|
|
|
|
|
We sent the following letter to the New Jersey Chapter of the ACLU. If we and all of you who follow the law jump through hoops, shouldn't the State enforce those laws for everyone? Should the guy with a magnetic sign on his truck who we see on the road every day be permitted to complete with us? If you agree, share your concerns and the effects of unequal enforcement to DCA, your legislators, and Governor Christie's office.
Intake Mail Manager ACLU-NJ Post Office Box 32159 Newark, NJ 07102 February 12, 2010 The State of New Jersey has enacted a Contractor Registration
Act http://www.nj.gov/oag/ca/laws/ContractorRegistrationRegs.pdf,
with which I/my company, and many other reputable business owners comply.
We do so for many reasons, including professionalism, conscience, and
avoiding the penalties for being cited for non-compliance.
This compliance subjects reputable companies to purchasing various forms
of insurance, taxation, and other State oversight.
Those who fail to comply are at a competitive advantage to law-abiding
entrepreneurs. The NJ Contractor
Registration Act has been in force since March of 2006, but the State’s
failure to enforce the Act represents, in my layman’s supposition, a violation
of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
and may violate other State and Federal laws. Another contractor and I have spoken with Sen. Bateman about
this matter, and I have spoken about it several times with Assemblyman Biondi.
As reputable companies struggle to remain afloat in such
economically difficult times, illegal competition cannot be permitted. My [obviously anecdotal] understanding of the registration
process is that rather than a genuine vetting process, NJ has merely created a
source of revenue. To the best of my knowledge, little or nothing is being done
to correct the situation. New Jersey often appears to treat home and business owners
cynically and disrespectfully, like we are all initially presumed to be guilty
of some violation. As a member of
the Somerset County Business Partnership, we are engaged in an initiative to
address the lack of affordability of living and working in NJ.
This request tangentially also seeks to address this critically-important
need. Thank you, Equal protection: an overview (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection) The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S.
Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words,
the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in
similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a
state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because
he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not
intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only
"equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is
not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By
denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the
Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights. Generally, the question of whether the equal protection
clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of
individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the
same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different
tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental
rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if
it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose."
The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain
cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a
"suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject
to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is
meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the
classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national
origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In
order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be
proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that
the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also
apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental
rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to
travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational
basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications
based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate. The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the
federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify
individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances,
violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V.
|
|
