substantial protection under the law,rnnotwithstanding the New York Times’srncax-alicr reference to a shopping mall asrn”nominally private property.” As the dissentrnobserved, “Under the majority’srntheor-, private property becomes municipalrnland and private-property owners becomernthe government.”rnOf course, it would be a serious misapprehensionrnto assume that this casernreflects a principled devotion to freernspeech. On the contrary, rarely has arncourt been more vigilant than thernWilentz court in scrutinizing the politicalrncorrectness of speech before adjudicatingrnthe issue of whether it can bernallowed. Recently, for instance, a NewrnJcrse Supreme Court decision was summarihrnacatcd by the U.S. SupremernCourt for its unconstitutional overreachingrnin placing restrictions on law-abidingrnpro-life picketers. One wonders how thernIcafletting case would have come outrnhad the leaflets conveyed a pro-lifernmessage.rnThe New jersev Coalition case illustratesrnhow subersiye a results-drivenrnjurist is with respect to the real policyrnpreferences of New Jersey residents.rn\’ilentz has shown again and againrnthroughout his tenure that his visionrnof the good society must prevail, withrnor without constitutional sanction.rnWhether in circumscribing zoning practicesrnto compel the construction of lowincomernhousing, restructuring schoolrnfunding to destroy local control andrnto waste more money on schools thatrnresemble war zones, or effectively nullifrning the death penalty by creatingrnlabTinthine standards for its application,rnWilentz has shown an utter disregard forrnthe text and history of the state constitutionrnand supplanted that document withrnhis own leftist (and race-obsessed) views.rnTo be sure, Wilentz inherited a courtrnwith well-developed activist inclinations.rnIt was in New Jersey, after all, that arn”right to die” for Karen Ann Quinlan wasrnfashioned out of the misbegotten federalrnprivae cases. Still, Wilentz has pushedrnwell bcond anything that preceded him.rnIndeed, giyen his role in promulgatingrnpolicN from the bench, it is certainly norno erstatemcnt to sav’ that for the past 15rnears or so, Wilentz has easily been thernmost powerful politician in the state.rnFortunately, all New Jersey judges facernmandatory retirement at age 70, andrnWilentz must go in 1997. GovernorrnChristine Whitman will appoint his successor,rnand she should not use the opportunityrnto show her sensitivity to clamorousrnminorities or women’s groups.rnRather, she should select a chief justicernwho will construe the state constitutionrnreasonably and not treat it as a Rorschachrntest into which a revolutionary agendarncan be read. New Jersey has had enoughrnof what Judge Learned Hand once calledrnPlatonic Guardians.rnGregory /. Sullivan practices law inrnHamilton, New Jersey.rnThe UltimaternTax Protestrnby Douglass H. BartleyrnIn Suzanne M. Bartley et al v. UnitedrnStates, a class-action suit filed on Aprilrn17, 1995, in federal district court in Milwaukee,rnmy wife, on behalf of herself andrnall others who paid federal taxes for thernears 1991-93, has sued for a refund ofrnapproximately 70 percent of the revenuerncollected during those years. For fiscalrncar 1993 alone, the total amount of thernrefund approximates $808 billion. If thernpattern of overcollcction for fiscal yearrn1993 holds true for fiscal year I99I-1992,rnthe grand total of the refund would be arnstaggering $2.4 trillion.rnUnlike the usual “tax protest” cases,rnthe general basis for this suit is that therngovernment, with its various tax statutesrnand regulations, has far exceeded its lawfulrntaxing authority under Article One,rnSection 8 of the Constitution. That pro-rnision names almost all of the government’srnlawful spending powers andrnstrictly limits it to raising taxes to carryrnout the enumerated functions and thosernalone. The government has no generalrnpower of taxation.rnThe Constitution’s strict limitationrnon federal taxing power is made clearrnin the Federalist papers by both JamesrnMadison and Alexander Hamilton.rnMadison, in Federalist 4J, said:rnIt has been urged and echoed thatrnthe [taxing power] amounts to anrnunlimited commission to exercisernevery power which may be allegedrnto be necessary for the commonrndefense and general welfare. Nornstronger proof could be gi en ofrnthe distress under which thesernwriters labor for objections, thanrntheir stooping to such a misconstruction.rnHamilton agreed in Federalist 83: “Thisrnspecification [of enumerated powers]rnevidently excludes all pretension to arngeneral legislative authority, because anrnaffirmative grant of special powers wouldrnbe absurd, as well as useless, if a generalrnauthority was intended.”rnAs the Constitution makes clear, thernfederal taxing power is limited to fundingrnnational defense; postal operations;rnfederal courts; coining and borrowingrnoperations; the administration of lawsrnon bankruptcy, naturalization, patents,rntrademarks, counterfeiting, weights andrnmeasures; the punishment for crimes onrnthe high seas and violations of internationalrnlaw; the District of Colunrbia andrnthe management of other federal properties;rnand the regulation of commercernwith foreign nations, with Indian tribes,rnand among the states. For 1993, aboutrn70 percent of all federal expendituresrnLIBERAL ARTS 1rnON BROWNv. BOARD OF EDUCATIONrn”The whole matter rcoK es around the self-respect of mv people. I low much satisfactionrncan I get from a court order for somebody to associate with me who does notrnwish me near them?. . . I regard the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court as insultingrnrather than honoring my race. . . . I have no sympathy nor respect for the . . . pressurerngroup concerned in this court ruling.”rn—from 7,ora Neale Uurston’s Folklore, Memoirs,rnand Other Writings, published byrnthe Library of AmericarnJANUARY 1996/47rnrnrn