As I mentioned in the original article, the township ALSO has an ordinance that says political signs can only be posted 45 days before an election and must be removed within seven days after the election.

please read Twin Rivers Decision

Here is a link to the NJ Supreme Court decision.
http://www.njlawblog.com/2007/07/articles/community-associations/supreme-court-reverses-appellate-division-decision-in-twin-rivers-court-finds-associations-reasonable-restrictions-do-not-violate-rights-provided-by-the-state-constitution/

Homeowners Associations = Havens For Little Generals With Nothing To Offer But Rules And Regulations (Cluck! Cluck! Cluck!). What happens if someone parks a car in Heritage Point with a political bumper sticker on it? Do you tar and feather the driver or just have the car towed away as a wayward lawn sign? Ms. Carbonara might want to give some thought to turning her vehicle into a campaign billboard, kind of like a lawn sign on big wheels. A replica of Obama's head on her vehicle's roof would probably make Domino's Pizza really, really jealous to boot.

Remember that this restriction is not just about political signs. It applies to ALL lawn signs. Real Estate signs, contractor signs and so forth are also prohibited.

You can't just obey the rules you like and ignore the ones you don't like. If that were done, then your next door neighbor could park his boat on the front lawn if he so desired.

The Twin Rivers Decision would have lost in Federal Court - where the Constitution would have had to weigh the right of assembly of the community members against the right of free speech reserved to the individual. Trouble is, since the community agrees to be taxed by the municipality and the State, it must be bound by the laws that apply elsewhere - indeed, everywhere, in that State. Tacit agreement is not binding in law.

By becoming a part of a community, you agree to set aside some of those rights - but, in changing your mind, you cannot be forced to leave...you further cannot be deprived of your civil rights by any party. The cost and expense necessary to appeal a decision in a lower court does not negate the likelihood of it being overturned in higher court...it restricts the likelihood that an appeal would be filed at all - frankly, in many ways, a denial of due process.

Reasonable neighborliness might have prevailed - but the Constitution is about "rights" - not about "nice".

A sticky issue, that local rule applies to until and if the persons involved choose to make it otherwise.

Incidentally, and it probably has a negative effect in our getting the word out - we chose not to even USE yard signs.

Ordinance is not equal to Law - that's why they're different words - even enjoying separate placement in the dictionary.

Be respectful of one another...do that, and you don't need the courts.

I was specifically referring (in 'set aside some of those rights') to agreement among membership in a Homeowners' Association, Pool Club, or other social organization.

Thought I might best clarify that point. We're limited to 1500 characters in a post, and, unfortunately, I write in the same way that I speak (although in Black and White - I tend to "speak" in "technicolor" - especially when passionate about an issue - my "Jersey" shows), and I run up against that figure often. In trimming an "over-run", I sometimes miss a substantial change in my own writing, and, once you've hit "submit", your only option for editing is to copy, delete, and repost. Too tedious. Even typing this explanation is faster.

It is obvious to me - to anyone reading these comments, in fact - that there are strong feelings about this subject. This is, again, the reason we chose not to "do" yard signs.

I will ask you all this - you hold your rights under the Constitution sacred - correct?

If you do, and you feel that the Constitution should always be protected by our Legislators - answer me this...

If you served in Congress, and you KNEW that a part of the Bill of Rights was being actively ignored - a part that was ratified into law over 220 years ago, and which would have far-reaching effects on our present TWO-Party dominated system - would you hold to the oath you took on ascending to that office, and UPHOLD the Constitution, as it IS?

Or would you sweep the issue under the rug, intentionally concealing it from the American People, because it didn't protect your party or the agendas of your supporters?

"Article the First" was ratified, folks. It's controversial - it's inconvenient - it's even revolutionary - but it IS a part of our Constitution.

Will they uphold it? Would you?

I am SO GLAD you asked that.

The "Articles of Amendment", what we today refer to as "The Bill of Rights", contained TWELVE proposed amendments (whittled down from over sixty) to the Constitution. They were sent to the several States' legislatures for ratification in the Fall of 1789, after being approved in the House on 09/24 and the Senate on 09/25. The story will take more than the 1500 characters allotted per post here, so I will summarize - To become a part of the Constitution, an amendment must pass in 75% of the States' Legislatures. Once a State passes an amendment, it may not rescind that passage. Amendments are "self-enacting" - this because, at the time the Constitution was penned, it was possible that the actions at the State level might be delayed indefinitely in "reporting", as we were still under threat of re-invasion (as occurred 14 years later), and we had some small uprisings within the newly formed Nation - in other words, valid at "ratification", not "notification".

The proposed amendments were listed in their order from "most" to "least" - which will probably now shock you. What we call our "First Amendment" rights should actually be referred to in "square brackets" - while common usage, it is technically incorrect. Our "First Amendment" was the THIRD Article. Article the First, the "Apportionment Amendment", was meant to prevent a "power grab". Article the Second, now the 27th ("Watson") Amendment, was meant to prevent a "salary grab".

The Watson Amendment appears as the 27th ALSO in "Square Brackets", because it would have been highly impractical to expect a change on all the Federal monuments where the "Bill of Rights" is literally etched in stone.

As such, "Article the First" will most probably be unofficially referred to as the "28th Amendment".

Here comes the shocker. It was PASSED in 1792, when Kentucky was admitted as a State - if not EARLIER!

We discovered in the Archives of Connecticut - and by "we", I mean the "Democratic Republican" party leadership, led by Constitutional Scholar and Civil Rights Attorney Eugene M. LaVergne, with my assistance on the project - the actual ratification vote - not reported to Congress, but valid as self-enacting nonetheless, for Connecticut, AFFIRMING ratification by that State in the Fall of 1789 in the lower house (in fact, the first to do so), and in their upper house (which actually served as their "executive", but it's there, anyway, so there goes THAT argument against it) in the early Spring of 1790.

Kentucky, on becoming a State, took the action of formally ratifying all twelve of the proposed "Articles of Amendment" - also unknown in modern history, but re-discovered in their archives.

That means that TWELVE of the then FIFTEEN States did, in fact, ratify Article the First.

What is contained within the Constitution IS the law. Every elected official swears to uphold the Constitution, as it IS, not as they might "like" it to be.

There is a small problem, however...a "scrivener's error". As sent in copy form on vellum to the States' legislatures, a last-minute change to "Article the First" was incorrectly recorded, first by Beckley (from Oliver Ellsworth's notes - Ellsworth was effectively the Senate Majority Leader, and was a member of the committee communicating between the two houses - Senate and HOUSE. It was his hand-written record that was later transcribed for instruction to the "engrossing clerks" - the human copy machines with the pretty penmanship - (Vellum was expensive) - by BECKLEY.

The change was to have taken place "in the last line but one" = second to last line.

Beckley wrongly instructed the clerks to make the change "in the last place of the last line".

Fortunately for you and I, and for the rest of America, it is what is voted in the House and Senate, not what was transmitted, that IS the LAW. The mistake does not persist in law in a Constitutional Amendment. (phew!).

The original apportionment of the House was set at 40,000 per district, but it was reduced when the formal copy was produced by voice vote in assent to now President George Washington's recommendation that the number be reduced to 30,000. (had the document already been signed, THAT would have been the first amendment)

You can actually see on the Constitution where it has been scraped off and re-written as "30,000".

Article the First modifies that. (Incidentally, no change made was ever valid because of that clause, without amending the Constitution. Jeff Quidam and the folks at thirtythousand.org didn't know about Article the First's passage when they began their efforts - now they are with US.)

What it does is raise the size of Congressional Districts twice as Congress grows - once, to 40,000, as the Congress exceeds 100 members, and, finally, to 50,000, once the Congress seated more than 200 members. The original language proposed by Fisher Ames of Massachussetts was that simple. In attempting to add a floor to the ceiling, a change in the "last line but one", properly placed, would restrict the size of the districts between 40,000 and 50,000, and would be effective because the change would not take place until the population exceeded 10 million. In the wrong place, the change is mathematically inoperative, and could even mean a maximum number of Representatives of 200 - historically, something that Madison tried to propose "so as not to dilute the granduer of the office" - at which point, the remaining members of the House essentially shut him down. (The notation "several desultory comments were noted to pass between the gentleman from Georgia to the gentleman of Virginia - James Jackson threatened to shoot him down in the street like a dog - no idle threat - )

Jackson, a fire-brand referred to unkindly as "old leather-lungs", died years later from infection from a wound received in his NINTH successful duel - he charged British Cannon on Horseback with a cavalry saber - no shrinking violet, here. His actual words were recorded in the diary of another Georgia Representative, William Few).

"Desultory comments" aside, at no time was there successful debate to set a limit on House size - all debate concerned DISTRICT Size.

Okay - the history lesson comes to a close here...Article the First was ratified. It says that, now that there are more than 200 Representatives seated, we're supposed to have over 6000 Districts in the US - each served by one Representative.

Not 435.

Would that break the gridlock? You bet. Even if all 435 voted lockstep - and they can't agree if it's daylight out - they would represent only 7.02 percent of the appropriate apportionment according to the 2010 Decennial Census.

We have been in court since 12/6/2011 on this same issue, but the media has blacked this out - we're not sure at whose direction. We are now past the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and headed for the Supreme Court of the United States.

This is not a "birther" suit. It is historical fact. It's YOUR Constitution - and mine - and everyone else's.

As such, it's not what we "might" do, what we "should" do, or what we "may" do....Apportioning the House according to "Article the First" is what we MUST do.

It bears repeating -

As such, it's not what we "might" do, what we "should" do, or what we "may" do....Apportioning the House according to "Article the First" is what we MUST do.

If you would like, you can view electronic images of the certified ratification documents, and a copy of Ellsworth's report (in his own hand) at NationalTruth.org . You will find them in the appendices to the "Final Brief and Addendums" published there.

Your history teacher was probably taught that there were 10 Amendments, and that they were ratified unanimously. Until the 1930's -( at that time only ratified ceremonially at the 150th anniversary), that was simply not true. As you just learned, there were 12, not 10, proposed amendments. The second HAD failed in ratification, and required Greg Watson's efforts in the 1990's to get 38 of the now 50 States to ratify - which he succeeded in doing.

When we began searching, there was no record as to the actions on ANY of the amendments prior to the 1930s from FOUR of the original States. Massachussetts and Georgia took no known action. (Georgia likely did ratify, but did not notify - but, as they recorded every single resolution on it's own piece of paper, their action may never be re-discovered, if it ever took place at all...their copy of the "Articles of Amendment" remains un-rediscovered to this day. We're working on it. Sherman and his fellows may have nixed any effort there in the 1860s.

Massachussetts approved some, delayed others...and essentially tabled the whole matter, having never reported final results, even when prompted by Jefferson in his role as Secretary of State - the responsibility at that time fell to him - today, believe it or not, if falls to the Department of Commerce Secretary - who resigned in June for 'health reasons' - it has been joked, (not by us, and impolitely), that we gave him the stroke. The suit is still referred to as "LaVergne v Bryson et al", Docket # 12-1171. It has been "procedurally dismissed" to kick it upstairs - as one judge unofficially remarked - that one's above our pay grade here.

Delaware's actions are further evidence of the scrivener's error...but that is an even longer story than this one. They postponed "Article the First", as recorded in hand in their own legislative journal "for propriety in language". Their sole Representative, John Vining, was also still a member of their House, AND served on the committee of correspondence (agreement in version between the two houses) with Ellsworth. Vining knew first-hand where the change was to have been made. Delaware postponed due to a "peculiarity" in the text - (a now obsolete definition of "propriety")
(the prefix "a" meaning "not" - "inapropriate" actually is a double negative). They didn't discuss the mathematics issue raised by the improper placement - they discussed the improper placement itself.

I hope this is a sufficient abstract of the very involved issue of Article the First.

Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for Congress, NJ Third Congressional District.

Rick - all typed by me - no cut and paste.

http://lacey.patch.com/blog_posts/what-would-jefferson-do

Also my work.

As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things".