The Joisey Supremos speak

By WND Staff

Once again, the paragons of “progressive” jurisprudence launch an assault upon the Constitution, this time in “Joisey,” natch. In essence, the Joisey “Supremos” (not to be confused with a popular TV drama) have said that machine politics trumps the clear language of the Constitution and the federal law pursuant thereto, as well as the clear language of the state’s legislature. As always with such institutional demagoguery, and as always with a controlling “party elite,” they’re doing it in the name of the people. In the Republic of Joisey, the Democrat machine has long been the “vanguard” of the masses. And the rest of us have duly taken note of what the results have been.

Senator-to-be Forrester is right. The Joisey Supremos blew a chance to make his state other than the butt of jokes.

While it may seem curious that the directly applicable language of the Constitution has been cited neither by the New York Times, the pundits and talking heads who have jumped into commenting on TV, nor any of the opining elite, we ought to be used to it. After all, if Americans again started relying on and applying the Constitution to the actions of their “leaders,” who knows what reversal of the socialist zeitgeist might occur? The last thing our elites want is for us to be demanding adherence to the Constitution. That would interfere with their attempts to undermine and destroy the principles embodied in it. Fortunately, Senator-to-be Forrester, in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, is relying on the Constitution.

The relevant language is in Article I, Section 4, where, in what has become known as the “Times, Places and Manner” clause, it 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 Places of chusing Senators.”

It is not for the Joisey Supremos to interpret the law in question here as they would any other enactment of the state’s legislature. The election law of New Jersey as it applies to electing a U.S. Senator is a prescription of the state legislature backed by national constitutional mandate.

Yet, interpret the law “progressively” is what the Joisey Supremos did. Here’s the list: First, they applied a principle from one of their prior decisions that it is in “the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties.” The Framers had no liking for political parties at all, considering them dangerous “faction,” and certainly didn’t care whether ballots bearing the names of parties were used.

Secondly, they invoked another decision to hold that they needed to construe “election statutes” “liberally” in order “to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and, most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on election day.” None of this falls within the intent of the Framers, except as it falls within laws passed by Congress. The laws which Congress has passed pursuant to this mandate most definitely preclude last-minute varying of election laws and procedures by states. The Joisey Supremos fall right in there with the segregationist Democrats of the Old South who routinely used similar tactics.

In telling the state legislatures to prescribe, the Constitution means for them to do so, not for state judges to come up with their own fanciful “cures” for the rule of law.

We’re right back where we were with the Florida fiasco: watching a “party vanguard” try to destroy the Constitution in the name of “the people,” and their right to vote for whom the bosses tell them to. Boss Tweed said, infamously: “I don’t care who does the elictin’, as long as I get to do the nominatin’.” The Joisey Supremos have gone him one better. They don’t care who does the elictin’ and the nominatin’, as long as they get to do the last minute substitutin’.

Judge Posner, in his terrific book on that fiasco, “Breaking the Deadlock,” marveled at the avoidance by the “progressive” judges involved of the parallel Article II mandate that presidential electors are to be chosen in the “Manner” which state legislature “directs.” The Joisey Supremos have outdone the aptly named SCOFLA. They don’t even have a dissenter to stand up for the actual law as prescribed by their legislature pursuant to federal constitutional mandate. If you asked them, they might tell you: “Hey, e la cosa nostra!” No dissenters in the ranks of the Joisey Supremos. They got the capi di tutti capi in Joisey. So ged outta here wit your Constitution.


Larry Elgin is the chairman of US-Defense-American Victory in Washington, D.C.