Up next in 10
Why Courts Can't Defend the Constitution 2010/01/25 (03)
Jun 5, 2025
Jon Roland explains how overloaded courts cannot overturn all the unconstitutional legislation passed by Congress. With Lela Pittenger. Austin Constitution Meetup Jan. 25, 2010.
View Video Transcript
0:00
so uh we have here this evening Leela
0:04
piter who is uh one of our fellow
0:07
activists I've asked her to join me here
0:09
and uh to ask any questions she might
0:12
have or make any comments and uh so we
0:15
can have uh a little bit of uh back and
0:18
forth here okay so my first question
0:21
would be how do you respond to the
0:24
people who would tell you or might say
0:26
well I thought this is what the
0:28
Judiciary was for it was their job to
0:31
decide when legislation was
0:33
unconstitutional isn't that why we have
0:35
a supreme court how do you respond to
0:38
that well that is what they're supposed
0:40
to do
0:42
unfortunately the Judiciary is very
0:45
often part of the
0:46
problem as it has
0:49
emerged because while it was the the
0:52
Judiciary was supposed to be an
0:54
independent
0:56
branch that could stand aide th efforts
1:01
by the other two branches to violate the
1:05
constitution the problem is they're not
1:07
strong enough to do
1:09
that now they're strong enough to do a
1:12
lot of things we can object
1:14
to a lot of the problems that was as
1:17
said we've seen are actually originate
1:20
among the among the
1:23
judges but they are not in general
1:25
willing to stand against Congress for
1:29
very much
1:30
once in a while they will as they
1:33
recently did in the case of Citizens
1:36
United versus the Federal Election
1:39
Commission now that was a five to4
1:44
decision uh a lot of us Libertarians
1:47
think it was a great
1:49
decision uh a lot of Democrats think it
1:51
was a terrible
1:53
decision but regardless of what side you
1:56
come down on on it it was very unusual
2:00
now the Supreme Court has not overturn a
2:03
major piece of congressional legislation
2:06
like that for many years they're very
2:09
reluctant to do
2:11
so uh they get a lot of pressure when
2:14
they do
2:15
so there's also the problem that
2:20
Congress introduces about 20,000 bills a
2:24
year they pass about you know about
2:28
2,000 of them wind up becoming part of
2:32
legislation uh there among those there
2:35
are perhaps
2:37
20,000 independent Provisions Each of
2:41
which could be the basis for a cause of
2:46
action a typical case to carry it all
2:49
the way to the Supreme Court was will
2:51
generally cost about a million
2:55
dollars very few people can afford to do
2:58
that
3:00
if everybody who could afford if
3:03
everybody had came up with the money to
3:06
do it the courts couldn't handle the
3:09
load it would far exceed their ability
3:13
to hear all the
3:16
cases the Supreme Court
3:19
gets about 8,000 cases submitted to it
3:23
every
3:25
year of that number it's only able to
3:27
hear about 80
3:31
uh justice Roberts when he was under
3:35
consideration for chief justice said
3:38
that he was hoped to be able to increase
3:41
the productivity of the
3:43
Court they used to be able to hear as
3:45
many as 150 cases a year that still
3:49
isn't very
3:52
many
3:53
so the courts particularly the appeals
3:57
courts are a bottle Act
4:00
they simply cannot even if they were
4:02
disposed to do so hear all of the cases
4:07
that should be brought before them
4:10
Congress knows
4:11
that they have developed the attitude
4:15
well we don't need to worry about
4:16
whether it's constitutional we'll just
4:19
pass it and and you know let let the
4:21
courts deal with it knowing full well
4:25
that the courts cannot possibly deal
4:27
with all of the unconstitutional
4:30
legislation there's just too much of
4:33
it so that leads us with a problem of
4:37
finding other remedies other ways of
4:40
opposing unconstitutional
4:44
legislation Now The Ballot Box is of
4:47
course one of them but it's very
4:49
difficult to get voters excited or
4:52
interested over particular
4:56
cases there again there are just too
4:58
many of them most people don't don't
5:00
understand them well enough to make it a
5:02
political
5:04
issue uh I have been one who has been
5:06
trying ever since I ran for congress in
5:10
1974 to make constitutional compliance a
5:13
leading issue in a political
5:16
campaign and until Ron
5:19
Paul uh this past
5:22
year uh it was almost unheard of for
5:26
constitutional issues to be leading
5:28
issues in Poli iCal campaigns for the
5:32
presidency and almost never for
5:36
congress
5:38
uh it's unclear whether this is really
5:41
the result of a lack of interest on the
5:43
part of Voters or whether it is simply
5:47
uh an effort on the part of both
5:50
incumbents and Challengers to
5:53
avoid uh issues that they think their
5:57
voters won't understand
6:00
but regardless of the
6:02
reason we have lacked an effective
6:07
mechanism to overcome this flood of
6:10
unconstitutional
6:12
legislation and of course let's not
6:14
forget all the
6:16
regulations and uh of course of the
6:18
Court decisions
6:21
themselves uh when the Supreme Court
6:25
decided in kilo versus the city of
6:28
Hartford which is in
6:30
Connecticut that it would not overturn
6:34
the effort of the city of Hartford to
6:37
take
6:38
property under its imminent domain
6:42
proceeding for not for public use but
6:45
for private
6:47
development that raised The
6:50
Firestorm but that's very
6:53
unusual and it even led to an amendment
6:56
here in
6:57
Texas but it very poorly crafted
7:01
Amendment yes it did get adopted but
7:04
that one really needs to be
7:06
Rewritten and the fact that it would be
7:10
poor so poorly written is a problem in
7:15
itself uh we need to have a way of uh
7:20
addressing these constitutional issues
7:23
more
7:24
effectively and uh the
7:27
Nullification uh efforts that I've
7:30
described could be another tool
7:33
important tool for doing that one in
7:36
particular that would educate the voters
7:39
in a way that nothing else seems to
7:44
do okay so my next question is you
7:47
talked about this panel not being just
7:49
common men but actually people who have
7:51
a strong constitutional background and
7:54
study and understanding let me ask you
7:57
recently with the State Board of
7:59
Education and who reviews their
8:01
materials a lot of people came to
8:03
understand that the reviewers that list
8:06
had maybe been stacked by certain
8:09
special interest groups how do you make
8:10
sure that this group of people who might
8:13
be on this board would truly be of many
8:17
backgrounds many interests and not
8:19
somehow stacked with nominees from
8:22
special interest groups who have a
8:24
particular desire for the the movement
8:27
of and swaying of this board
8:30
is that a fair question yeah well one of
8:33
the things we try to do there is to
8:36
select them at random from a much larger
8:38
pool now of course the pool could be
8:41
stagged but if the the idea is that a
8:47
pool of constitutional Scholars would be
8:50
those who have written something of a
8:52
scholarly nature either a book uh a law
8:57
review article a scholarly
8:59
Journal article something of that
9:03
sort uh so they've demonstrated their
9:08
pro professional ability to research and
9:11
write in this
9:13
field now of course question actually ra
9:16
arises well most of the people in
9:20
Academia are liberals yes so what's to
9:25
prevent this commission from being
9:27
stacked with liberals who will
9:29
reinterpret the Constitution will accept
9:34
unconstitutional Federal actions as okay
9:37
just fine with them
9:40
well uh I think here in Texas at
9:45
least there are so
9:48
many people with some constitutional
9:52
credentials who are libertarian or
9:56
conservative that we will probably get
9:58
not get that kind kind of mixture
#Constitutional Law & Civil Rights
#Courts & Judiciary
#Government