No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The Report of the Commission on Revision of the New Jersey Constitution (Trenton: May, 1942, 59 pp.), as conditioned by the peculiarities of the state's governmental environment, is conventional in philosophy but unique in many particulars. It recommends a new state constitution, which is set forth in full—a proposed constitution relatively short, and showing some rigidity in legislative organization and procedure, but ample flexibility in its executive and judicial provisions.
The two outstanding characteristics of the proposed new constitution are its pronounced emphasis, first, upon positive restriction of the legislature to policy-making functions, and second, upon the identification of administrative responsibility through appropriate structural organization. Judicial reform has been the motivation for constitutional revision in New Jersey for over fifty years, and in recognition, the new document supplies a complete reorganization of the judicial system.
1 An excellent brief summary of the historical development of the New Jersey judicial system, by Vanderbilt, Arthur T., is contained in the Report of the Judicial Council of New Jersey Pursuant to J. R. No. 16 of the 155th Legislature (1934), pp. 18–42.Google Scholar Compare Erdman, Charles R. Jr., The New Jersey Constitution—A Barrier to Governmental Efficiency and Economy (1934)Google Scholar, Appendix, Item 9, which enumerates attempts at judicial reform through constitutional amendment.
2 Cf. Model State Constitution (1941 ed.), Sec. 307, which provides for continuous sessions of the legislature.
3 Sundelson, J. Wilmer, Budgetary Methods in National and State Governments (Sp. Rept. of the N. Y. State Tax Commission No. 14, 1938), Chap. 35.Google Scholar
4 See Maryland State Planning Commission, Legislative Councils (Publication No. 21, 1939), pp. 37 ff.Google Scholar
5 E.g., New Jersey Practice Act of 1918, sec. 32, now Revised Statutes (1937), 2: 27–149. 3, which provides: “Such rules shall supersede (so far as they conflict with) statutory and common law regulations heretofore existing.”
6 SirCarr, Cecil Thomas, Concerning English Administrative Law (1941), pp. 41–47.Google Scholar
7 See the recent attempts to define the issue by Gaus, John M. and Pinney, Harvey, in Annals of the Amer. Acad., Vol. 221 (May, 1942), pp. 33–48.Google Scholar
8 Hyneman, Charles S., “Administrative Reorganization,” Journal of Politics. Vol. I, No. 1 (Feb., 1939), pp. 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Cf. “Iowa Constitution Enjoins Court Supervision,” Jour. of Amer. Jud. Soc., Vol. 25, No. 6 (Apr., 1942), pp. 184–186.
10 See Pound, Roscoe, Organization of Courts (1940), Chap. 7.Google Scholar
11 See Bebout, John and Kass, Julius, “How Can New Jersey Get a New Constitution?,” University of Newark Law Rev., Vol. 6, No. 1 (Mar., 1941), pp. 1–69Google Scholar, for a thorough review of problems of obtaining a convention in face of refusal of the rural senators to risk its effect upon the present basis of legislative representation.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.