Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

N.J. Senate Bill 38 - Judges Shall Obey The Law

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal ____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California March 3, 2002
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 3 9:55 PM
    • 0 Attachment
       J.A.I.L. News Journal
      ____________________________________________________
      Los Angeles, California                                                March 3, 2002
      JAILphoneCards 
       
      N.J. Senate Bill 38 -

      Prefatory Remarks:

      Evidence is arising all around us of judicial activism, to wit, judges passing laws from the bench. Like candidates for the legislature, judicial contests for vacant seats are turning into expensive and heated political battles based upon the favoritism views of contesting judges. Judge "A" will rule this way on the law, while Judge "B" will rule the other way on that same law.

      J.A.I.L. is on the leading edge to the means of holding every judge in this nation to the same standard: the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. More and more attention is being drawn as never before to the activities of judges who have heretofore operated outside of the public spotlight and attention. J.A.I.L.'s constant exposure of judges and the judicial system has attributed to the lion's share of the new shift of "judicial consciousness."

      Even the Legislature of the State of New Jersey is now looking into the problem of judges legislating from the bench, and is now considering legislation (SCR #38) that essentially mandates "Judges shall obey the law!"

      We will let you read the proposed Bill for yourselves, and at the end we will comment upon this proposed new Amendment to the New Jersey Constitution.

      SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 38
      STATE OF NEW JERSEY
      210th LEGISLATURE
      INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 21, 2002
      Sponsored by:
      Senator GERALD CARDINALE
      District 39 (Bergen)

      SYNOPSIS

      Requires provisions of Constitution and statutory law to act as sole sources for judicial decision making.

      CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

      As introduced.

      A Concurrent Resolution proposing to add a new section IX to Article VI of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.

      Be It Resolved by the Senate of the State of New Jersey (the General Assembly concurring):

      1. The following proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of New Jersey is hereby agreed to:

      PROPOSED AMENDMENT

      Amend Article VI by adding a new section IX as follows:

      Section IX

      1. On and after the date on which this section becomes effective, any decision made by a court of this State shall be based on the provisions of the Constitution and the duly enacted statutes of the State of New Jersey. Any holding in any prior judicial decision conflicting with the provisions of the Constitution or statutory law shall not act as precedent.

      2. When this proposed amendment to the Constitution is finally agreed to pursuant to Article IX, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, it shall be submitted to the people at the next general election occurring more than three months after the final agreement and shall be published at least once in at least one newspaper of each county designated by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the General Assembly and the Secretary of State, not less than three months prior to the general election.

      3. This proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be submitted to the people at that election in the following manner and form:

      There shall be printed on each official ballot to be used at the general election, the following:

      a. In every municipality in which voting machines are not used, a legend which shall immediately precede the question, as follows:

      If you favor the proposition printed below make a cross (X), plus (+), or check () in the square opposite the word "Yes." If you are opposed thereto make a cross (X), plus (+) or check () in the square opposite the word "No."

      b. In every municipality the following question:






      CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REQUIRING JUDICIAL DECISIONS BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY LAW






      YESShall the Amendment to Article VI, agreed to by the Legislature, requiring judicial decisions to be based on the provisions of the Constitution and statutory law, be adopted?
      INTERPRETIVE  STATEMENT


      NOAdoption of this amendment would require that on and after the date on which the amendment becomes effective, any decision made by a court in New Jersey would be required to be based on the provisions of the Constitution and statutory laws of New Jersey. Any judicial decision made prior to the date that this amendment becomes effective could not serve as precedent in the judicial decision making process if that decision conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution or statutory law.

      STATEMENT

      Under the guise of interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of New Jersey, there has been a growing tendency on the part of the Judiciary to rely on prior judicial decisions as precedent rather than on the written provisions of the Constitution and statutory law. This amendment is intended to curtail that tendency by providing that upon the date this amendment takes effect, judicial decisions would be required to be based on the provisions of the Constitution and statutory law and that any prior judicial decision conflicting with the provisions of the Constitution or statutory law could not act as precedent.

      ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

      Our comments from J.A.I.L. is not an attempt to throw ice water upon a good thing, for we recognize this as a start towards a positive step. Should this Constitutional Amendment pass, it will be proof positive to other legislatures throughout other states that there is a real judicial problem that must be dealt with. No more denials hiding that fact.

      Recognizing a problem is indeed a great first step, to wit, admitting that something outside and beyond the judges themselves must be watching over our judges.

      Having established this fact, we now turn to the question whether this new Constitutional Amendment is the answer to the problem. It is to this question J.A.I.L. would like to address.

      We are told, "any decision made by a court of this State shall be based on the provisions of the Constitution and the duly enacted statutes of the State of New Jersey." 

      This is a good objective, but who is going to sit in judgment upon the question as to whether a judge's decision is based upon the Constitution or existing statutes? Will it be the Legislature? No! The Governor? No! The People? No! It will be another judge, whose decision will be reviewed by other judges. That's just the way our existing system works. There is no way to escape the fact that the judges are the final arbiter.

      Further, we are told, "Any holding in any prior judicial decision conflicting with the provisions of the Constitution or statutory law shall not act as precedent."  Here the Legislature is asking a judge to hold that his predecessors' decisions were unconstitutional. And what is the consequences or punishment for a judge who ignores this Constitutional Amendment and rules in favor of prior judges' rulings and thus, keeping things just the way they currently are? Nothing, zilch, zero. Will these judges be held liable civilly? No! They are protected by judicial immunity and cannot be held liable. That's the way our system currently works.

      Now, along comes J.A.I.L. setting up citizens' Special Grand Juries throughout the fifty states which sit in judgment of judges who deliberately violate their oaths of office, the Constitution and laws in pursuance thereof. 

      These citizens drawn by pure lottery have the power to strip away the judge's judicial immunity, and to make them civilly liable. They even have the power to remove these law-breaking judges from the bench, and to cause these judges to lose 50% of their judicial retirement, and prevent them from ever practicing as a private judge within that state. Now, that's enforcement!

      If we could get judges to obey the law just by passing a law that says "judges shall obey the law," then the answer would be quite simple. By this same method, then, we could eradicate all crime by passing a law that says, "All criminals shall obey the law." Hence, we make our point clearly -- New Jersey's only answer is the New Jersey J.A.I.L. Bill found at www.jail4judges.org, and clicking "States," and then "New Jersey." The positive answer to their problem is all done for them right there!

      Ron Branson
      Author/Founder


      J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  AddRemove@...
      E-Groups may sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com
      Ask not what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
       
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
       
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><

       
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.