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(1) A now out-of-date law requiring that students stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.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.
Showing posts with label Law Review Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law Review Commission. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
“Too many damn laws!”
A few weeks back I attended the United Way annual dinner in Hunterdon County, and as always as a United Way Board member, I was sitting at a table with several UW supporters, clients, and volunteers. Being one of the only Democrats at the table is not an unusual experience for me, and the subject matter always turns to local, state and national politics.
Now, even the Republicans at the table have nothing to crow about regarding national politics these days with ‘Mr. 28%’ [and falling in NJ, thank you] in the White House, and both of NJ’s Senators being Dems. The same can be said for Trenton with the Dems holding both houses of the Legislature and Drumthwacket. [I always like saying “Drumthwacket”, mostly because when I was growing up in Brooklyn my house did not have a name.]
Anyway, the only thing the that many Repubs in Hunterdon have to drone on about these days is local politics. After our discussion about the Rs heated sheriff’s race and the multiple candidate freeholder race, the main R at my table made an ‘interesting’ observation:
“Problem with you Democrats is, you want too many damn laws! Laws for this! Laws for that. We should have a limited number of laws. Like we do in the Constitution. Just a dozen or so amendments. Like we do in the Bible. Only ten commandments there. And we do OK with them.”
Now when I came to the table, I had figured the guy voted for GW with his being a Repub and all----but after his last comment, my figuring was confirmed. So, I played along, and inquired, “Well, that’s interesting, how many laws do you think we should have?”
“Maybe no more than a hundred. Or a thousand, if you really need them," he chimed, with a big smile on his face.
Now, that I was too far in to this discussion to get out, I asked, “So, when we reach the limit, do we get rid of some laws? How do we do that?”
The answer seemed so logical to him:
“Well, you just set up a state commission to get rid of the old laws. I’m not saying you just get rid of the oldest ones first, but the commission looks at the bad laws, and just -----Phsxxsst [insert Bronx cheer here, which I do not know how to spell]---get rid of them. Off the books. Sayonara, amigo.”
Well, at least he has a sense of diversity ---- with his ‘Sayonara, amigo’ quip.
Before, I turned to my right and spoke to the one other Democrat at the table---the one with good sense to not speak to Mr. Repub, I asked finally, “This commission you want to set up to get rid of the extra laws---wouldn’t that require a new law to set up the commission? And what law would you get rid of to establish the new law to set up the commission?”
“I leave that to the lawyers”, he replied confidently.
Good call to give to ‘the lawyers’, I thought. And people always ask me ‘So, where do you get your comedy from? Real life, I say, real life.
Tomorrow: There is actually a commission that gets rid of old laws: The Law Review Commission. Well, some times they do, and sometimes it’s too ‘controversial’. But that story is for tomorrow.
Now, even the Republicans at the table have nothing to crow about regarding national politics these days with ‘Mr. 28%’ [and falling in NJ, thank you] in the White House, and both of NJ’s Senators being Dems. The same can be said for Trenton with the Dems holding both houses of the Legislature and Drumthwacket. [I always like saying “Drumthwacket”, mostly because when I was growing up in Brooklyn my house did not have a name.]
Anyway, the only thing the that many Repubs in Hunterdon have to drone on about these days is local politics. After our discussion about the Rs heated sheriff’s race and the multiple candidate freeholder race, the main R at my table made an ‘interesting’ observation:
“Problem with you Democrats is, you want too many damn laws! Laws for this! Laws for that. We should have a limited number of laws. Like we do in the Constitution. Just a dozen or so amendments. Like we do in the Bible. Only ten commandments there. And we do OK with them.”
Now when I came to the table, I had figured the guy voted for GW with his being a Repub and all----but after his last comment, my figuring was confirmed. So, I played along, and inquired, “Well, that’s interesting, how many laws do you think we should have?”
“Maybe no more than a hundred. Or a thousand, if you really need them," he chimed, with a big smile on his face.
Now, that I was too far in to this discussion to get out, I asked, “So, when we reach the limit, do we get rid of some laws? How do we do that?”
The answer seemed so logical to him:
“Well, you just set up a state commission to get rid of the old laws. I’m not saying you just get rid of the oldest ones first, but the commission looks at the bad laws, and just -----Phsxxsst [insert Bronx cheer here, which I do not know how to spell]---get rid of them. Off the books. Sayonara, amigo.”
Well, at least he has a sense of diversity ---- with his ‘Sayonara, amigo’ quip.
Before, I turned to my right and spoke to the one other Democrat at the table---the one with good sense to not speak to Mr. Repub, I asked finally, “This commission you want to set up to get rid of the extra laws---wouldn’t that require a new law to set up the commission? And what law would you get rid of to establish the new law to set up the commission?”
“I leave that to the lawyers”, he replied confidently.
Good call to give to ‘the lawyers’, I thought. And people always ask me ‘So, where do you get your comedy from? Real life, I say, real life.
Tomorrow: There is actually a commission that gets rid of old laws: The Law Review Commission. Well, some times they do, and sometimes it’s too ‘controversial’. But that story is for tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
