The proper question is “Can you cite any provision of the New Jersey Constitution which allows it to do these things?”
New Jersey Consitition:
1 All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
2 a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.
My username represents (and did before as well) my philosophy, not my political party. 
You know, I used to think this too… that was until I tried to get in a nightclub in NY. I don’t know why, but the guy at the door wouldn’t let me in but was letting all these other people in. I was even wearing my best leather pocket protector.
No really, if I can put a sign in the window of my restaurant that says “no shoes, no shirt, no service” and have it be legal, why can’t I put a sign that says “whiny bitches not allowed unless they smoke”? Are the shirtless and shoeless not the public? With respect to the hipper clubs in Manhattan and LA, are the uncool dweebs not the public? Why are these public places not open to them?
Regarding discrimination for race, religion, sex, etc… The government has made laws that makes it illegal to discriminate on these basis. One could argue that these laws were created because the discrimination against African Americans in the south caused a rift in our society that resulted in violence and had the potential to lead to a popular violent uprising. Because of this potential the state had the right and even the duty to protect itself by making these forms of discrimination illegal. Whatever…
I don’t see a similar motivation though to make smoking illegal, how is the state protecting itself? If smoking is legal, then I don’t see why I cannot smoke on someone else’s private property if they agree to let me. I do not see a distinction between commercial and private property, can you please explain it to me? For instance, if I set up a lemonade stand in my front yard has it suddenly become public land? Can I no longer then smoke in my front yard?
Why is it that, in your view, rights default to the state to dispense as it pleases? It seems to me that that means that you are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals until and unless the state grants them to you. I mean, if you had those rights to begin with, and the state is an obstacle to them, then you have a legitimate claim against the state. But if you never had those rights at all, and they belong to the state, then you have no claim. They aren’t your rights to demand.
There you go. The state has the power to regulate driving for the protection, security, and benefit of the people. The people have the right to remove driving regulation from the ambit of the state, should they so desire.
Note that I have no idea if the state’s power to regulate driving actually comes from this clause, but if I had a gun to my head to pick out a spot that spot wouldn’t be a bad place to start.
And from the sounds of it, you’re OK with that. So it’s not state exercise of power to restrict rights that you object to per se, it’s state exercise of power to restrict rights in a manner with which you personally disagree.
Commercial property is private property used for a commercial purpose. In using the property for a commercial purpose, the owner agrees to abide by any applicable government regulations pertaining to that commercial purpose.
Also, state laws can be challenged and be tossed out. That is something called Supreme Court. A state law can be found unconstitutional.
Bricker? Is that you? Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing now? Since when do you have problem with the EEOC?
You are a wise person. You summed it up perfectly. We stand together or we hang separately. ALL rights and freedoms are to be defended, not only those we personally care about or approve of.
Your view of the Ninth Amendment, at least, is completely incorrect.
The Ninth Amendment exists to prevent the argument that the existence of the Bill of Rights invalidates other legal sources of rights (e.g., statutory rights and state constitutional rights). It prevents, say, opponents of the Massachusetts gay marriage decision from arguing that the decision is invalid because the federal constitution’s enumeration of rights is exclusive. It is not itself a source of substantive rights.
We’ve discussed this point many times. Among other places, it’s buried in these threads:
Rights? What’s a Right?
Is Scalia Nuts?
Supreme Court hears challenge to Texas Sodomy Ban
Conservative dopers vs. gay sex decision
Democrats oppose Hispanic judge: “he’s too competent!”
Strict constructionists: How about adding a constitutional “right to privacy”
A moment of your time, please, Justice Scalia
What do the Ninth and Tenth Amendments really mean?
The State of the CIVIL Union Address
And not a 9th thread, but just for fun: Dewey! Minty! Come a runnin’!!
And just because I need a place to store links to other constitutional discussions:
Judicial activism is a good thing, unless you disagree! And how long have we had it?
Pat Robertson claims federal judges are greater threat than al Qaeda/Nazi Germany
Sean Hannity and listeners, a confederacy of hypocrites
The snips below sort of say what I thought I was saying. which was that rights do not have to be expressly given. Let’s say there is no prohibition against painting cats purple in federal, state or local laws. Given that, isn’t it legal to paint cats purple until and unless a law is written making it illegal? I was reacting to the statement that people have no rights except those that are granted/given. Or am I totally lost? You’ll probably have to dumb it down a lot for me (no sarcasm intended).
This is exactly right, actually: anything not prohibited is permitted.
However, when we speak of “rights,” at least in the legal sense, we generally aren’t just referring to the mere absence of prohibition, because that can be changed in a legislative moment.
Amen to that.
Who said anything about the EEOC? I’m just pointing out what appears to be a contradiction in the position of someone arguing a contrary POV.
And should this particular proposal pass, and should someone wish to challenge it on constitutional (state, federal or both) grounds, I would very much enjoy following the case. What provisions of either the state or federal constitution do you think this proposal would violate?
I don’t know. That’s the honest answer. Maybe they could point to cell phone talkers, newspaper readers, eaters, and then argue that there are already laws against unsafe operation of motor vehicles - thereby making this new law unnecessary? Maybe they could argue that smokers are being singled out specifically and claim that it is because of unpopularity instead of safety?
By the way Dewey, thanks for the clarification/ simplification.
It’s not a contradiction. Some regulations, like driving on the correct side of the road, stop signs and to some extent speed limits, actually prevent bedlam and improve safety - a legitimate governmental role. A smoking while driving ban would affect at best one in 200 accidents, which is a statistically insignificant amount. Therefore it is an unnecessary, intrusive measure.
To me, it seems pretty apparent that the only reason for the new law is to cater to those who simply don’t like smoking, and their underlying motives have nothing to do with public safety at all.
Sure it is.
So what you’re saying is, you have no problem with government regulations which infringe upon your liberties. Just so long as you personally believe that the regulation serves some legitimate government purpose. So in other words, like Eyer8, it’s not state exercise of power to restrict rights that you object to per se, it’s state exercise of power to restrict rights in a manner with which you personally disagree.
By the way, how many accidents does a regulation have to affect before it becomes “statistically significant”?
Frankly, I thought that was your position.
You still haven’t explained why gays should have the same rights as straights if rights belong to the government. Why should they be given something to which they have no claim? If something is government’s to give, then it isn’t yours to demand. On the other hand, if you already were born with the rights, but government is obstructing them, then your claim to those rights is clearly legitimate.