YesToHellWith

THE COUNTERWEIGHT

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Over the past nine episodes, we have followed one question.

If the Constitution limits government...

Where does the ordinary citizen receive the practical benefit of those limits?

We began with the administrative tribunal.

A citizen raises a constitutional objection.

And the response is:

“I don’t decide constitutional questions.”

Government proceeds.

The citizen suffers the consequence.

And the constitutional question may be pushed somewhere else—to another proceeding, another court, another appeal, another year, another attorney, another hundred thousand dollars.

That led us to the question underneath this entire series:

What is the counterweight?

If the administrative system possesses the institutions, personnel, money, and physical power to enforce its decisions immediately...

What protects the freedom of the People when that system crosses the constitutional boundary?

There are four parts to the answer.

The People.
The Second Amendment.
The Declaration of Independence.
And the Sheriff willing to stand in the gap and say NO.

Let’s examine them.

THE PEOPLE

Everything begins here.

We the People.

Government did not create the People.

The People created government.

Government was entrusted with certain powers for certain purposes.

Outside those delegated powers remains an enormous sphere of human freedom.

But that relationship only works if the People understand it.

If the People do not know where the boundary lies...

How will they know when it has been crossed?

That is why the first counterweight is not an institution.

It is an informed People.

People willing to ask:

What is your authority?

Where did it come from?

What jurisdiction do you possess?

What obligation does the law actually impose upon me?

And what authorizes you to enforce it?

Those are not radical questions.

Those are questions a free people should ask anyone exercising governmental power.

Which brings us to the second counterweight.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The Framers understood something history had repeatedly demonstrated.

Government ultimately possesses coercive power.

A regulation is merely paper until someone enforces it.

An administrative order is merely paper until someone enforces it.

A warrant is merely paper until someone executes it.

Behind governmental authority ultimately stands physical force.

And the American constitutional structure did not contemplate a population rendered completely powerless before that force.

The Second Amendment declares:

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That right is not permission for lawlessness.

It does not authorize violence because someone disagrees with a regulation, judge, tax, or public official.

But neither should we pretend the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights without purpose.

An armed People represent something fundamental to the architecture of freedom:

The People were never intended to become helpless subjects of the government they created.

But there is something even more fundamental.

It was written fifteen years before the Bill of Rights.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Before there was a Constitution, Americans announced the principle upon which legitimate government rests.

Governments derive:

“their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Notice the direction of authority.

It travels upward:

from the People to government.

And the Declaration says that when government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the People:

“to alter or to abolish it.”

That does not mean every political disagreement justifies revolution.

The Declaration itself counsels prudence.

But it establishes the ultimate relationship:

Government is the creation.
The People are the creators.

And that brings us to the fourth counterweight.

The one closest to home.

THE SHERIFF

Imagine an administrative command arriving in your county.

Seize this property.

Enter this land.

Remove this person.

Someone eventually has to carry that command into the physical world.

And at that moment, an extraordinary question arises:

Does the person being asked to exercise that power have any responsibility to determine whether the authority actually exists?

This is where the informed Sheriff enters the conversation.

Not an all-powerful Sheriff.

Not a Sheriff who invents his own law.

Not a Sheriff who stands above the Constitution.

Quite the opposite.

A Sheriff who understands that he stands beneath it.

A Sheriff who understands his oath, the source of his authority, and its limits.

Someone says:

“Seize this man’s property.”

The informed Sheriff asks:

Under what authority?

“Enter this property.”

Where is the lawful jurisdiction?

“Remove this person.”

Show me the lawful basis.

And if the authority cannot be demonstrated...

If the jurisdiction cannot be established...

If the constitutional boundary has been crossed...

Then perhaps one of the most important words available to a public official is also one of the simplest:

NO.

I will not participate.

Not because I am above the law.

Because I am bound by it.

That is what it means to stand in the gap.

And standing behind that Sheriff is something vastly more powerful than an administrative agency:

An informed People.

THE COUNTERWEIGHT

So after ten episodes, we can finally answer the question.

If the system itself ceases to recognize its boundaries...

What is the counterweight?

It is not another administrative office.

It is not another regulation.

It is not another procedure buried inside the same machinery.

The counterweight ultimately rests outside that machinery.

An informed People.

The Second Amendment.

The Declaration of Independence and the People’s ultimate authority to alter or abolish government that becomes destructive of its legitimate purposes.

And:

An informed and courageous Sheriff willing to stand in the gap and say NO when governmental power exceeds its lawful boundary.

These four ideas reinforce one another.

A Sheriff without an informed People may stand alone.

An informed People without courageous public officers may understand the problem but possess no immediate institutional resistance when governmental power arrives at their door.

The Second Amendment ensures the People were never intended to become completely powerless.

And the Declaration reminds everyone of the ultimate relationship:

Government serves the People.
The People do not serve government.

That is the counterweight.

And now we arrive where the Liberty Dialogues began.

With questions.

When someone exercises governmental power against you:

What is your authority?

Where is your jurisdiction?

What obligation have I incurred?

What authorizes your enforcement?

And:

What presumption are you asking me to accept?

Those questions matter because freedom disappears quietly when nobody asks them.

The Constitution cannot preserve itself.

The Declaration cannot preserve itself.

The Second Amendment cannot preserve itself.

And the Office of Sheriff cannot preserve freedom by itself.

All ultimately depend upon the same thing:

A knowledgeable, courageous, and vigilant People.

A People who understand the boundary.

A People who recognize when it has been crossed.

And public officers courageous enough to stand beside them and say:

This far.

And no farther.

That is the Liberty Dialogues.

That is the question we have been asking for ten episodes.

And that is the answer.

The People.
The Second Amendment.
The Declaration of Independence.
And the Sheriff willing to stand in the gap.

May truth reign supreme.

CAN RIGHTS EXIST WITHOUT PRACTICAL REMEDIES?

Part 9 in the Series on Courts, the Constitution, and Remedies

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Throughout this series, we have asked a simple but profound question.

If the Constitution limits government, when do those limits actually protect the citizen?

We have examined administrative tribunals, constitutional review, the Framers’ intentions, the constitutional oath, the Office of Sheriff, and the historical development of remedies.

Today we bring those discussions together by asking perhaps the most important question of the entire series.

Can rights exist without practical remedies?

The answer begins with another distinction.

There is a difference between possessing a right...

...and possessing a practical means of protecting that right.

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Suppose the Constitution protects your property by limiting government.

Suppose a public official exceeds the lawful authority entrusted to the office and your property is taken.

Suppose you eventually prevail after years of litigation.

Did your right exist?

Certainly.

But has your right been protected?

That is a different question.

A theoretical remedy exists because the law says relief may eventually be obtained.

A practical remedy exists because the citizen can obtain meaningful protection while that protection still matters.

The distinction is enormous.

A remedy that arrives after the injury has already been completed may compensate.

It may correct.

It may even vindicate.

But can it truly be said to have protected?

If a citizen cannot afford the process...

If the expense exceeds the value of the right being defended...

If the delay itself becomes the punishment...

Has the Constitution remained a practical safeguard?

Or has it become a promise that exists primarily on paper?

The Framers understood that rights without protection are fragile.

A written Constitution alone preserves nothing.

It depends upon institutions...

Public officials...

And a free people willing to insist that constitutional limits remain meaningful in practice.

Otherwise, rights slowly become theoretical.

They continue to exist in principle...

Yet become increasingly difficult for ordinary people to enjoy.

This is not merely a question of law.

It is a question of constitutional design.

Did the Framers intend constitutional protections to exist only for those possessing sufficient wealth, sufficient time, and sufficient endurance to pursue years of litigation?

Or did they intend those protections to operate as practical restraints upon the exercise of public authority itself?

The Liberty Dialogues System asks us to distinguish between theory and reality.

Between rights that merely exist...

And rights that are actually protected.

Between remedies that eventually arrive...

And remedies that operate when protection is needed.

Those distinctions matter.

Because if constitutional rights exist without practical remedies...

Then freedom itself gradually becomes theoretical.

In our next discussion, we will examine one final question.

If administrative government possesses institutions capable of immediate enforcement...

What institution was intended to provide immediate constitutional accountability?

That is where we continue the conversation.

May truth reign supreme.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE COMMON LAW?

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

In our last discussion, we asked a fundamental question.

What created the Office of Sheriff?

Did the office arise from statute?

From the Constitution?

Or from a much older legal tradition?

Today, we continue that journey by examining another historical question.

What happened to the common law?

Before America declared its independence...

Before the Constitution was written...

Before modern administrative agencies existed...

The common law formed much of the legal tradition inherited by the American colonies.

The Framers knew it.

They practiced within it.

They relied upon many of its principles.

Its influence can be seen throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Trial by jury.

Due process.

Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The security of private property.

The preservation of the peace.

These ideas did not suddenly appear in 1787.

They developed over centuries.

But history did not stop there.

As America grew...

Legislatures enacted more statutes.

Government expanded.

Administrative agencies emerged.

Administrative tribunals became common.

New procedures developed.

New methods of enforcement appeared.

Which brings us to an important historical question.

What happened to the common law?

Was it abolished?

Was it modified?

Was it incorporated into statutory law?

Did it continue to exist alongside statutory law?

Or did administrative procedures gradually replace many of the remedies that ordinary people once understood?

These are not merely academic questions.

They are questions about remedies.

If people once relied upon common-law processes to protect their persons, property, and freedoms...

What became of those remedies?

Do they still exist?

If they do...

In what form?

If they changed...

How did they change?

And why?

Notice what we are not doing.

We are not arguing that everything old was better.

We are not suggesting that history should simply be recreated.

We are not reaching conclusions.

We are asking disciplined historical questions.

Because before we can understand the remedies available today...

We should understand the remedies that existed yesterday.

History often explains the present.

And understanding the past frequently reveals questions that the present no longer asks.

In our next discussion, we will begin examining one of those questions.

If the common law emphasized remedies for injuries to persons and property...

How does that compare with the administrative remedies that many Americans encounter today?

That is where we continue the conversation.

May truth reign supreme.

The Enemy of Freedom

Man understands boundaries.

We understand instructions. We understand mandates. We understand when authority has been given to us — and when it has not.

A man can read a document, understand what it says, and govern his conduct accordingly.

If a contract gives you authority to do one thing, you do not assume it gives you authority to do everything.

And if the organic law creates an office, delegates powers to that office, and places limits upon those powers, a public official can understand that too.

That is where freedom begins.

With a boundary.

On one side is delegated governmental authority.

On the other are the rights and freedoms of the People: life, liberty, property, privacy, conscience, family, speech — and the right to be let alone.

Government receives authority for defined purposes.

The individual retains freedom outside the lawful reach of that authority.

So what destroys freedom?

Human nature.

Ignorance enters first.

A man gains authority without understanding its source. He learns procedure, but not principle. Policy, but not limits. He learns how government operates, but not why government was limited in the first place.

Then ego enters.

The official begins to confuse possession of power with possession of wisdom.

Because he can act, he believes he should act.

Authority somewhere becomes assumed authority everywhere.

And the boundary begins to move.

A limitation becomes an inconvenience.

An intrusion becomes procedure.

Eventually the official stops asking:

Do I have the authority to do this?

And begins asking:

Can I get away with doing this?

That is the corruption.

Ignorance distorts the boundary.

Ego dismisses the boundary.

Power crosses the boundary.

And the absence of character allows it to continue.

That is how freedom is destroyed.

Not because the Constitution vanished.

Not because rights ceased to exist.

But because human beings entrusted with authority stopped honoring its limits.

Paper cannot defend freedom.

A constitution cannot rise from the page.

Words can define the boundary.

Only human beings can defend it.

And that means freedom ultimately depends upon character.

Integrity.

Knowledge.

Humility.

Courage.

Especially courage.

Because the real test of a public servant comes when respecting the boundary costs him something.

Will he tell his superior no?

Will he refuse an unlawful demand?

Will he protect the rights of someone he dislikes?

Will he risk his position rather than cross a line he has no lawful authority to cross?

That is the person freedom requires.

Someone capable of saying:

I have power.

But my power ends here.

I may disagree with you.

But your rights do not depend upon my agreement.

I may be ordered to act.

But an order cannot create authority that does not exist.

That is character.

And character matters especially at the local level.

Because government is an abstraction until a human being carries out its command.

A legislature acts.

An agency issues a directive.

A bureaucracy interprets it.

But eventually somebody must enforce it.

A police officer.

A prosecutor.

A regulator.

A county official.

A sheriff.

Somebody ultimately decides whether government power will cross that divide and enter the life of the individual.

And that is why the sheriff matters.

Not because the sheriff stands above the law.

Because the right sheriff understands that he stands beneath it.

He understands that authority is a trust.

That power has limits.

That the People possess rights government did not give them.

And when power comes downstream, he is willing to ask:

Where is the authority?

What is its scope?

Where does it end?

What right are we about to invade?

And if lawful authority cannot be shown:

No.

We do not cross.

That is not hostility toward government.

That is limited government.

And that is why ConstitutionalCounty.org exists.

To find good men and women willing to serve as sheriffs in counties and parishes across America.

Men and women who understand the organic law.

Who understand the boundary between public authority and individual freedom.

Who have the character to protect people, rights, freedom, and property — even when doing so comes at a personal cost.

Because power upstream can only reach the People when somebody downstream agrees to carry it out.

Imagine sheriffs across this country willing to stand at that boundary.

Not seeking more power.

Restraining power.

Not asking what government can get away with.

Asking what government has lawful authority to do.

That is the message of ConstitutionalCounty.org.

The enemy of freedom is ignorance joined with ego and armed with power.

Authority without understanding.

Power without humility.

Office without character.

Freedom survives when good men and women are willing to stand at the divide.

The boundary has already been drawn.

Now we must find the people willing to defend it.

County by county.

Parish by parish.

Sheriff by sheriff.

Government has limits.

The People have rights.

And there are still good men and women willing to stand between the two.

Go to ConstitutionalCounty.org.

Read the questions.

Read the Sheriff’s Declaration.

And if you have the knowledge, character, integrity, and courage to stand at that divide...

run.

IS THE SHERIFF LIMITED BY STATUTE?

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

In our last discussion, we examined the Sheriff’s constitutional oath.

Today we ask a different question.

What created the Office of Sheriff?

Many people instinctively answer:

“The legislature.”

Others assume:

“The Constitution.”

But history invites us to examine another possibility.

What if the Office of Sheriff existed long before many of the statutes that now regulate it?

What if it predates our modern state governments?

What if it predates the Constitution itself?

If that were true...

Then another question immediately follows.

Can a legislature completely redefine an office it did not originally create?

Can statutes alone determine the entire character of the office?

Or do they merely regulate an office whose fundamental character already existed?

These are not academic questions.

They go to the very nature of public authority.

If the Sheriff is nothing more than a statutory officer...

Then perhaps the legislature may define, redefine, expand, or diminish the office at will.

But if the office possesses a constitutional or historical character that predates many modern statutes...

Then perhaps the analysis becomes more complicated.

Notice what we are not doing.

We are not reaching conclusions.

We are not claiming that statutes are irrelevant.

We are not claiming that history overrides enacted law.

We are asking a much narrower question.

What is the source of the office itself?

Every serious constitutional inquiry begins by identifying the source of authority.

The same should be true here.

Before asking what powers the Sheriff possesses...

Shouldn’t we first determine what created the office?

That question deserves careful examination.

Because the answer may shape everything that follows.

May truth reign supreme.

Episode 6

THE SHERIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL OATH

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

In our last discussion, we examined the intentions of the Framers.

We asked whether they intended constitutional limitations to become meaningful only after years of litigation and extraordinary expense.

The structure of the Constitution suggests something very different.

The Framers designed constitutional limitations to restrain public authority while it was being exercised—not merely after the injury had already occurred.

Today we take the next step.

What does a constitutional oath actually require?

Nearly every significant public official swears an oath.

Judges.

Governors.

Legislators.

Military officers.

And Sheriffs.

But why?

If the Constitution were merely another document...

Why require an oath to support it?

The answer seems straightforward.

The Constitution cannot preserve itself.

It is only words on paper.

Its principles become meaningful only when those entrusted with public authority faithfully honor the oath they have taken.

The Framers understood human nature.

They understood that power naturally expands unless restrained.

That is why they divided authority.

That is why they required oaths.

They expected public officials to remain faithful to constitutional limits while exercising the authority entrusted to them.

An oath is not ceremonial.

It is a public promise.

It is a covenant between the officeholder and the People.

Every public official who voluntarily takes that oath accepts a continuing responsibility to support the Constitution—not only when it is convenient, but especially when it is difficult.

If that responsibility disappears...

If the oath becomes nothing more than words recited during a swearing-in ceremony...

Then one of the Constitution’s most important safeguards quietly disappears with it.

The Republic depends upon more than written documents.

It depends upon the integrity, wisdom, and courage of those who swear to support them.

That raises another question.

Not about the oath.

But about the office itself.

What exactly is the Office of Sheriff?

Did it originate with a legislature?

Was it created by statute?

Was it established by a constitution?

Or does it possess a much older history?

That is where we continue the conversation.

May truth reign supreme.

DID THE FRAMERS INTEND THIS?

Part 5 in the Series on Courts, the Constitution, and Remedies

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

In our previous discussions, we examined an important question.

If a citizen raises a constitutional objection during an administrative proceeding, but no one within that proceeding has the authority to decide the constitutional issue, and the citizen must spend years and enormous sums of money pursuing appeals before the constitutional question is finally considered, has the Constitution remained a practical protection?

Today we ask a different question.

Did the Framers intend our constitutional system to operate this way?

The evidence strongly suggests they did not.

The Framers did not draft a Constitution so government could act first and constitutional limits could be examined years later.

They drafted a Constitution to establish government and, at the same time, to restrain it.

Those limitations were intended to guide the exercise of public authority from the moment authority was exercised—not after the injury had already occurred.

The Framers understood something that every generation must remember.

Power naturally expands unless it is restrained.

That understanding shaped the entire structure of the American Republic.

It explains why governmental power was divided.

Why authority was delegated.

Why public offices were limited.

Why every public official was required to swear an oath to support the Constitution.

The Constitution was never intended to become relevant only after government had already acted.

It was intended to govern government while it acted.

That distinction is fundamental.

If constitutional limitations operate only after years of litigation, then they no longer function as practical restraints upon power.

They become remedies sought after the injury rather than protections preventing the injury.

That is not the structure the Framers designed.

But there is an even deeper lesson.

The Constitution, by itself, preserves nothing.

It is words on paper.

Its principles become reality only when they are understood and faithfully applied by the people entrusted with public authority—and by the citizens who elect them.

A free republic cannot survive if its people no longer understand the purpose of limited government.

If they no longer recognize the difference between delegated authority and unlimited authority...

If they no longer understand why constitutional boundaries exist...

Then the structure of the Republic gradually begins to invert.

Instead of government remaining limited and the people remaining free...

The people gradually become limited...

And government gradually becomes free.

That inversion rarely happens through revolution.

It happens through forgetfulness.

One generation forgets first principles.

The next generation accepts expanded authority as normal.

The next generation no longer remembers that anything has changed.

Eventually, the Constitution remains.

The institutions remain.

The elections remain.

The courts remain.

Yet the relationship between the people and public authority no longer resembles the Republic the Framers established.

This is why constitutional education is not merely an academic exercise.

It is a civic necessity.

A free country requires more than good laws.

It requires knowledgeable citizens.

It requires wise public officials.

It requires a people who understand not only what government may do—but what it may never do.

Without that understanding, no written Constitution can preserve freedom.

The preservation of the Republic has always depended upon an informed and vigilant people who understand the limits of power and insist that those limits be honored.

That is the conversation we must continue.

May truth reign supreme.

Limited Invitations available Tuesday evening at 7 pm EST

IS THERE REALLY A REMEDY?

Part 4 in a Series About Courts, the Constitution, and Remedies

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

In the last video, I asked a simple but profoundly important question:

If the Constitution limits government, where does the Constitution actually become a practical protection for the citizen?

We considered the example of a man restoring a 1977 Ford Pinto on his own property.

The city has adopted an ordinance prohibiting automobiles from being parked on front lawns.

A code-enforcement officer issues a citation.

The property owner appears before an administrative hearing officer and raises a constitutional concern.

But the hearing officer responds:

“I apply the ordinance.”

“I do not decide constitutional questions.”

The city enacted the ordinance.

The city enforces the ordinance.

The city’s administrative tribunal applies the ordinance.

And the citizen loses.

But we were told that the citizen still has a remedy.

He can pursue the matter through additional proceedings.

He can seek judicial review.

He can hire an attorney.

He can file motions.

He can prepare briefs.

He can attend hearings.

And, if necessary, he can appeal.

So perhaps a remedy exists.

But today, I want to ask a different question.

Is it a practical remedy?

Suppose the citizen must spend three years pursuing constitutional review.

Suppose the legal expenses eventually reach $100,000.

Suppose the case requires multiple appeals before any court meaningfully examines whether the government exceeded its constitutional authority.

During those three years, what happens to the citizen?

The citation remains.

The fines may continue.

The vehicle may have to be moved.

The citizen may be forced to comply before the constitutional question is ever decided.

The government acts first.

The constitutional review comes later.

Perhaps much later.

Now consider the imbalance.

The city already has attorneys.

It already has enforcement officers.

It already has administrative procedures.

It already has the public’s money available to defend the ordinance.

The citizen has only his own time, his own resources, and his own determination.

The government may enforce the ordinance in days.

But the citizen may need years to challenge whether that enforcement was constitutionally permissible.

So let us identify the constitutional issue clearly.

A right written on paper is one thing.

A practical remedy capable of protecting that right is something else.

If the remedy arrives only after the citizen has paid the fine, moved the vehicle, lost the property, surrendered the license, or suffered the consequences of enforcement—

What exactly has the remedy protected?

If constitutional review is technically available, but obtaining it requires three years, $100,000, and multiple appeals—

Is the constitutional protection genuinely available to the ordinary citizen?

Or is it available only to those with enough money and time to reach it?

I am not saying that every ordinance is unconstitutional.

I am not saying that every citation violates a constitutional right.

And I am not saying that every administrative decision is improper.

I am asking something much more fundamental.

When a citizen raises a legitimate constitutional question, must he first submit to enforcement and then spend years attempting to establish that the government exceeded its authority?

If that is the process, when does the Constitution actually perform its intended function of limiting government?

Before the injury?

At the moment of enforcement?

Or only years afterward, if the citizen can afford to continue?

The Liberty Dialogues System teaches us to distinguish between the existence of a remedy in theory and the availability of that remedy in practice.

It teaches us not to assume that because a procedure exists, the procedure necessarily provides meaningful constitutional protection.

So here is the question:

If enforcing a constitutional right requires three years, $100,000, and multiple appeals—

Has the constitutional protection become practically unavailable?

Again—

Don’t answer.

Think about the question.

Because in the next video, we are going to ask:

Did the Framers intend to create a system in which government could act immediately, but the citizen might have to spend years obtaining the protection of the Constitution?

That is where we will continue the conversation.

May truth reign supreme.

Why Do Administrative Tribunals Say They Cannot Decide Constitutional Questions?

Part Three

Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

Yesterday, I asked what I believe is one of the most important constitutional questions facing Americans today.

If you’ve not seen that video, I encourage you to watch it first.

The question was simple.

If the Constitution limits government...

Where does the Constitution actually become a practical protection for the citizen?

Today, I want to take the next step.

Let’s assume you receive a citation from your city.

Perhaps it’s a zoning violation.

Perhaps it’s an ordinance concerning your property.

Perhaps it’s a licensing issue.

Whatever the issue may be, you appear before an administrative hearing officer.

You begin explaining why you believe the ordinance exceeds the constitutional limits placed upon government.

The hearing officer responds:

“I don’t decide constitutional questions.”

Or perhaps:

“My responsibility is simply to apply the ordinance.”

Most people hear that statement and immediately become frustrated.

They think the hearing officer is saying:

“The Constitution doesn’t matter.”

But is that really what is being said?

Or is something else happening?

Let’s ask a better question.

What authority has been entrusted to the administrative tribunal?

Notice what we’ve just done.

We have not begun with enforcement.

We have not begun with the ordinance.

We have not begun with the Constitution.

We have begun with authority.

That is where the Liberty Dialogues System always begins.

Administrative tribunals generally exist because a legislature or local government created them to administer a particular body of law.

A zoning board administers zoning ordinances.

A licensing board administers licensing regulations.

A tax tribunal administers tax statutes.

Each has been assigned a particular responsibility.

That responsibility is usually limited.

So when the hearing officer says:

“I do not decide constitutional questions,”

he may actually be saying something much narrower.

He may be saying:

“The authority entrusted to me is limited to administering the ordinance before me.”

Those are very different statements.

Now stop and think about what that means.

If the tribunal’s authority is limited...

Then the Constitution has not disappeared.

The question simply becomes:

Who has authority to determine whether the ordinance itself exceeds constitutional limits?

That is the question.

And that question leads us to another.

Suppose no one in the administrative process claims authority to answer that constitutional question.

Then what?

The city enacted the ordinance.

The city enforces the ordinance.

The administrative tribunal applies the ordinance.

The citizen loses.

Now the citizen is told that if he wants constitutional review, he may have to continue through additional proceedings.

Months.

Perhaps years.

Perhaps substantial legal expense.

So let me ask you something.

If constitutional protections become practically available only after years of litigation...

Have we really answered the citizen’s constitutional concern?

Or have we simply postponed it?

I’m not answering that question today.

I’m asking it.

Because I believe it is one of the most important constitutional questions we can ask.

The Liberty Dialogues System teaches us not to begin with conclusions.

It teaches us to investigate.

It teaches us to ask better questions.

So let me leave you with this.

If the administrative tribunal says it lacks authority to determine whether government has exceeded constitutional limits...

Where does that authority actually reside?

Who has it?

When may it be exercised?

How is the citizen supposed to obtain the benefit of constitutional limitations without years of litigation and extraordinary expense?

Those are not political questions.

Those are structural constitutional questions.

And in the next video, we’re going to ask what may be the most important question of all.

Did the Framers of the Constitution intend for constitutional rights to depend upon years of litigation before they become practically available to the people?

That is where we’ll continue the conversation.

May truth reign supreme.