Showing posts with label unconstitutional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unconstitutional. Show all posts

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Pallone Slams Trump’s Unconstitutional Declaration of a National Emergency





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 15, 2019



Washington, DC – Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) released the following statement on President Trump’s announcement that he would be declaring a national emergency to build a border wall. The president’s emergency declaration and effort to steal billions of dollars in civil works programs, flood prevention and reconstruction projects, and military construction funds could impact more than $50 million specifically intended for New Jersey facilities at Picatinny Arsenal and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst.

“President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency is based on lies and deception and is blatantly unconstitutional. This is not a dictatorship, although President Trump continues to act like a dictator. President Trump took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. His actions in this case are a violation of that oath. That’s why I have co-sponsored a privileged resolution to terminate the president’s fake emergency under the National Emergencies Act.

“Our Founding Fathers gave the power of the purse to Congress and it is clear that the president either hasn’t read the Constitution or is simply willing to ignore our nation’s founding principles to get his way. Congress must immediately reassert its authority and do whatever is necessary to prevent the president from further trampling on the Constitution. I’ll be fighting the president’s actions on the floor of the House, through the courts and however else is necessary to restore our democracy, which may require his removal from office.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Letter: Sports Betting Decriminalization Unequal

The expressed opinions or views of this letter does not necessarily represent the opinion of the MiddletownMike blog:

Dear Editor,

New Jersey has made a critical error in its recent quest to circumvent federal law and legalize sports betting in the state.

New Jersey has sought to sidestep a federal court decision prohibiting the state from moving forward with the legalization of sports betting, which is illegal in the entire U.S., aside from Delaware, Oregon, Montana and Nevada, states that had already had laws allowing for the practice grandfathered when the federal ban, The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, came into effect in 1993.

New Jersey has now decriminalized sports betting at the state level for casinos and racetracks, but anyone else engaged in the practice still faces state-level criminal penalties.

Either the state is using other gaming licenses as de facto sports betting licenses which is illegal under federal law or New Jersey is violating the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing some to engage in sports betting while criminalizing others.

If it is legal under state law for a New Jersey racetrack or casino to engage in sports betting operations, then it is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the U.S Constitution for the state to continue criminalizing regular citizens doing the same thing, barring a change in federal law.
Someone facing sports betting charges in New Jersey should make a motion to dismiss their charges based on this constitutional violation and set a precedent.

Eric Hafner
Toms River,

Friday, December 26, 2014

Letter: NJ Medical Marijuana Regulation Is Unconstitutional

The expressed opinions or views of this letter does not necessarily represent the opinion of the MiddletownMike blog:


Dear Editor,

New Jersey's system of medical marijuana regulation, which requires all patients obtain a state-issued patient identification card to possess and purchase medical marijuana, in tracked sales, is unconstitutional.

Federal law still criminalizes marijuana. New Jersey medical marijuana patients must not be forced to incriminate themselves federally in order to obtain their medicine and be protected from prosecution under state medical marijuana statutes.

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court struck down the federal Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 on the grounds that payment of the tax was a violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination (Leary v US).

It is fine if the State of New Jersey wishes to offer voluntary patient registration. But forcing patients to create criminal evidence against themselves that could later be used against them in a federal prosecution, to be able to purchase state-legal medical marijuana and have a defense against state-level marijuana charges, is blatantly unconstitutional.

A valid physician's recommendation is the only document that should be required for a patient to be protected under New Jersey's Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.


Eric Hafner
Toms River

Thursday, June 12, 2014

CURRIE ON CHRISTIE'S LATE NIGHT COMEDY APPEARANCE TONIGHT



(Trenton) — As news reports highlight New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie scheduled appearance on Jimmy Fallon's "Tonight" show this evening, the New Jersey Democratic State Committee Chairman John Currie is asking whether perhaps the people of New Jersey would laugh better and louder if their governor saved the kidding for later. No joke.

“When the going gets tough, it's time to get going, not to start joking,” said New Jersey Democratic State Committee Chair John Currie. “Governor Christie should focus on solving the state’s policy problems, rather than creating distractions and making light of his many shortcomings. The governor's scandalous behavior has already made the Garden State the laughing stock of the country, so this late night comedy booking only adds insult to the the injury his failed economic policies have caused to middle class families."

Many of the Garden State's serious challenges — challenges that Christie blames on everyone but himself — are of Governor Christie’s making. In addition to the ongoing investigations into how and why the world’s busiest bridge was blocked by the governor's political appointees and citizens were put in harms way on the first day of school, the Christie administration has neglected Sandy survivors struggling to rebuild their lives, allegedly misused and misdirected public resources, and taken cronyism to “a whole new level.”

New Jersey is also enduring record foreclosures, anemic job growth and falling credit scores. And, because of Christie’s conservative priorities and excessively optimistic revenue projections, the state is facing a large budget shortfall, meaning it literally doesn’t have enough money to pay its obligations. The Christie administration’s proposal — for which he has no alternative — is to withhold promised payments to New Jersey's pension fund for public workers, a move that may well be unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, New Jersey’s deepening budget crisis has not inhibited the Governor from rewarding his political team. Despite the state's lagging economy, a Bergen Record report found that in recent months “nearly all of the state employees responsible for helping Governor Christie craft and promote his image… got raises that averaged 23 percent.” This may explain why the governor is booking television appearances instead of addressing policy concerns.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Don't let Gov. Christie sneak school vouchers into the budget

From the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey:

If at first you don't succeed, slip your plan into a budget bill when you think no one's looking. That's exactly what Gov. Chris Christie has done by stuffing a $2 million private school voucher program into the budget.

The only way to remove a proposal slipped into the budget is if our legislators take it out. Email your lawmakers in Trenton: Tell them that shoehorning vouchers into the budget is unconstitutional.

This $2 million plan for private school vouchers violates the New Jersey Constitution in three ways:

  • The state Constitution forbids officials from using the budget process to create substantive new policies, but that's exactly what's happening with vouchers. It's one thing to consider legislation through an open process with public input; it's another to sneak an unpopular, controversial, constitutionally questionable program in the state budget.
  • NJ's Constitution calls for a "thorough and efficient" education, and it spells out how: through a "system of free public schools." It explicitly states that money for that system of free public schools should be used only for that purpose and nothing else.
  • Private school vouchers use government money to support religious organizations. "Private schools" range widely, but the most affordable ones, where the majority of tuition can be covered by the vouchers, tend to be parochial schools. (More than half of private schools nationwide are religiously affiliated.) That means private school vouchers encourage enrollment in religious schools, and when state money goes to a parochial school, it violates the state Constitution's ban on public money supporting religious institutions . What's more troubling is that legislators have said publicly they hope vouchers will support religious schools with financial struggles. That is not why we pay taxes.

When school vouchers are discussed in the public arena, they're not popular – and for good reason. They divert public education funding to private and religious schools where civil rights laws, transparency regulations, and state standards don't always apply.

When a reporter asked the Christie administration about potential legal action challenging the constitutionality of Christie's actions, his spokesman replied: Bring it on.

Well, right now you can bring it on – by bringing your voice to your legislators.

Our hard-earned dollars should be spent on educating our children, not diverting money into unaccountable, secretive schools that have no imperative to respect students' or employees' civil rights.

ACLU of New Jersey
www.aclu-nj.org


Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Judicial Activism and the Affordable Care Act

President Obama and the White House responds to yesterday's ruling by a Federal Judge down in Florida that declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

Posted at The White House Blog by Stephanie Cutter on January 31, 2011

Today, a judge in Florida issued a decision in a case filed by 25 Republican Attorneys General and Governors striking down the Affordable Care Act. This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion. Twelve federal judges have already dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the health reform law, and two judges – in the Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Virginia – have upheld the law. In one other case, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a very narrow ruling on the constitutionality of the health reform law’s “individual responsibility” provision and upheld the rest of the law.

Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s “individual responsibility” provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain. And the judge declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the “individual responsibility” provision. This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law, which has consistently found that courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as can be preserved. As a result, the judge’s decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk.

Under today’s view of the law, seniors will pay higher prices for their prescription drugs and small businesses will pay higher taxes because small business tax credits would be eliminated. And the new provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying, capping or limiting your care would be wiped away.

We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts.

History and the facts are on our side. Similar legal challenges to major new laws -- including the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act -- were all filed and all failed. And contrary to what opponents argue the new law falls well within Congress’s power to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.

Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market. As Congress found, every year millions of people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, shifting tens of billions of dollars in added cost onto those who have insurance and onto taxpayers. There can be no doubt that this activity substantially affects interstate commerce, and Congress has the power to regulate it.

The Affordable Care Act, through the individual responsibility requirement, will require everyone, if they can afford it, to carry some form of health insurance since everyone at some point in time participates in the health care system, and incur costs that must be paid for. For the 83% of Americans who have coverage and who are already taking responsibility for their health care, their insurance premiums will decrease over time. Many of those who are currently struggling to pay for insurance will get a new tax credit. Only those who are able to pay for health insurance will be responsible for obtaining it. Because most people would voluntarily purchase coverage as it becomes more affordable and the policy exempts those for whom purchase would cause a financial hardship, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 1 percent of all Americans would pay a penalty for not having health insurance in 2016....


Read More >>> Here