New Jersey Constitution, a Young 70, Needs Preserving
Our state constitutional development since 1947 is a matter about which we are justifiably proud. We should work toward preserving it.
November 17, 2017 at 05:30 PM
5 minute read
New Jersey State Flag
This year marks the 70th anniversary of our state constitution. Although some say 70 is the new 50, our state constitution has proved to be relatively stable and to have withstood the test of time. State constitutions are low-visibility, and often amended or even replaced. Ours has been a work in progress since the often-criticized 1776 constitution, through the 1844 major revision, the 28 changes adopted in 1875, and the well-known 1947 Constitutional Convention's modern, streamlined constitution. The 1966 Constitutional Convention revised the electoral provisions to comply with the United States Supreme Court's “one person, one vote” decisions.
Our state constitution, although significantly shorter than many others, is significantly different from the federal Constitution. Its major function, in addition to rights protections, is to limit state governmental power, whereas the federal Constitution primarily enumerates federal governmental power. Even though our state constitution is relatively difficult to amend, and is not amended at the rate of many other state constitutions, it is significantly more malleable than the federal Constitution. It is therefore possible to respond to lessons learned or evolving needs. Some amendments are not particularly consequential, while others make significant adjustments in the structure of our state government, or the catalog of rights that protect us.
The 1947 constitution was adopted after very substantial efforts during the 1940s, and even a draft constitution that failed at the polls in 1944. The constitution was adopted in a period of bipartisan, post-war optimism, by a convention of 81 delegates, eight of whom were women and one of whom was African-American. The new constitution contained a women's rights provision and an anti-segregation clause, together with a constitutional right to collective bargaining. It also established arguably the nation's strongest governor and one of the top judicial branches in the United States. The New Jersey judiciary played a central role in the rise of “The New Judicial Federalism,” the now-familiar phenomenon of state courts interpreting their state constitutions to provide more protection than under the federal Constitution. In areas like school finance, capital punishment (before repeal), abortion, exclusionary zoning, and free speech on private property, people in New Jersey have had more rights than are available under the national constitution.
New Jersey has largely avoided the rush we observe in many other states to utilize the state constitution as a “tool of lawmaking,” entrenching in the state constitution matters that could be left to ordinary lawmaking. While matters such as minimum wage were deemed important enough by the Legislature (bypassing a gubernatorial veto) and the voters to be constitutionalized, our constitution is still relatively free of “policy matters.”
Our state constitutional development since 1947 is a matter about which we are justifiably proud. We should work toward preserving it.
New Jersey State Flag
This year marks the 70th anniversary of our state constitution. Although some say 70 is the new 50, our state constitution has proved to be relatively stable and to have withstood the test of time. State constitutions are low-visibility, and often amended or even replaced. Ours has been a work in progress since the often-criticized 1776 constitution, through the 1844 major revision, the 28 changes adopted in 1875, and the well-known 1947 Constitutional Convention's modern, streamlined constitution. The 1966 Constitutional Convention revised the electoral provisions to comply with the United States Supreme Court's “one person, one vote” decisions.
Our state constitution, although significantly shorter than many others, is significantly different from the federal Constitution. Its major function, in addition to rights protections, is to limit state governmental power, whereas the federal Constitution primarily enumerates federal governmental power. Even though our state constitution is relatively difficult to amend, and is not amended at the rate of many other state constitutions, it is significantly more malleable than the federal Constitution. It is therefore possible to respond to lessons learned or evolving needs. Some amendments are not particularly consequential, while others make significant adjustments in the structure of our state government, or the catalog of rights that protect us.
The 1947 constitution was adopted after very substantial efforts during the 1940s, and even a draft constitution that failed at the polls in 1944. The constitution was adopted in a period of bipartisan, post-war optimism, by a convention of 81 delegates, eight of whom were women and one of whom was African-American. The new constitution contained a women's rights provision and an anti-segregation clause, together with a constitutional right to collective bargaining. It also established arguably the nation's strongest governor and one of the top judicial branches in the United States. The New Jersey judiciary played a central role in the rise of “The New Judicial Federalism,” the now-familiar phenomenon of state courts interpreting their state constitutions to provide more protection than under the federal Constitution. In areas like school finance, capital punishment (before repeal), abortion, exclusionary zoning, and free speech on private property, people in New Jersey have had more rights than are available under the national constitution.
New Jersey has largely avoided the rush we observe in many other states to utilize the state constitution as a “tool of lawmaking,” entrenching in the state constitution matters that could be left to ordinary lawmaking. While matters such as minimum wage were deemed important enough by the Legislature (bypassing a gubernatorial veto) and the voters to be constitutionalized, our constitution is still relatively free of “policy matters.”
Our state constitutional development since 1947 is a matter about which we are justifiably proud. We should work toward preserving it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250