On August 3, 2007 the attorneys for Governor Corzine, Ms. Katz , and Mr. Wilson will arrive in Trenton at the Mercer Vicinage of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Oral argument is "High Noon" in Wilson v. Corzine. The Honorable Judge Innes is presiding.
For Governor Corzine and Mr. Wilson the stakes couldn't be any higher. The Governor needs a favorable ruling that can be held up as a vindication of his claim to be a reform politician. A loss here, regardless of a stay pending appeal and / or a successful appeal would not only put a hole in his image, but would also be a critical blow to the credibility necessary to gain public acceptance of Asset Monetization.
For Mr. Wilson and the New Jersey Republican Party an adverse ruling eliminates the issue as a fulcrum for attacking Asset Monetization and crushes the momentum the underdog Party has sought to build as the State approaches the November Legislature elections. Failure to retake the Senate or the Assembly would seem to assure that Asset Monetization, in whatever form presented, will be implemented. Conversely, a favorable ruling may well redirect Republican fortunes from the doghouse to the Statehouse.
This clash of titans and their ginormous political interests requires no expense be spared and no leaf is unturned. Mr. Wilson is represented by the politically astute and well respected law firm of Drinkle Biddle. Attorney Mark D. Sheridan for the plaintiff. Governor Corzine has all of the power and resources of the State at his command. Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida for the defendant. And, then, there is Ms. Katz. Covering the Governor's back. The wildcard, the potential to spoil or be a loose canon. Attorney Jeffrey P. Blumstein for defendant Katz.
Each attorney awaits the entrance of Judge Innes. Maybe they review their arguments - except the time for that preparation is really over. More likely they try to connect to the press. Searching the reporters' faces - listening to their voices – a last minute attempt to focus them on his points. Did Governor Corzine's publicizing the fact he would no longer use email persuade public opinion that releasing email seriously hurts the Governor's ability to conduct State business? What are they saying about the Governor's belated 1.5 % giveback on retiree contributions? Did the Governor's announcement that, as a result of his negotiations, the cost of unfunded health benefits had fallen from $80 billion to $58 billion neutralize that news? Do people think they have a right to the emails and that the Governor is covering up some unsavory dealing(s)? Will they think less of the Judiciary if the judge does not release the emails to Mr. Wilson?
Has the Judge seen these stories? If not, oral argument provides the opportunity to mention them. "Your Honor, it is generally well known that ..."
Judge Innes takes an introspective walk from his chambers to the courtroom. "Just hearing the case raises the potential for a public outcry of judicial encroachment on the executive branch. Does Sheridan really believe that being a public figure is the same as a state agent? And Corzine. What's he doing exchanging emails with Katz in the middle of negotiations? And, this Advisory Panel opinion is a hornet's nest. Bloggers, all I need now is bloggers."
"All rise." Judge Innes enters the court. He sits with his back to the wall and surveys the courtroom. He sees the expressionless faces of the Lawyers in front him. He knows the Governor has a tremendous power to influence the judicial branch. An $8,000 pay raise signed into law. He also knows prominent law firms can exert a tremendous influence on the Judiciary through such back channels as the bar, the press, political contributions and personnel connections. And, He knows the press crowding the room for the story will be both a witness to and a judge of his proceeding.
"Please be seated. ... Mr. Sheridan." "Your Honor, if it please the Court... "
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
JAY LASSITER’S POTENTIAL TO MATTER ? A KINETIC CONSTITUTIONAL QUAKE!
The purpose is to review two matters concerning the termination of Jay Lassiter’s access ID to the New Jersey Statehouse which was originally issued for the purpose of reporting on the Legislature. Thus it’s asked:
1. Whether the termination of Blue Jersey Jay Lassiter’s state house ID involves First Amendment Free Speech rights, is a police power issue, both, or neither.
2. And, in light of looking at the above, whether Blue Jersey “Jay Lassiter’s Potential to Matter” is actually a wrongdoing of Constitutional dimension.
Subjective and objective methods are the basis for deciding whether, intentional or not, the Free Speech Rights of Blue Jersey and Jay Lassiter have been violated.
The subjective method primarily relies on the acting party(s) explanation of their motive for taking the action. The objective method looks at all the facts that can be gathered and asks whether observers of the incident would draw the conclusion that it is more probable the act was taken to suppress speech and, if so, the subjective explanation is a pretend reason used to cover-up the suppression speech.
The reasons offered for taking Blue Jersey Jay Lassiter’s permission rely on two archetypical political defenses. The first excuse is there are no issues of Free Speech involved in the revocation. More to the point, Free Speech is not an issue because the elements that identify a matter as a Free Speech issue are not present in either a general action or in the specific application to Blue Jersey’s Jay Lassiter. This line of reasoning seldom holds water and such is the case here.
Strictly speaking, the First Amendment provides “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” If , however, one believes the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that applying these rights to State governments is “judicial activism”, these rights are also, strictly speaking, explicitly embodied in the New Jersey Constitution (“No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”).
The second excuse says that even if issues of Free Speech do come into play, the “but-for” police power of the State is an exemption. A typical example is making it a crime to lie when yelling “fire” in a theatre. Obscuring Constitutional rules, however, is a slippery slope as exceptions, be they partial birth abortion or bong hits for Jesus, gradually hollow out the rule, build like a tidal wave to overwhelm the right, and only recede when the right becomes the exception.
With this in mind, let’s look at some the pertinent facts. No one disputes that Blue Jersey and Jay Lassiter have a substantial interest at stake, buttressed by the fact the State concedes “Mr. Lassiter … was selected [by the State] in April to become … the first blogger to cover the Legislature.” Since the State Police issue the IDs one must assume they reviewed the situation and provided the ID. So too, one must also concede that while Jay Lassiter may not meet every possible criteria for issuing the pass, he meets sufficient and determinative criteria to warrant the ID being issued, i.e. he regularly worked in the building. And, without more, one must also presume the issuers are competent and thus Jay Lassiters’ ID is valid. Furthermore, the State’s interest in security does not appear to be an emergency and is neither “necessary or compelling” as “[o]fficials said there is nothing in Mr. Lassiter’s background that prompted the reversal.” Finally, aside from an assertion he described something(s) or someone as a “nincompoop”, and with out knowing whether these things could be reasonably described as nincompoopery, it seems clear Jay Lassiter did not disturb Legislative functioning.
The question, therefore, is what legitimate authority gave AG Rabner the power, in what might well be his final act before assuming the office of Supreme Court Chief Justice, to act as the court of final review, and without notice, revoke Blue Jersey Jay Lassiter’s presumably valid building ID? Since Blue New Jersey and Jay Lassiter have a valid First Amendment interest in working regularly at the Legislature, and since the State recognized Jay Lassiter met sufficient relevant criteria to issue the ID, and since there was no emergency the lack of an administrative hearing prior to termination is inexcusable. Thus, both Blue Jersey’s and Jay Lassiters’ Free Speech rights and First Amendment interests are presumably abridged and the Constitution violated by AG Rabner’s whimsical termination of them.
Ain't that right, Stu.
1. Whether the termination of Blue Jersey Jay Lassiter’s state house ID involves First Amendment Free Speech rights, is a police power issue, both, or neither.
2. And, in light of looking at the above, whether Blue Jersey “Jay Lassiter’s Potential to Matter” is actually a wrongdoing of Constitutional dimension.
Subjective and objective methods are the basis for deciding whether, intentional or not, the Free Speech Rights of Blue Jersey and Jay Lassiter have been violated.
The subjective method primarily relies on the acting party(s) explanation of their motive for taking the action. The objective method looks at all the facts that can be gathered and asks whether observers of the incident would draw the conclusion that it is more probable the act was taken to suppress speech and, if so, the subjective explanation is a pretend reason used to cover-up the suppression speech.
The reasons offered for taking Blue Jersey Jay Lassiter’s permission rely on two archetypical political defenses. The first excuse is there are no issues of Free Speech involved in the revocation. More to the point, Free Speech is not an issue because the elements that identify a matter as a Free Speech issue are not present in either a general action or in the specific application to Blue Jersey’s Jay Lassiter. This line of reasoning seldom holds water and such is the case here.
Strictly speaking, the First Amendment provides “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” If , however, one believes the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that applying these rights to State governments is “judicial activism”, these rights are also, strictly speaking, explicitly embodied in the New Jersey Constitution (“No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”).
The second excuse says that even if issues of Free Speech do come into play, the “but-for” police power of the State is an exemption. A typical example is making it a crime to lie when yelling “fire” in a theatre. Obscuring Constitutional rules, however, is a slippery slope as exceptions, be they partial birth abortion or bong hits for Jesus, gradually hollow out the rule, build like a tidal wave to overwhelm the right, and only recede when the right becomes the exception.
With this in mind, let’s look at some the pertinent facts. No one disputes that Blue Jersey and Jay Lassiter have a substantial interest at stake, buttressed by the fact the State concedes “Mr. Lassiter … was selected [by the State] in April to become … the first blogger to cover the Legislature.” Since the State Police issue the IDs one must assume they reviewed the situation and provided the ID. So too, one must also concede that while Jay Lassiter may not meet every possible criteria for issuing the pass, he meets sufficient and determinative criteria to warrant the ID being issued, i.e. he regularly worked in the building. And, without more, one must also presume the issuers are competent and thus Jay Lassiters’ ID is valid. Furthermore, the State’s interest in security does not appear to be an emergency and is neither “necessary or compelling” as “[o]fficials said there is nothing in Mr. Lassiter’s background that prompted the reversal.” Finally, aside from an assertion he described something(s) or someone as a “nincompoop”, and with out knowing whether these things could be reasonably described as nincompoopery, it seems clear Jay Lassiter did not disturb Legislative functioning.
The question, therefore, is what legitimate authority gave AG Rabner the power, in what might well be his final act before assuming the office of Supreme Court Chief Justice, to act as the court of final review, and without notice, revoke Blue Jersey Jay Lassiter’s presumably valid building ID? Since Blue New Jersey and Jay Lassiter have a valid First Amendment interest in working regularly at the Legislature, and since the State recognized Jay Lassiter met sufficient relevant criteria to issue the ID, and since there was no emergency the lack of an administrative hearing prior to termination is inexcusable. Thus, both Blue Jersey’s and Jay Lassiters’ Free Speech rights and First Amendment interests are presumably abridged and the Constitution violated by AG Rabner’s whimsical termination of them.
Ain't that right, Stu.
Monday, July 16, 2007
WHAT TOLLS? GOV CORZINE, ASSET MONETIZATION & SECURITIZATION
For whatever reason Governor Corzine and the loyal opposition are not talking about “Asset Monetization” and “Securitization”. Yet there must be some basic rules that form the foundation for any and every such program. Accordingly, the purpose of the following is to begin thinking about that discussion.
At first glance the structure would appear to be a broad balance sheet reorganization that structurally matches disparate groups of capital assets with dissimilar groups of capital liabilities.
DEFINITIONS:
ASSET MONITIZATION: Future cash receipts generated over a set time period in the future are traded for cash today, i.e. Turnpike or Parkway tolls from 01/01/08 through 01/01/18 may be sold to investors. The sale price is today’s value of that cash flow where each future flow is discounted to give the investor a current market rate of return on the investment.
Issuing debt as a means of receiving cash today with the promise to repay with toll revenues tomorrow is called SECURITIZATION. Using a bond to borrow against future toll revenues securitizes the future toll revenues.
AN IMAGINARY ILLUSTRATION TO UNDERSTAND THE COST.
The following projections are totally made up and for demonstration purposes only. And, keep in mind that the issuance of debt can take many different forms. For instance, New Jersey could sell one fixed maturity bond backed by 10 years of toll revenues and repay the total debt in year 10. Or, costs might be lowered by treating each year’s receipts as a separate bond that will be repaid when that year’s tolls are received. The theory is the shorter the time to maturity, i.e. the time until the loan is due to be paid, the lower the interest rate that will be paid. In effect the shorter pay date lessens the lenders time exposure to deterioration in the borrower’s ability to pay or that interest rates will move higher. In reality there are many more possible debt structures. All have unique costs as well as unique benefits.
If we unrealistically assume the current years revenues are $1,000,000 and those revenues grow at 2% per year, the annual income stream from tolls over the next 10 years is as follows:
TOLL REVENUE PER YEAR
2008-2009 1,020,000
2009-2010 1,040,400
2010-2011 1,061,208
2011-2012 1,082,432
2012-2013 1,104,081
2013-2014 1,126,162
2014-2015 1,148,686
2015-2016 1,171,659
2016-2017 1,195,092
2017-2018 1,218,994
TOTAL 11,168,714
If investors demand a 6% taxable return on their investment, the amount the State can borrow in 2008 is $6, 236,251. At the 6% rate $6,236,251 grows to $11,168,714 in 2018 and that total is thus the sum paid to investors as a lump sum in 2018.
This means the borrowed funds received must reduce expenses whose annual cost is greater than 6%. If used to reduce expenses or fund a project where the the cost is less than 6% the State loses money. If used to reduce expenses or fund a project that costs more than 6% the State saves money.
State, county and local government bonds are generally exempt from federal, and in certain instances State, income taxes. Because they are exempt the interest rate paid on “municipal bonds” is determined in part by an investor keeping more tax free interest than would be kept after paying taxes on a taxable bond. Ask yourself, all things being equal, would you buy a 6% bond that is taxed or a 6% bond that is tax-exempt. Logic dictates you will buy the tax exempt bond until the tax exempt interest rate is equal to the after tax interest rate you receive on taxable bonds.
The tax-free rate equivalent to 6% taxable is 4.62% for someone in the 30% tax bracket. Given a premium to induce such an investor to buy the new security the price might be 4.75% or higher. At 5.00% tax free, the present value of $11,168,714 – the amount the State of New Jersey borrow in 2008 – is $6,856,623.
SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS ABOUT ASSET – LIABILITY MATCHING
(1) The trick appears to be in the issuance of lower cost tax exempt bonds (in effect a federal subsidy) to reduce higher cost expenses or to fund higher cost projects.
Historically, this was done through what is called a pre-refunding. The borrowed funds were used to retire outstanding higher cost debt. In effect the proceeds from the sale of future toll revenues as tax exempt bonds would be reinvested in taxable bonds. As the taxable bonds pay off the proceeds are used to pay off the old debt. The higher interest earned by the State on the taxable bonds lessens the total amount which must be borrowed to retire the older, higher cost debt. The issuer saves by paying a lower interest rate on the new, substitute debt.
The problem with this structure and its distance cousins is whether the IRS allows the tax exemption to be used in this manner. Don’t count on it.
(2) Or, the proceeds from tax exempt toll revenue bonds could be used to make capital improvements, i.e. a turnpike extension. In this instance the issuance of toll revenue bonds is nothing new. A Turnpike or Parkway bond paid for by toll revenue is a typical financing. Assuming the money can be used to build new schools, however, toll revenues are a (partial?) substitute for the property tax as a new source of construction funds. In effect toll revenues are a selective, steadily increasing tax (based on the cost of living?) whose proceeds are used as an alternative to the more general property tax. In this instance the school is an asset matched with a self-liquidating liability.
Here too, one must ask if the use of toll revenues to fund non-road related capital improvements is the cheapest way to fund such projects as opposed to merely reallocating the cost via a hidden tax. Increasing the debt load of the toll roads by a substantial sale of its toll income, regardless of whether it is through a public benefit corporation or not, weakens the credit rating and increases borrowing costs while limiting future borrowing capacity. And, how does one make any reasonable estimates about spending needs without a school funding formula.
Furthermore, one has to wonder if this form of financing fatally conflicts with the Governor Corzine’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. On the one hand he needs to raise tolls in a manner that at least does not reduce traffic, i.e. congestion pricing in fact. On the other hand, Governor Corzine needs to reduce emissions and may therefore need to reduce auto and truck traffic. If it costs more to use the toll roads and it costs more to reduce emissions on those roads (less traffic, higher costs, or both), the diseconomies could have a rippling negative effect as the costs are passed on in the form of higher prices and / or insufficient revenues to repay the bond (more people and freight take the bus and train).
Finally, the most important question, however, is how does such a financing scheme encourage thoughtful spending rather than merely expand it. What are its political and economic boundaries and limitations and how strong are those breaks? Without such circuit breakers this form of financing is open to debilitating abuse.
(3) If the money can be used to fund earlier pension liabilities, i.e. cover the payments that were never made, the use is essentially borrowing to play the stock market. New Jersey’s been there, done that. Hopefully, never again. The more prudent alternative, if possible, might be to directly pay any increase in toll revenues directly into the pension fund.
At first glance the structure would appear to be a broad balance sheet reorganization that structurally matches disparate groups of capital assets with dissimilar groups of capital liabilities.
DEFINITIONS:
ASSET MONITIZATION: Future cash receipts generated over a set time period in the future are traded for cash today, i.e. Turnpike or Parkway tolls from 01/01/08 through 01/01/18 may be sold to investors. The sale price is today’s value of that cash flow where each future flow is discounted to give the investor a current market rate of return on the investment.
Issuing debt as a means of receiving cash today with the promise to repay with toll revenues tomorrow is called SECURITIZATION. Using a bond to borrow against future toll revenues securitizes the future toll revenues.
AN IMAGINARY ILLUSTRATION TO UNDERSTAND THE COST.
The following projections are totally made up and for demonstration purposes only. And, keep in mind that the issuance of debt can take many different forms. For instance, New Jersey could sell one fixed maturity bond backed by 10 years of toll revenues and repay the total debt in year 10. Or, costs might be lowered by treating each year’s receipts as a separate bond that will be repaid when that year’s tolls are received. The theory is the shorter the time to maturity, i.e. the time until the loan is due to be paid, the lower the interest rate that will be paid. In effect the shorter pay date lessens the lenders time exposure to deterioration in the borrower’s ability to pay or that interest rates will move higher. In reality there are many more possible debt structures. All have unique costs as well as unique benefits.
If we unrealistically assume the current years revenues are $1,000,000 and those revenues grow at 2% per year, the annual income stream from tolls over the next 10 years is as follows:
TOLL REVENUE PER YEAR
2008-2009 1,020,000
2009-2010 1,040,400
2010-2011 1,061,208
2011-2012 1,082,432
2012-2013 1,104,081
2013-2014 1,126,162
2014-2015 1,148,686
2015-2016 1,171,659
2016-2017 1,195,092
2017-2018 1,218,994
TOTAL 11,168,714
If investors demand a 6% taxable return on their investment, the amount the State can borrow in 2008 is $6, 236,251. At the 6% rate $6,236,251 grows to $11,168,714 in 2018 and that total is thus the sum paid to investors as a lump sum in 2018.
This means the borrowed funds received must reduce expenses whose annual cost is greater than 6%. If used to reduce expenses or fund a project where the the cost is less than 6% the State loses money. If used to reduce expenses or fund a project that costs more than 6% the State saves money.
State, county and local government bonds are generally exempt from federal, and in certain instances State, income taxes. Because they are exempt the interest rate paid on “municipal bonds” is determined in part by an investor keeping more tax free interest than would be kept after paying taxes on a taxable bond. Ask yourself, all things being equal, would you buy a 6% bond that is taxed or a 6% bond that is tax-exempt. Logic dictates you will buy the tax exempt bond until the tax exempt interest rate is equal to the after tax interest rate you receive on taxable bonds.
The tax-free rate equivalent to 6% taxable is 4.62% for someone in the 30% tax bracket. Given a premium to induce such an investor to buy the new security the price might be 4.75% or higher. At 5.00% tax free, the present value of $11,168,714 – the amount the State of New Jersey borrow in 2008 – is $6,856,623.
SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS ABOUT ASSET – LIABILITY MATCHING
(1) The trick appears to be in the issuance of lower cost tax exempt bonds (in effect a federal subsidy) to reduce higher cost expenses or to fund higher cost projects.
Historically, this was done through what is called a pre-refunding. The borrowed funds were used to retire outstanding higher cost debt. In effect the proceeds from the sale of future toll revenues as tax exempt bonds would be reinvested in taxable bonds. As the taxable bonds pay off the proceeds are used to pay off the old debt. The higher interest earned by the State on the taxable bonds lessens the total amount which must be borrowed to retire the older, higher cost debt. The issuer saves by paying a lower interest rate on the new, substitute debt.
The problem with this structure and its distance cousins is whether the IRS allows the tax exemption to be used in this manner. Don’t count on it.
(2) Or, the proceeds from tax exempt toll revenue bonds could be used to make capital improvements, i.e. a turnpike extension. In this instance the issuance of toll revenue bonds is nothing new. A Turnpike or Parkway bond paid for by toll revenue is a typical financing. Assuming the money can be used to build new schools, however, toll revenues are a (partial?) substitute for the property tax as a new source of construction funds. In effect toll revenues are a selective, steadily increasing tax (based on the cost of living?) whose proceeds are used as an alternative to the more general property tax. In this instance the school is an asset matched with a self-liquidating liability.
Here too, one must ask if the use of toll revenues to fund non-road related capital improvements is the cheapest way to fund such projects as opposed to merely reallocating the cost via a hidden tax. Increasing the debt load of the toll roads by a substantial sale of its toll income, regardless of whether it is through a public benefit corporation or not, weakens the credit rating and increases borrowing costs while limiting future borrowing capacity. And, how does one make any reasonable estimates about spending needs without a school funding formula.
Furthermore, one has to wonder if this form of financing fatally conflicts with the Governor Corzine’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. On the one hand he needs to raise tolls in a manner that at least does not reduce traffic, i.e. congestion pricing in fact. On the other hand, Governor Corzine needs to reduce emissions and may therefore need to reduce auto and truck traffic. If it costs more to use the toll roads and it costs more to reduce emissions on those roads (less traffic, higher costs, or both), the diseconomies could have a rippling negative effect as the costs are passed on in the form of higher prices and / or insufficient revenues to repay the bond (more people and freight take the bus and train).
Finally, the most important question, however, is how does such a financing scheme encourage thoughtful spending rather than merely expand it. What are its political and economic boundaries and limitations and how strong are those breaks? Without such circuit breakers this form of financing is open to debilitating abuse.
(3) If the money can be used to fund earlier pension liabilities, i.e. cover the payments that were never made, the use is essentially borrowing to play the stock market. New Jersey’s been there, done that. Hopefully, never again. The more prudent alternative, if possible, might be to directly pay any increase in toll revenues directly into the pension fund.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY - BLUE JERSEY, JAY LASSITER & THE NATTERING NABOBS OF NEGATIVITY
For the last five days, urban, suburban and rural Americans have been practicing the rituals associated with the founding of the nation. The Fourth of July is a time for parades, barbeques and fireworks. Time at the shore or lake. Stories honoring the troops in Iraq, movies about Patriot troops and militias battling British regulars and mercenaries. And, underling it all, sprinkled throughout the mix, a flow of deferential remarks about the Declaration of Independence and reverent speeches about the Constitution parse the Holiday conversations. Homage is paid to the blessings of being an American and the need for the vigilance necessary to perpetuate these good things.
In keeping with the spirit and basis for the holiday it is appropriate and necessary to take a moment to ask what are we celebrating? What are we fighting for? What do these documents mandate and what resultant way of life do we truly value?
Central to both the act of governing and the check and balances of the people on its government are the “nattering nabobs of negativity.” Since our inception, from the time of Publius and the Pennsylvania Farmer through the Pentagon Papers to the Abu Ghraib photos, reports of wireless wiretapping, and the U.S. Attorney scandal, the press, in all its forms and machinations, for all the criticism and its faults, has somehow continued to stir the pot and defend the right of the people to know. In doing so the press facilitates the right of the people to make informed judgments about their government and their right to be heard. Their right to say “enough.” So in that quite moment of reflection on this day cherish the irreverence of Thomas Nast, be thankful for papers like the New York Times, defend the right of the Don Imuses and Ann Coulters to make outrageous remarks, and be comforted by the taking-up of the torch by a new generation of nattering nabobs like BlueJersey’s Jay Lassiter.
SUPPLEMENTAL BACKGOUND
Our politicians talk endlessly about the “freedom of the people” and “the people’s exercise of liberty” in the pursuit of individual happiness. So far so good. But let’s take it one step further. It seems to go without saying that without the Bill of Rights there would be no Constitution and the Declaration of Independence would be nothing more than a failed articulation of human aspirations.
The Constitution recognizes three independent branches of Government: (1) the congress that makes the laws of the land, (2) the executive who implements the laws of Congress, and (3) judiciary that resolves disputes arising from the laws and their implementation. The Anti-federalists, however, saw the establishment of the horizontal machinery of Government as necessary but not sufficient because it did not provide vertical checks and balances. It did not formalize the vertical relationship between the first three branches of government and the fourth, the people. Thus the Bill of Rights was created as a mechanism to insure the government did not usurp the power of the people and suppress the legitimate role of the people in their own governance. It was created to require the government control itself.
The New Jersey Constitution, whether by incorporation or declaration, is a cut of the same cloth. It is a product of the same concerns.
In keeping with the spirit and basis for the holiday it is appropriate and necessary to take a moment to ask what are we celebrating? What are we fighting for? What do these documents mandate and what resultant way of life do we truly value?
Central to both the act of governing and the check and balances of the people on its government are the “nattering nabobs of negativity.” Since our inception, from the time of Publius and the Pennsylvania Farmer through the Pentagon Papers to the Abu Ghraib photos, reports of wireless wiretapping, and the U.S. Attorney scandal, the press, in all its forms and machinations, for all the criticism and its faults, has somehow continued to stir the pot and defend the right of the people to know. In doing so the press facilitates the right of the people to make informed judgments about their government and their right to be heard. Their right to say “enough.” So in that quite moment of reflection on this day cherish the irreverence of Thomas Nast, be thankful for papers like the New York Times, defend the right of the Don Imuses and Ann Coulters to make outrageous remarks, and be comforted by the taking-up of the torch by a new generation of nattering nabobs like BlueJersey’s Jay Lassiter.
SUPPLEMENTAL BACKGOUND
Our politicians talk endlessly about the “freedom of the people” and “the people’s exercise of liberty” in the pursuit of individual happiness. So far so good. But let’s take it one step further. It seems to go without saying that without the Bill of Rights there would be no Constitution and the Declaration of Independence would be nothing more than a failed articulation of human aspirations.
The Constitution recognizes three independent branches of Government: (1) the congress that makes the laws of the land, (2) the executive who implements the laws of Congress, and (3) judiciary that resolves disputes arising from the laws and their implementation. The Anti-federalists, however, saw the establishment of the horizontal machinery of Government as necessary but not sufficient because it did not provide vertical checks and balances. It did not formalize the vertical relationship between the first three branches of government and the fourth, the people. Thus the Bill of Rights was created as a mechanism to insure the government did not usurp the power of the people and suppress the legitimate role of the people in their own governance. It was created to require the government control itself.
The New Jersey Constitution, whether by incorporation or declaration, is a cut of the same cloth. It is a product of the same concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)