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.