It took four years, but because of the persistant efforts of Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU the job is now done. Click here for the post on BlueJersey.com by Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU.

The two laws are:

(1) A now out-of-date law requiring that students stand during the Pledge of Allegiance. This was ruled unconstitutional by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals almost 30 years ago and by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 60 years ago.

(2) A law requiring that minors seeking abortions notify a parent. This was ruled unconstitutional in an ACLU-NJ/Planned Parenthood challenge in 2000.

It seemed reasonable and prudent that the Law Revision Commission acted promptly this year and did what was necessary to help NJ residents avoid any further confusion on the issue. However, before they made the change, according to an article in the May 14th New Jersey Law Journal, the NJ Law Review Commission considered that such changes were too “controversial”. Seems that they were concerned that no one in the legislature would want to appear to vote against the Pledge of Allegience or on the issue of abortion.

Such decisions, of course, should not be political.

Kudos to Law Revision folks, on doing your job. Quadruple kudos to Deborah for her vigilance in keeping up this effort for all these years. For that effort, New Jersey thanks you.

In the future, maybe there are some easier laws the Law Revision Commission might want to start with, just to kick up their juices in order to get ready for the tougher laws...

Perhaps there are other laws still on the NJ books --- that we just don’t need or need to be updated.

Check these out:

N.J.S.A. 39:4-85. Passing to left when overtaking; passing when in lines; signaling to pass; passing upon right

The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle….

The driver of an overtaking motor vehicle not within a business or residence district shall give audible warning with his horn or other warning device before passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction….

“…or other warning device”? Hmmm, what could legally pass for an “other warning device”?

Perhaps, it is not only legal to flip the finger to the driver in the next car when you pass him ----maybe it is required by N.J.S.A. 39:4-85. So when you’re on the NJ Turnpike, drive courteously, and follow the law. You don’t want to get points on your license, and up those already high New Jersey insurance rates. Go for the gold.

Another law the Law Review Commission should look at is ---

N.J.S.A 36:2-54

"Kindness Awareness Month in New Jersey" designated.

1.The month of May of each year is hereby designated as "Kindness Awareness Month in New Jersey." All citizens of this State are urged to partake in educational programs and activities to foster kindness.

Hmm. So, now kindness is legislated in NJ --- but only in May.
And giving loud or noticeable warnings to passing cars on the NJTpke or GSP is a must.

So, for the rest of the month, [especially the coming holiday weekend]--- be kind when passing cars, and signal them appropriately.