Up next in 10
Jon Roland explains how state nullification of unconstitutional federal actions might work. With Lela Pittenger. Austin Constitution Meetup Jan. 25, 2010.
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
uh
0:01
i
0:02
as i said earlier i'm not really in
0:04
favor
0:05
of this commission taking on too much
0:07
too fast
0:09
for example if it one of the first
0:11
things it did
0:12
was to find the federal income tax on
0:14
wages to be unconstitutional
0:18
it would create a firestorm
0:20
that would be taking on too much too
0:22
fast
0:24
i'm in favor of it doing that but
0:26
not the first thing
0:30
so
0:31
i think even among
0:33
liberals
0:35
you will find some who think some
0:37
federal actions are unconstitutional
0:41
a lot of acl types that are actually
0:45
agree with libertarians on a lot of
0:46
legal issues
0:48
especially in texas
0:51
the aclu of texas is not like the
0:53
national aclu
0:54
it's a separate organization
0:57
uh
0:58
that they for example even the first in
1:00
the second amendment which
1:02
the national aclu does not
1:07
so
1:08
i think among
1:10
the people who have written
1:12
scholarly articles on constitutional
1:15
topics
1:16
include a lot of practicing lawyers
1:19
including a lot of the guys who run for
1:20
public office
1:22
for judicial positions on libertarian
1:24
ticket
1:26
it includes a lot of
1:29
law professors
1:32
historians and other people
1:35
who i think that if they were
1:37
that they would comprise the pool of 230
1:42
that my legislation calls for
1:45
and if 23 of those were selected at
1:48
random
1:50
that you you would probably get a mix
1:52
that would
1:53
not be too bold but it would be just
1:56
bold enough
1:57
to take on
1:59
federal actions
2:01
in
2:02
a good order
2:04
less important ones at first and become
2:07
bolder and bolder and bolder until they
2:09
eventually were of course where they
2:11
give a lot of public demands on them to
2:14
be bolder and bolder and bolder
2:16
and this might eventually lead to
2:18
uh
2:20
this wrapping up this ground swell of
2:23
public resistance
2:25
that would become also more and more and
2:27
better informed
2:29
so
2:30
that's the dynamic i'm trying to
2:34
organize here
2:36
it might not work
2:38
but of course a lot of things we might
2:40
try it might not work it's worth a try
2:43
and so how did you come to the number
2:45
230 for your pool i mean versus 100 or
2:48
500
2:50
what about that number i don't think
2:52
there's probably more than about 230 in
2:54
texas
2:56
that's fair
2:58
uh and if the
3:00
selection of 23 were about 10 percent of
3:04
at any given time and you keep keep
3:06
rotating through them
3:08
the idea is not to make it a permanent
3:10
body
3:11
where guys are having to serve
3:14
terms you know lifetime terms
3:17
maybe serve for
3:19
you know six months
3:21
at most and then rotate through another
3:23
group and have staggered terms so be a
3:26
constantly changing mix of 23.
3:30
the number 23 is a standard number for a
3:33
grand jury
3:35
so that a majority is 12.
3:38
a grand jury should always decide by a
3:40
vote of 12.
3:42
if you only have a core a quorum of say
3:46
16
3:48
they would still need to be by 12 vote
3:50
of 12.
3:52
so
3:53
you want to get a bunch of guys who are
3:55
likely to show up to meetings
3:57
and that so that you have a you can
4:00
easily get a vote of 12 to declare
4:02
something unconstitutional
4:07
and you need to have people who are
4:09
a little better trained than the average
4:11
citizen
4:15
you know i have worked with panels of
4:17
average citizens
4:19
and
4:20
it's probably not a good idea
4:23
to
4:26
have ordinary laymen
4:28
trying to decide that something is
4:30
unconstitutional
4:31
at least not until
4:33
they're better educated on
4:36
the constitution
4:38
i'm hoping that this commission
4:41
system will drive that process so that
4:45
down the road
4:46
we could pick
4:48
from among the general citizenry and
4:50
have it work
4:52
but their public education has not
4:54
prepared them yet to do that
4:57
we still have a lot of educating of the
4:59
public to go before they're ready for
5:00
that
5:02
and then one more question
5:04
like you said you wouldn't want them
5:06
immediately to attack something as big
5:08
as federal withholding taxes
5:11
do you think nullification concerning
5:13
the health care legislation currently in
5:16
congress do you think that's too big to
5:18
bite off in the next year or do you
5:20
think that's a good starting point where
5:22
are you on that that's a good starting
5:25
point but of course right now we don't
5:27
have a bill right
5:29
one of the problem with many of these
5:30
nullification proposals
5:32
is that they're
5:34
trying to anticipate a bill that doesn't
5:36
exist yet right
5:38
and that really doesn't work
5:43
a nullification edict
5:46
has to be about something fairly
5:47
specific
5:49
such as requiring people to buy
5:51
insurance
5:55
further down the road it could take on
5:56
something bigger like
5:58
you know medicare medicaid social
6:00
security right
6:03
so
6:04
but those would be big deals
6:08
initially it needs to pick on things
6:10
that
6:11
are going to be initially
6:14
popular
6:15
for the commission to do
6:17
unpopular for the federal government to
6:19
do and to build on that and
6:22
many of the elements of the
6:24
proposed health care package would seem
6:26
to fit that
6:27
that is after all what's driving the
6:29
current proposals
6:31
for this nullification
6:33
but
6:34
unless and until we actually get a bill
6:37
enacted
6:38
we don't have anything to work on so we
6:40
need to have
6:41
a commission
6:43
or something like it in place to be
6:46
ready when that happens
6:49
and it can't be
6:50
we can't wait another two years for
6:52
these two years legislative cycle
6:55
to enact something afterwards
6:58
it needs to be anticipatory
7:01
uh it could even now could for example
7:03
do things like
7:05
take on the real id act
7:09
that has been effectively nullified
7:11
by states
7:13
not passing
7:14
you know legislation to fund it
7:19
well
7:20
the refusal to fund it is certainly
7:22
uh one way to do it
7:25
but again a state that doesn't have
7:27
continuous legislative sessions like
7:29
texas
7:31
presents a problem
7:34
so
7:35
it would be much better to have a body
7:38
in place
7:39
to take the complaint
7:42
even in anticipation
7:45
i see one of the benefits of a grand
7:48
jury
7:49
is that it does not have to
7:51
only deal with cases and controversies
7:55
where somebody's been injured the way
7:58
the federal courts have
7:59
decided to do
8:02
there was a time when the cases and
8:05
controversies language was written
8:07
where it was considered
8:09
okay for any citizen
8:12
to
8:13
privately prosecute a public right
8:17
to do something like
8:19
challenge the constitutionality of an
8:21
act of congress
8:22
even before it had been
8:24
applied to him individually
8:27
causing an injury
8:30
and the proppingham the maryland
8:32
decision in 192 also in 1923
8:36
held that
8:39
the supreme court would consider
8:41
a person not to have standing if he had
8:44
not been personally injured
8:48
so
8:49
that knocked out the whole
8:52
legacy
8:53
of private prosecution of public rights
8:58
uh you have to wait to be injured before
9:00
you can sue
9:03
well
9:04
that's not entirely
9:06
satisfactory but a grand jury is not
9:09
such limited right
9:11
a grand jury can have it find anything
9:14
and in particular it can find that
9:17
well
9:18
if and when
9:20
a bill to do this is ever enacted it
9:22
will be unconstitutional right
9:25
it can be anticipatory right
9:28
and there's a real need for something to
9:30
be anticipatory
9:31
right
9:33
so such commissions could really
9:35
emerge as a kind of
9:38
parallel judicial structure
9:41
to review legislation
9:44
i could foresee
9:45
review commissions being set up in
9:47
counties to review state legislation
9:51
or uh
9:53
you know
9:55
all kinds of things like them being set
9:58
up you know all over the place to review
10:00
this and review that
News
Sensitive Subjects
Public Policy
Constitutional Law & Civil Rights