Is New Jersey’s State Constitution Unconstitutional? Campaign to Recall Senator Menendez Turns Into Battle of the Constitutions
by Liberty ChickNew Jersey’s State Constitution is unconstitutional. That’s apparently what one New Jersey election official seems to think.
A committee seeking approval from the state to petition registered voters on whether to move forward with a special election to recall US Senator Robert Menendez was denied that request, in a letter on January 11th which stated that the US Constitution does not provide for such a proceeding.
But in 1993, the people of New Jersey overwhelmingly voted to reserve for themselves “the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress” (emphasis added), and in 1995 made this amendment to their state constitution under Article I, 2b.
This has left many New Jersey voters wondering why Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, a member of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch, would take it upon herself and her position to declare the NJ state Constitution unconstitutional. After reviewing the committee’s preliminary appeal statement, a judge in the Superior Court of NJ Appellate Division has just issued an order allowing a motion to accelerate the appeal.
Appointed to her post in January 2006 by outgoing Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, Wells was a key democratic fundraiser and close friend to Corzine. She has been called one of the Garden State’s 101 most influential people, and NJ Monthly profiled her and high-profile attorney husband Ted Wells in its Power Issue. Daughter Teresa worked on Senator John Edwards’ presidential campaign and as Corzine’s traveling press secretary, prior to accepting a position at the Rockefeller Foundation as chief media strategist. In her capacity as Secretary of State, Ms. Wells is perhaps best known for the Obama birth certificate case, Donofrio v. Wells. But Wells has faced more plausible scrutiny, such as fallout after a Princeton University professor’s successful hacking attempts on NJ voting machines, and a multitude of indictments of Vote-by-Mail voter fraud, including forgery of messenger ballots, on her watch (see here, here, here, here, and Dem. State Committee lawyer Josephson letter here). In 2008, Wells also overlooked a state law prohibiting candidates from running for President and US Senate in the same election, and improperly certified candidate Jeff Boss for both offices. (who on an unrelated note runs on a 9/11 truther platform).
On September 25, 2009, a Notice of Intention was filed in the Secretary of State’s office by a recall committee formed by members of the Sussex County Tea Party, a local grass-roots group and member of the statewide coalition, NJ Tea Parties United. The group seeks to initiate a special election in NJ to recall Senator Robert Menendez. In accordance with NJ election law, the first steps in that process are for the interested parties to form a committee to sponsor a recall petition, and file a Notice of Intent with the Secretary of State’s office. The Secretary of State is then required to determine whether the submitted notice and proposed petition conform to the statute’s requirements and either approve or deny the notice within three days. If denied, the reasons must be stated and the committee permitted to amend and resubmit the filing. Once approved, the committee then circulates the petition amongst registered voters in the state, collecting the signatures of those in support of calling for a recall election. Only if and when the committee collects the necessary number of signatures – 25% of the total registered voters in the general election that preceded the filing of the notice – can a recall election be scheduled.
All else up until and including the recall election itself could be considered political speech, which is entitled to the most strenuous protection against governmental suppression.
Yet, on January 11th, 2010, by her written response to the recall committee, Secretary of State Nina Wells seemingly violated the Constitutional rights of the Committee, its members, and those who want to sign the petition, when she wrote:
“It has been determined that the qualifications and election of a Member of the United States Senate is a matter of exclusive jurisdiction of federal authority and that neither the United States Constitution nor federal statute provide for a recall proceeding for a federally-elected official.
Therefore, in my capacity as the Chief Election Official of the State of New Jersey, I hereby determine that neither the Notice of Intention to Recall nor the proposed Petition can be accepted for filing or review.”
This statement presents quite a quandary, and a series of interesting questions that I discussed in detail with Dan Silberstein, co-counsel for the recall committee.
Does the Final Determination Violate The Committee’s Constitutional Rights?
Pursuant to the New Jersey Constitution (Article I, 2b) and statute 19:27A-2, it is undeniably clear that the people of NJ do have the power to recall any United States Senator or Representative.
“Pursuant to Article I, paragraph 2b. of the New Jersey Constitution, the people of this State shall have the power to recall, after at least one year of service in the person’s current term of office, any United States Senator or Representative elected from this State or any State or local elected official in the manner provided herein.”
The law further defines “elected official” as
“any person holding the office of United States Senator or member of the United States House of Representatives elected from this State, or any person holding a State or local government office which, under the State Constitution or by law, is filled by the registered voters of a jurisdiction at an election, including a person appointed, selected or otherwise designated to fill a vacancy in such office, but does not mean an official of a political party.”
Not only does New Jersey’s state constitution include the provision, but what’s more interesting is that the language specific to federal officials is actually relatively recent. In a 1997 recall election case, The Committee to Recall Theresa Casagrande v Casagrande, which challenged the actions of a Borough Clerk, presiding Judge Alexander D. Lehrer happened to reference the very amendment that also encompasses federal officials. That portion of the opinion reads in part:
“On November 2, 1993, the citizens of the State of New Jersey overwhelmingly voted to amend Article I, Paragraph 2 of the New Jersey Constitution to establish the right to recall local, state and federal elected officials.
“The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections. Any such laws shall include a provision that a recall election shall be held upon petition of at least 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled.”
On May 17, 1995, the Legislature of the State of New Jersey enacted the “Uniform Recall Election Law”, N.J.S.A. 19:27A-1 et seq. implementing this amendment to the Constitution. See: N.J.S.A. 19:27A-2.” Read the remainder here.
The recall committee had not yet even begun collecting petition signatures before the Secretary of State sent its “final determination”. As the supporting documentation for the committee’s appeal points out:
“The U.S. Constitution clearly does not prevent the formation of a Recall Committee. It does not prevent the collection of signatures of those who demand the recall of an elected official. It does not prevent the citizens from expressing their will, individually or collectively, by demanding that the State roll out its election machines to take a vote on anything it wants to vote on, including a vote on whether Menendez should be recalled.”
By refusing to comply with the NJ State Constitution and the NJ Uniform Recall Election Law, rendering an opinion that these violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and declaring them as unconstitutional, have the Secretary of State and the Director of the Division of Elections violated the committee’s rights (and those of the people of NJ)?
Does the NJ Secretary of State even have the power to make such a declaration?
Further, as clearly outlined in detail in 19:27A-7, the duties of the Secretary of State are very limited and merely clerical in nature.
The Secretary of State and Director of Division of Elections are positions within the Executive branch of NJ state government, not the Judicial branch. As such, they would not have any authority to declare any part of the New Jersey Constitution or any Statute unconstitutional. Only a judge could make such a determination.
Also, as Mr. Silberstein noted, there is no discretion vested in the Secretary to delay this simple clerical task for “legal review”, nor does the statute ask the Secretary to render an opinion on the Constitutionality of the statute. This leaves one to wonder why such action was taken and why such an opinion rendered in the first place.
Timeline of Events:
- September 25, 2009: Notice of Intent filed with the office of the Secretary of State and Division of Elections.
- October 5, 2009: Robert F. Giles, Director of the Division of Elections, acknowledged in a letter receipt of Notice stating it was “under legal review.”
- November 10, 2009: Second Notice is filed, indicating a change in committee chairperson for health reasons. Officials have still failed to respond within three days as is required by NJ law.
- December 2, 2009: After months without a response, the committee files a legal motion for summary judgment against the New Jersey Division of Elections, asking a judge to order that defendants immediately issue a response to the Committee’s Notice of Intention.
- January 11, 2010: Secretary of State sends a “final determination” indicating that neither the Notice of Intention to Recall nor the proposed Petition will be accepted for filing or review, declaring the current recall provisions in the NJ state Constitution and the NJ Uniform Recall Election Law to be in violation of the United States Constitution, rather than simply approving the Notices.
- January 13, 2010: An application to File Appeal on an Emergent Basis is filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division; in Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v. Nina Wells, Secretary of State, et al., the appeal requests reversal of the “final determination” and an order directing the Secretary of State to approve the Notice of Intention to permit the Committee to begin the collections of signatures.
- January 14, 2010: the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division issued an order allowing a motion to accelerate the appeal.
- January 15, 2010: Notice of Appeal and Case Information Statement filed.
- Currently waiting to be heard by the court
The Recall Committee, The Sussex County Tea Party, and the NJ Tea Parties United all view this recall election campaign as a critical tool in their pursuit to correct what some NJ citizens view as a deterioration of the democratic process on Capitol Hill, and a disconnect between the lawmakers and their constituents back home in NJ. With no Senatorial mid-term elections confirmed for NJ in 2010, and considering the fundamental significance of the legislation being considered, the group emphasizes the importance of having senators who will support open debate, offer transparency, and cease the abuse of cloture, all things the groups say Senator Robert Menendez has failed to do. Even if the recall itself is unsuccessful, or should the petition fall short of the required minimum of signatures, they are hoping that by obtaining any large number of signatures on the petition, it will send a clear message to Senator Menendez that he must engage with his constituents, and remind him that he represents all of the voters in NJ and not just special interests.
Regardless of one’s political views, and whether or not one agrees with the use of or the reasons given to support a recall election, the aspects of this particular case are undeniably paramount. NJ citizens should not be denied constitutional rights. The US Constitution and NJ Constitution both guarantee the rights of free speech, to petition for redress of grievances, and the right to peacefully assemble. Is the New Jersey state Constitution actually unconstitutional? And if so, where are the boundaries in declaring such as a reason for denying, or granting, state citizens certain rights? Is petitioning fellow citizens not considered political speech? And why not allow the recall election to move forward anyway, pursuant with the state Constitution?
As Mr. Silberstein and I discussed these very questions, he ended the conversation with a very interesting viewpoint, much of which is included in his and co-counsel Rich Luzzi’s appeal to the court:
Let the petition go forward. If enough signatures are collected, roll out the voting machines. Let the people vote. If the majority vote to recall the Senator, their voices should be heard and the Secretary of State should issue the recall order. If an official thinks it might be unconstitutional for the state to recall a US Senator, so what? Let the courts determine that, as they should. If the recall turns out to be unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, then so be it. Even without legal effect under the law, the recall order would still have significant value as a political statement, amounting to a non-binding vote of no-confidence. The people’s voices will still be heard. And really, isn’t that the most important point?
Follow NJ Recall Now, Sussex County Tea Party, or NJ Tea Parties United for more on this case.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
89 Comments
Because of the Tea Party movement, the American public is quickly catching on to all the shenanigans in all areas of government. Although I am glad to be part of this modern revolution I am shocked at the crimes that have been perpetrated by both parties for years on a sleeping populace.
Government of the
peoplejudges …Sadly, corruption and illegalities are quickly turning our electoral process into one that is akin to Nigeria, Haiti, and a host of Banana Republics. To think that we were once the bastion of freedom, the benchmark of liberty. We are a far cry from it today. It is repugnant.
And we have "political correctness, liberalism" to thank for it. The heighth of egotism is what that game is all about. It doesn't take rocket science to see through the mindset of these so-called "do-gooders". Repugnant is an understatement.
It should be the Senator's duty to fight the recall petition in court. The burden of the legal fight should not have to be on the shoulders of the citizens using their legal rights under the states constitution.
That the US Constitution has no provision for recall of State's Senators and Congressmen is evidence in itself that the STATES have the right to recall under the enumerated powers provision of the US Constitution. If the power is not granted to the federal gov't by statute or enumerated as a federal power under the Constitution, then that power is reserved to the several States and to the people.
From A Report:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO CONTEMPT NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION
"The power of a court to punish for contempt is said by the courts themselves to be inherent, in as much as this authority is "derived from necessity" and ceases "only where such necessity ceases." State v. Doty, 32 N.J.L. 403, 404 (Supreme Ct. 1868). The contempt power is said to derive from the common law. See In re Yengo, 84 N.J. 111, 130 (1980), cited in In Re Daniels, 118 N.J. at 59; In Re Cheeseman, 49 N.J.L. 115, 139-141 (Sup. Ct. 1886); In Re Verdon, 89 N.J.L. 16, 17, 20 (Sup. Ct. 1916), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Attorney-General v. Verdon, 90 N.J.L. 494 (E. & A. 1917); see also Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 347 (1970)
(Justice Brennan called the court's constitutional power regarding contempts "fundamental to a scheme of 'ordered liberty' and prerequisite to social justice and peace.")."
____________________________________________________
Holding The Secretary of State IN CONTEMPT not only has precedence (references numerous and available to even a cursory perusal of NJ cases…), but most certainly falls under the auspices of not only the spirit, but also the letter of Justice Brennan's statement on the subject: "fundamental to a scheme of 'ordered liberty' and prerequisite to social justice and peace."
The flagrant usurpation of powers NOT GRANTED to the office (making her opinion ~ legally sound or NOT ~ the "law" in this matter, versus the standard and historic process of the judiciary 'holding court' in such), combined with the utter disregard for the existent/STANDING law of the state… make for a strong case for a "bread-n-water" break for the secretary ~ while the matter proceeds according to that same clear law.
CM Sackett
As far as I can tell the only person that can challenge the constitutionality of the NJ amendment would be Sen Menendez and he would only be able to challenge it after the petition is successful.. Up and untill that point no one would have standing in a court of law as no one can claim they were injured by the petition..
Me thinks they need to add the SOS's Name to the list and recall her to !!!
The total lack of knowledge by our elected officals is OUTSTANDING..
Remember the States give rights to the Fed. Goverment not the other way around !!!
I'm unsure about the Constitutionality of the recall provision vis-a-vis the 17th Amendment. But I agree that that is a determination for the Federal judiciary, or possibly the NJ courts- NOT the NJ executive.
.
This is really poetic and powerful stuff from the pages of Saul Alinsky … Tea Partiers using the socialists own rules to against them to recall a liberal slime ball.
Sounds great … if they have to live up to their own standards they will shrivel and wilt because they are brain damaged and morally defective.
.
the cancer of liberalism and progressivism has festered far too long…time to cut it out of our collective misery….
NJ's constitutional provision should prevail. The US Con. supremacy clause states that the federal constitution and federal laws made in pursuance thereof will prevail over any state law or state constitutional provision, but only to the extent that the latter are contrary to anything in the US Con. or federal law in pursuant thereof. Because the US Con. does NOT have any express provision denying the states or the people from recalling their reps, and because the 10th Am. affirms that all powers not delegated remain with the people or the states, NJ should win. And should win even if there is a federal law saying that recalling federal reps or senators can not be done because that federal law would itself be unconstitutional precisely because the Constitutional document itself does NOT give Congress the necessary power to enact such a law.
Expect the fur to fly on this one. Trying to limit the power of the government is like talking a bone away from a hungry dog, or more appropriately a hungry grizzly or polar bear.
I believe that we have only scratched the surface.
Wasn't the NJ Secretary of State appointed by the NJ governor? In this case, Corzine, who is no longer the governor. Wouldn't it be appropriate for the new governor to fire/replace her?
The 17th Amendment… deals ONLY and SPECIFICALLY with:
1. The transference of the power to elect each state's senators… TO THE PEOPLE of each respective state (where, up and until that time ~ 1913 ~ they were chosen by state legislatures).
2. Gave each state's governor (if authorized by the state's legislature) the power to choose replacements for any non-election vacancies in the state's senate seats… until an election occurs (see MD's current 'special election').
___________________________________________________
"The Seventeenth Amendment does not affect the restriction in Article I, § 4, cl. 1, which prohibits the Congress from exercising a power to "make or alter" state regulations of elections…" (this line taken directly from Wikipedia)
CM Sackett
War is coming…dems are pushing us too far. Time to take our country back. Stand up and fight for what's right.
Judges? Here in Doity Joisey? They are picked from ranks of failed lawyers
i love bureaucracy; or is it criminal activity? i guess if the superior court of nj can issue a response within a day than that cancels out bureaucracy, depressing. at the very least secretary wells owes the people an honest explanation. from now on politicians and public officials are no longer allowed to plead stupidity when it comes to stalling the progress of our country. on the list of excuses ignorance is king, followed by 2) tummy ache and 3) sore throat. i hope the courts allow this process to move forward and specifically make mention of secretary wells blatant negligence.
"I have it the worst I live in Nevada with Reid."
Our condolences to you for now; to Reid very soon.
The people speak, the system stifles it. I think it is obvious that the People are getting fed up with the chess game these politicians are continually engaged in with our rights and freedoms. As one commenter has stated, the Tea Parties, if nothing else, has opened many peoples eyes.
I for one blieve they are doing much more then that.
It is high time that our "leaders, and I use that term very loosely" are jailed for fraud and corruption !
We must not stand for this abuse of our constitution and way of life any longer.
Kerry, the "war" is already on. We've already taken the governorships in Va. and NJ; retired some six leftist democrats, and are pressing toward gaining the Senatorial (formerly know as the kennedy) Seat in Massachusetts. Add to that the eventual approval of a recall election for menendez in NJ and you can see that the American people are already storming the beaches in this country, and that will not stop until we've retaken our capitols, all of them.
Count on it.
Ahh, the Silent Majority is awoken!
Article 1 Section 4 says "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."
i do nto see anything here that woudl prohibit or countervien the recall statute. Is there a federal Law prohibiting the recall?
I have to reply to edit this post.
The Constitution does not have any provision to allow or deny recalls. Since legislators are decided on on a fashon determined by the State Legislatures It should be up to the State Legislators for this. It seems the Legislature of NJ wanted a Recall to be possible.
s to a member of teh executive to decide Constitutionality of a law it is teh Duty off all Officers of State or Federal govt to uphold the rules. If they do not think the law is within the rules than and only then is it up to the Counts to adjucate the differecne of opinions. A prime example to this is when Eisenhower Vetoed a Bill because he felt it was not Constitutional.
Is Soros and Co. behind her? Another thing the thugs won't tell you. Throw Wells in jail for obstruction.
Good story by the way, Keep an eye out for thos Sec of States and government in general.
Let's recall Lautenberg who does not listen to his constituants either. Called both offices over 20 times with no response. These Senators are representing their own intrests. Watch Massachuchetts boys. Your next.
Of the People, BY the JUDGES, For the SPECIAL INTERESTS
For those who listened to Judge Napolitano on FN this week, we learned that originally the senators were selected by the states legislatures, NOT the voters. Clearly, they serve at the behest of the electorate, and states like NJ who have constitutionally described recall procedures should be able to execute them. The powers of the Federal government are limited. MOST power was reserved to the states.
So, according to Ms. Wells, the people have the right to elect federal officials, but as soon as the official is elected, the people loose the right to exert any kind of political power over that official? Hm.
Moreover, according to Ms. Wells, the federal Constitution is organized around positive law, rather than natural law (i.e. if it isn't in the Constitution, it is illegal)? That is a very, very dangerous opinion.
Again, the Constitution is silent on the specific procedures / legality of recalling state representatives, so the 'default' condition holds: "All powers not enumerated to the federal government … are reserved to the states.
Also – by common sense, the state selected the representative – the state should have the authority to recall that representative – this is clearly not a matter for the "Federal Congress" to legislate as this SOS is trying to make out.
Since this is (by omission of specifics in the US Constitution) a state matter, the State Constitution becomes the highest authority on what can and cannot be done as well as the methods to accomplish said objectives.
It's simple really….
Don't forget that Judges tend also to be Progressive in politics!
On the other hand the Supremes ruled in 1995 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v.
Thornton that the States can't create additional qualifications for
Congressional candidates beyond those in the US Con. The ejusdem generis
argument that US Con qualifications for office preclude the imposition of
additional requirements by the states, would also apply here given Art I
Sec 5:
\”Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members
for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a
Member.\”
which would I think support the argument that the Constitution is not
silent on the matter of removing members, and therefore State provisions
are pre-empted.
Your killing me Liberty Chick.
I wonder who will be the first really really really big fish to get fried. Are you starting to sense that when the dominoes start to fall your problems will switch from trying to get a story to trying to pick which one to cover?
A recall in New Jersey? And a DNC NJ Sec of State giving final determination and declaring unconstitutionality? The suspense is killing me. Podesta is lurking around on this one.
Oh yeah. Dan Rather. You're lunch can be found on LC's desk. Again!
Isn't there a new Sheriff, oops, I mean Governor in N.J.? Can't he just un-appoint Wells? Am I missing something?
My thoughts exactly!
I think it was the 17th Amendment that changed selection by states' legislatures to popular vote to elect US senators, and it was a post-Civil War punitive measure to soundly 'slap down' Southern states – always a questionable motive for "improvements" or change. It should be repealed but, ideally, after cleaning out the corruption in so many state legislative bodies.
Good point – judicial candidates are usually from the ranks of prosecutors, which are politically-elected or appointed posts.
You're right, and they don't like that we woke up…You can tell by__the snipers that come to this forum with their ugly remarks, __sniping, and spamming each post acting like they are superior__and know more then any of us……
We are in need of poll watchers, and I believe each
state should have Voter ID….We are trying to get that
passed down here..With the influx of illegals, and
people willing to commit this type of crime, I think it's
crucial to have a Voter ID, and preferably with a photo.
No, it was passed in 1913, and was part of the same malignant Progressive agenda that established the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve and Prohibition. It weakened the power of the States, paving the way fror FDR's destruction of Federalism.
As far as NJ Secretary of State Wells not allowing the VOTER RECALL process to run it's course…..
sue her A$$ CIVILLY AND CRIMINALLY…..
that should force her to obey the law and conduct the RECALL of Senator Mennendez……
then RECALL Secretary of State Wells.
I watched the good judge this week, and I'm not sure how letting the state legislatures appoint US Senators will help. At least I can continue to vote against both Boxer and Feinstein. If we turn that ability over to our lib, union loving, progressives in Sacaramento we'll never be able to vote the bad Senators out. (Too bad I can't vote against Pelosi, but she doesn't represent my mostly conservative district in SoCal.)
Well said. I have no faith in an Eric Holder justice dept. Don't get me started on LaRaza's first member to the Supreme Court..
At least we can get through to leave a message with Lautenberg. Everytime I call Menendez's office, no one picks up and the voice mail is full!
A GOP candidate summed it up nicely recently:
The Representatives represent the PEOPLE of a state in Congress, the Senators represent the STATES in Congress.
Wells' assertion that Senators are somehow FEDERAL doesn't jibe with that at all.
Does very much explain the current mindset in DC, though.
To address a couple questions (some have sent me some great feedback, thank you!):
1. Yes, the SOS is appointed in NJ and was done so by Corzine. A new one has already been selected, Kim Guadagno. Remember, the Notice of Intent was filed in September 2009, which is why the case was against Corzine's SOS. The issue is whether the SOS should have actually made a final determination at all – by law, SOS is just supposed to check the Notice for clerical stuff (who's on the committee, addresses, name of recall target, etc.) and then approve it so the group can then start circulating the recall petition. It doesn't seem to include the power that was invoked (but to some, that may be open to interpretation I suppose). Once a judge hears the appeal (if he hears it), he will determine whether a SOS has the authority to make a final determination before even allowing the petition phase – my assumption is that decision would then apply to the incoming SOS.
2. Whether pursuing the recall is a good decision or not isn't for me to say. But what I should explain is that there are plenty of checks in between that ensure it is a democratic process and doesn't devolve into a banana republic. In NJ, you file for a recall, then the first step is to petition the public. Only if enough sigs are obtained (25% of voters from prior gen election) can the petition then be valid. Then, a special election is held, and voters still come out to vote at the recall election. The public is included in the whole process – it's done this way so that rogue groups can't just come in and recall officials whenever they feel like it. The public votes, first by petition, then by election.
3. To be clear, the group isn't asking a judge to make a decision on whether to recall. They are only asking a judge to reverse the SOS' "final determination" and to approve the Notice, so that they may simply move forward with circulating a petition to see if enough registered voters even want a recall election. The voters may not, in which case it goes no further than the petition. But the group wants their opportunity to ask the public.
4. I did actually research into whether this particular SOS was a product of Democracy Alliance's/Soros' "Secretary of State Project". NJ is not one of its 13 target states, as it is an appointee state and does not have elections for SOS. So, I could not definitively rule that in as a factor in the official's decision.
Hope that answers some of the questions a few of you had.
I have to point out, that by that point in time most States had already changed the process of selecting Senators to via popular election. The Constitutional Amendment merely codified what was already the way it was done.
It is going to be painful, and with any luck, the patient will not pass away in the process of getting better.
The Progressives want to push thru all they can now while the Democrat like Liberal / Socialist / Marxist administration is in power so if that means screwing their constituents, so be it. I hope and pray the news networks there will let those people know that a right they gave themselves to pull crazy people out of office is being taken away by politics not votes. We need a Reaganite in office quick and more people freaking out and hand writing letters. I have it the worst I live in Nevada with Reid.
"Law Enforcement" is the great enabler for Ms. Wells. Without their support, just how long do you think she would last? Thank them if you wish. Or curse them for what they've done to this country. It's your choice. For now, anyway…
It is encouraging to see that when people are pushed to the wall and they realize that their freedoms are being not simply threatened but actually being taken away, they return to the country's basic documents are begin to appreciate the genius of the Framers. But that genius can only be honored by us if we resist the encroachment of government. Just guessing here as to a percentage, but in all events it is quite high, but 90% of what fedgov does is unconstitutional. That is, you cannot find textual language in the Constitution authorizing what Congress enacts. If a reader can find textual support for foreign aid I will eat my multiple copies of the Constitution. But foreign aid is but one example out of thousands of federal incursions into the people's freedom which fundamentally can be reduced to the freedom to be left alone.
Madison said it famously enough, in Federalist 45: the powers of fedgov are few and defined, those with the states numerous and undefined. In other words, if what you Congress want to do is not textually in the document then you may not lawfully do it.
recalling him isnt an additional qualification.
guns arent
I'm not so sure this is a great idea. I assume this isn't just random; that they have legal/Constitutional reasons for Menendez's recall. If not, then, as one of the previous posters said, this can devolve into a banana republic, where anyone can be recalled for anything, and that would throw our elections into chaos.
Once again, the CRIMINAL is in charge of keys that prevents the peoples will of opening the flood gates of opposition to misrepresentation!!!!!!! How have they become so emboldened you wonder, look no further than the so-called Judges who spit on the peoples rights and allow them to get away with their totalitarian agendas!!!! Recall elections, should be raging like wild fires across America, Judges should also be on the ballots for removal, they also have become political in nature!!!!!!!!
See the pattern? Disruption of the courts and usurping powers not granted just to rile up the population. Sowing social discord. To what ends? Think about it. One carefully placed disrupting influence and the machine grinds to a halt so obviously the system isn't working and must be modified. Guess who decides what modifications (the change part of hope and change) are necessary for social justice and fairness to ALL. All who are in violation of their oaths of office should be arrested or sued one by one until they get the message that their kind is not welcome in a free society.
Right on! We should pressure Christi to fire Nina Wells and appoint an honest SOS! This clerk is not worth 1 penny of what we pay her! She placed Obama, a constitutionally ineligible candidate on the election ballot, violating both the US contitituion and the NJ state constitution!
The SOS should have submitted her resignation upon the inauguartion of the new governor. If not, the new governor should appoint a new SOS period
The U.S Constitution already has a recall provision. You can find it in the penumbra of the Second Amendment.
"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe – Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy." ~ Daniel Webster
I live in NJ and I didn't even know there was a recall effort on. I say kick him out – he always sends me condescending form letters thanking me for my support when I send e-mails and letters stating my absolute opposition to his policies.
The missing caption for that picture:
"Good thing its written in pencil!"
hello,do you harry for a football jersey?Do you how to buy a jersey
online?
here i want too show you something:
If you are buying online, the first thing you need to remember is to
do your research on various online shops. While Google or any other
search engine can be your best friend, it helps to visit forums
instead. Check out public forums online which talk about online
shopping and there you would surely see poster suggesting and bashing
shops.
welcome to http://www.buying-jerseys.com
Hey Communist Menendez, don't let the door hit ya in the @$$ on your way out
Liberty Chick, if the major Newspapers in NJ were smart and wanted to make money selling papers again, they'd hire you to write their stories.
Anytime I send an e-mail to Lautenberg, Menendez or Pascrell, which has been 40 times in the last 4 months, I've yet to get a real response from them. All I get is: "Senator/Representative So-and-so is always eager to hear from you and your opinions on the issues. Your Senator/Representative is working hard for the people of New Jersey on the issues that matter to them. Thank you for telling them about your concerns." But they still vote the way the Democratic Party wants them to vote. Regardless of the will of the people. I really don't care if the people in office are republican or democrat, WE HIRED THEM. I ask you, if you were to work for someone and they told you to do something, but you ignored them and did what you wanted to do, would you be employed for long? It's high time that we fire the current employees and hire some new ones who will listen to the people and vote accordingly.
Begin the recall of the Secretary of State. Further, is not a recall petition another form of petition for redress of grievance against the government?
Provisions in state constitutions have been declared unconstitutional before. The Federal constitution trumps them. But until a Federal court strikes it down, it is the law of the land in New Jersey.
For the New Jersey Secretary of State to argue that her own constitution should be overturned is very odd indeed. For her to go against it while it is still in force is illegal.
Sorry, folks, but the term of office of a federal official is defined by the US Constitution, and no provision of any state constitution is permitted to alter the set term.
It is analogous to what we saw back with the term limit movement — every court that considered the matter stated that it would take an amendment to the federal constitution to impose such a limit, not merely a state constitutional amendment.
Does stating this mean that I view the notion of recall for federal officials to be a bad idea? No, not at all. Instead, it is a recognition on my part that the only legitimate way to get it is for a proposed amendment to the US Constitution to be sent forth to the several states for consideration and possible ratification.
[...] on January 11th which stated that the US Constitution does not provide for such a proceeding.” Click here for the full story from Big Government. Sphere: Related Content Share on: Facebook | digg_url = [...]
[...] officials denied their submission to initiate a recall effort against U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, calling it unconstitutional, a grass-roots recall committee’s constitutional instincts kicked into full gear. Attorneys [...]
>>"It is analogous to what we saw back with the term limit movement — every court that considered the matter stated that it would take an amendment to the federal constitution to impose such a limit, not merely a state constitutional amendment."
The court ruling back then was 5-4. So only one vote would have to change to uphold this NJ law.
The Federal courts are (not surprisingly) on the side of the Federal government, and the enemies of the states.
Soon it will be government by tar and feathers if these Ivy league a-holes don't snap into shape.
Wow, so this is where the morons congregate!
I am mildly surprised that the Tea Party group did not just ask for an Order of Mandamus against the SoS. Clearly, the duties of the SoS are clerical in nature, and not judicial. The 'determination' that the State Constitution is unconstitutional is clearly unconstitutional: the SoS is not a judicial officer. If the SoS on reasonable grounds believed that a particular course of action was improper, the proper course would be to petition the court for instructions, not deliver her own 'ruling'.
Since the SoS will not do what the Statute requires, the conditions for a mandamus are met.
She's a typical liberal defending her turf. She couldn't care less about the law. Where does she get the brass to even think that a clerk can nullify the state constitution? Hubris.
[...] a move afoot to recall Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). New Jersey law authorizes such recalls, but it seems likely that the U.S. Constitution does not [...]
[...] Heretic Leave a comment Go to comments Apparently there is a movement underway in New Jersey to recall Senator Robert Menendez. Eugene Volokh analyzes the case on the grounds that the Constitution does not allow for a state to [...]
While I agree with your sentiments, Cowboy, I find your avatar quite disturbing. Please read this from USHistory(dot)org:
"The Flag Code states, 'The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.' It is an unreasonable stretch to argue that the political purposes constitute "dire distress." Clearly this was intended as a call for immediate emergency assistance. We recommend that people who wish to express their political views find a way to do so that is respectful of the flag. Remember that to some the flag represents the government of the US and its policies; but it also represents the sacrifices made in all generations to protect our freedoms. It represents the promise of the Declaration. It represents our freedom of speech and our freedom to practice or not practice religion as we choose. It represents one nation in its strength and glory. It represents faith in a better future. We recommend that you show your respect for the country and for the flag and make your political views known in other ways. It is not illegal, it is disrespectful to the memory of those who gave their lives protecting your freedom to protest.
[...] can’t bear that we have to put up with Lindsey Graham for at least a few more years! However, in this article by Liberty Chick at BigGovernment.com the Sussex County Tea Party is attempting to recall Senator Robert Menendez. It seems that: in [...]
However, the good news is, there could be some help. This help could come from acupuncture. Now, studies have already shown that acupuncture can increase fertility in women, but can it do the same for men. That is the topic that we are going to talk about today.
[...] » Is New Jersey’s State Constitution Unconstitutional? Campaign to … [...]
the answer is for the states to repeal the 17 th Amendment. the time for this is now as 37 states are passing laws to
stop this new health care farce that will force every state into total bankruptcy
Let's follow through with this to the fullest extent of our NJ states Constitution! Menendez has to be recalled and furthermore Christie has to fire Wells!!!!
[...] party bases their actions on the New Jersey constitution, which was amended to allow the recall of their elected representatives, including members of [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.