tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 28, 2016 5:09am-6:01am EDT
caller: we were on our way to go to mount rushmore and yellowstone and i just saw it accidentally online and somebody casually mentioned in some comments -- make sure not to miss the minuteman missile conference and we just put it onto the itinerary at the last minute. we stopped at the badlands national park and it is adjacent. it was a last-minute thing. we found it and we went and it is one of the newer national parks. and it's c-span's washington journal, live every morning with news and politics that impact you.
coming up this morning, president obama's role. plus, the white house relationship with congress following the august recess. into trump direct or will look veterans.n for and the washington institute for near east studies program director on the current and future role of the politics in the middle east. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. every morning. join the discussion. >> it was a brilliant psychological device to hold down a race. black, you were afraid that this could happen to you. announcer: and author talks about his books, including his
lynching." "the >> michael was a teenager, trying to become a bricklayer. the youngest of seven children. home of his mother in their house in tense and wants him to go get a pack of cigarettes. in some a dollar, puts it in his wallet. him, theulls up behind man is out a pistol and order some into the backseat of the car. he knows when he gets into the car what will happen. youack man in alabama, know. onouncer: on this week's q&a c-span. >> coming up, the magna carta and its influence on the constitution. then, donald trump at an event in iowa, a tribute to veterans.
then a look at the latest headlines on "washington journal co. >> announcer: june marked the 800th anniversary of the magna carta. the circuit court of appeals hosted a discussion at its conference earlier this year, focusing on the document and its impact on the u.s. constitution. this is just under one hour. host: all right, ladies and gentlemen, if we can get started, our next segment will deal with the magna carta. i will tell you that last week, one afternoon, i had a friend of mine and his wife come by to visit, and the husband asked me some questions about what was going to go on at this conference, and they said, what
are the kinds of things you are going to talk about? i said, well, one of the things we're going to do is celebrate the signing of the magna carta. he said, when was that signed? i said "1215." and he looked at his wife and said, honey, i told you we should have come before lunch. we have a very distinguished group. we have professor a. e. howard, and if you are ready, i am going to turn the program over to you, professor. professor howard: good morning, everybody. nice to see all of you. as you know, we are planning this morning to say a word on the 800th anniversary of the magna carta. i am dick howard. i teach at the university of virginia. i have two distinguish guests.
i have two distinguish guests. david hunt from british embassy in washington, d.c., her majesty's counsel general, a very fancy title. he is not a lawyer. he got his degree in american studies and spent a year at the university of southern california in san diego, doing i think a thesis on tom wolfe. so a man of many parts. known to many of you, an immediate past president of the american bar association from south carolina. he is an honorary member in london, and last year, the 800th anniversary year, he was in london, presiding at the rededication of the american bar association's memorial to the magna carta. he also presided over the aba london meeting which attracted something like 1000 americans to england.
this morning, we will divide this into about two major parts of about equal length. first, i would like to undertake a sketch of the magna carta, the 800 years for its origins, how did it survive, how did it managed to get across the atlantic to america, and what does it today, and then secondly in the second major part of the program, we will turn to a discussion with first david hunt and then william hubbard. we will give you some sense of the contemporary modern applications of the magna carta, so first, a few words and a little background, a little history of where the magna carta came from. it was an unwilling bargain that played a role in the life of
king john in june 1215, and it is clear that king john not only was a bad man, he was a bad king. he managed to have an issue with the city of london and most important with the barons. as a military leader, he lost a major battle of france, which resulted in the loss of the normandy area and possessions of the normans themselves. and the magna carta was the result. you need not worry here about the feudalism that most of the details of the magna carta have to do with, important issues, but among the most important provisions and one that above all survive was the so-called chapter 39 of the magna carta, the one that guarantees proceedings according to the law of the land. what we now call the due process of law. there was another companion provision, chapter 40, which said that justice should not be delayed, denied, or sold. king is no doubt that
bargainer,uctant to keep hisnd promise. he was going to turn his back on magna carta. as it happened, he died the next year, 1216, and his successor was nine years old. now, how is a nine-year-old king going to live in the middle ages we have all seen "game of thrones" and the like, so william marshall hit upon what we would call a public relations device, and that was that he had henry iii reissue the magna carta as a pledge of good faith to the english people and then started down the centuries of each monarch coming to the throne, reissuing magna carta. i will skip a tutor period. -- i will skip the tudor period.
we do not think of this as a time of constitutional government. and a word of the 17th century. this is the century were the stewards came to the english throne, the notion of divine right of kings. kings is on a collision course with parliament. there was a commentator on magna carta, the leader in parliament against the pretensions of the steward kings, and he said that the magna carta was such that he would have no sovereign, that the magna carta was against steward claims. the 17th century is a very turbulent period, the execution of charles the first, and when william and mary came to the throne after the so-called glorious revolution in 1688, so a very chaotic period in history, resulting after 1689 in what i think you call the foundations of modern british government.
in very some reform is the english side of the story. what is interesting here, and you can see why the english would be celebrating magna carta. that is where it came from, but why would the americans care? and what about american constitutional law? well, magna carta came to america with the very first charters. the virginia company charter in 1606 had a provision. there was one particular provision that said that those who emigrated to virginia would enjoy the privileges, franchises, and immunities that they would enjoy back in england. in other words, to come to this wilderness called virginia, they did not leave their rights behind, and one of those rights certainly included the protections of the common law, in particular magna carta. while, that was the origins. and then massachusetts and the other colonies had very similar provisions. in the run-up to the revolution
in the 18th century, magna carta reappeared again. many of you will have read about the james otis argument, when he was detained by boston merchants to argue against the system. general search warrants, you could go into a business or home and search for what you like without any limitation. otis in that argument cited certain edward cooke, the commentator, and in particular the 1610 case in which cooke had said that if an act of parliament was against right reason, then it would be null and void. the idea was even parliament might be limited by the common law. well, that doctrine died out in the 18th century. there was a famous commentary written on the laws of england, in which they said that
parliament is sovereign. parliament calls the shots. there is no way to impact that. by the eve of the american revolution, that was established back in england, but in america, you had people like james otis making the argument for constitutional supremacy, so you can see the americans and the english were basically talking past each other. we knew in this period with the seven years war, the stamp act
was passed, they try to impose a tax in america. america objected on the fact that this was taxation without representation. they also complained that these were taking place in admiralty courts, denied their right to trial by jury. then came the boston tea party. the event after which the british close the port of boston. they quarter the american troops and closed down the assembly of massachusetts, but the other colonies rallied to the support of massachusetts, and it became a common cause for the americans, by and large, and when they met in the continental congress, 1774, they wanted to articulate some basis for rights, and where did these rights come from, and how did they exist, so at the continental congress, some said, well, the colonial charters. others said it is like the british constitution, in particular, magna carta, and others said, we think it is the law of god or the law of nature. natural law is the foundation for our rights. well, what the continental americandid, typical
slipped approach, they and sent its in with resolutions and said it does not matter what label you put on it, we americans have right which you british are not respecting. that brought us to the eve of revolution, and then americans started writing their own constitutions. the assembly in williamsburg and may of 1776, with the virginia delegates at the congress in philadelphia, introducing the resolution for independence. at the same day, working on a state constitution. two documents, a declaration of rights and then a frame of government. it is interesting that they took those two steps, because the theory was first you declare your rights. those rights precede and do not depend on government, and then you work on a frame of government, the main body of the constitution. one person who was not in williamsburg at that meeting was thomas jefferson, but he spent
the next 50 years complaining about that constitution. my guess is that he was complaining because he was not participating. thomas jefferson could not imagine that anybody could do anything like write a constitution without him. by the way, it is written into my contract at the university of virginia that i cannot have a talk without at least one mention of thomas jefferson, so you have just heard my one obligatory mention of jefferson. jefferson did not like that constitution. his argument was that the body of men in williamsburg who wrote that constitution was also enacting laws in virginia, and that was confusing, to have the same people constitutions and laws because constitutions are then just ordinary laws. they can be made and unmade just like any other law, so what we did not do in virginia, our friends in massachusetts did four years later.
in 1780, massachusetts had a convention in elected by the people for the express purpose of writing the constitution, which was then put out in referendum and voted on by the people, so they actually moved the constitution from the ordinary lawmaking process, and america invented the constitutional convention. it was something that had not been thought of in england or the time. in those early constitutions were infused with many other provisions of the magna carta and the other liberty documents, such as the bill of rights. well, from the state constitutions, then we get philadelphia, 1787. we write the federal constitution. i may have missed something, but as far as we know, the magna carta was never mentioned. given the story i have been telling you is really strange. why would it be that after all of these years of staking their claims of right on magna carta, why would they sweep the magna carta offstage?
well i think if i could ask the federalists that question, i think the first answer would be, look. magna carta was a grant from the king to the people of the england, and we are writing a constitution based on popular sovereignty. we the people. and i think the federalists might also say that magna carta was only a limit on royal power, or executive power, and we are writing a constitution to limit all other branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial, and therefore, magna carta is simply not relevant no matter how useful it may have been. it is not relevant now. well, as you know, the federalists made an almost fatal blunder at philadelphia. they refused george mason and others to add a bill of rights. they said we do not need one. it could be difficult. it was a hot and muggy summer in philadelphia and they just wanted to go home. and there was an article
complaint to the people who became the opponents of the new constitution that it was anti-federalist, because they can go around the country and say, look, these people write the constitution, but they do not provide for our rights. well, james madison and the other federalists got the point. he was reluctant to have a bill of rights. but he said, i get it. we well added and just ratify the cause to shen and the first congress would propose amendments to create a bill of rights, so that is what they did, of course, and madison was as good as his word, and the bill of rights came to being. so basically, what do we have in this story? we have the a story that is part innovation. federalism was very american. on the other hand, you have got the tradition of the magna carta and its teachings, in particular in the state and federal bills of rights, so how would i sum up the magna carta legacy setting the stage for my conversation with my colleagues here?
the first legacy, i think, would be the rule of law, something that american lawyers love to talk about, the rule of law. i remember being in leningrad now st. petersburg when they were writing the first post-soviet constitution. i was comparing notes with the drafters, back in the day when we thought russia would be a liberal democracy. it seems a long time ago today. i did not speak any russian, so i was using a translator, and the translator was using the english phrase, rule of law, as a socialist legality. well, what do we americans mean when we talk about the rule of law? well, whatever it is, it flows from the magna carta. and secondly, the articulation of fundamental rights, the restatement of those rights down
through the centuries. now, the idea of putting it in writing, from charters with the constitutions, the notion that if it is that important, it constitutes a written document. fourthly, the idea of supremacy. constitutional supremacy. remember my comment about the james otis' comments. the notion that even parliament was limited by constitutional principles, magna carta is the first tentative or rather distant step, but it begins the process of thinking about some documents as being superior to others, the idea that it is super statute. i think it flows back to the magna carta. it brings us back to the supremacy clause of the constitution. this constitution and all laws enacted in pursuant of it shall be the supreme law of the land. you might remember back to your first year of law school with your first reading of marbury v. madison. you might be struck by the fact that marshall began with statements of general principle.
the idea of a constitution. finally, later in the opinion, he gets to the supremacy clause, but he talks as if it is self - evident. you write a constitution, it is bound to be a superior document. that, i think, is a direct magna of the teachings of carta. finally, among magna carta's legacies is the notion of organic constitution development. you really cannot understand american constitutional law without thinking about its common-law background, the notion that you work from precedent to precedent, from age to age. for example, in france, they have the civil code. the judge looks at the code and applies it to the facts of the case and goes on to the next case. a very different mode of reasoning. and i think the fact that we have this organic tradition is an amazing protean effect two phrases like due process of law, cruel and unusual punishment,
mindmany examples come to as to how that process works out under the american constitution. so there you have it a nutshell. there is more to say. but time does not permit. but he gives you some idea of how it was that magna carta survived all of the centuries to have so much to in modern time, so it is part of the contemporary scene, first in the united kingdom with david hunt, and then in the united states with william hubbard. so, turning first to david hunt. with you so much for being us. it is as if her majesty herself were in the room. ] huckles >> in recent years, the events coming out of the united kingdom, the constitutional change has very much been in the air. probably there is nothing like the 17th century. we talked about the transformation of the house of lords, the creation of a supreme court, the passage of the human rights act of 1998, the scottish devolution, and recently the failed referendum on scottish independence.
a referendum about to take place i think in june, in just a few weeks time, and whether the u.k. will exit the european union, and there are proposals floating around to codify the bill of rights and perhaps even have a written constitution, so the question i would put to you this morning is given all of these ideas stirring, what place does the magna carta legacy have? mr. hunt: well thank you very much, professor howard. you are a difficult act to follow. i want to thank you to everyone who is here this morning. thank you for welcoming me so
now, professor howard has said -- i will once again state for the record that i am not a judge. so any impressions of being well-versed in any legal language will likely come from watching the u.k. version of "law and order." but i guess as a british citizen and from having spent 15 years in government, i do have some first-hand knowledge or view of how this 800-year-old document we have been talking about has shaped the legal, civic, and cultural thinking of the nation from which i come, so i will give you the view from across the pond, if i may. the document was originally called the great charter of liberty. and the fact of the indisputable 800 years ago, serving as the foundation of our nation's freedom, a revolutionized way that we thought of government law and human rights. and for the first time in history, it places very clear limits on royal power. now, of course, today, we have the idea that our rulers cannot punish or dispossess us because they feel like it as a given. it even hints at a principle that has caused a certain degree of friction between our two countries historically, and that is no taxation without representation, unless, of course, you live in d.c. [laughter]
>> so in 1776, a group of very astute, wise men in philadelphia decided, to use some of the ideas of the magna carta, to found be great country we are currently living and talking in. about that time, of course, you did not need a king to sign off on those principles because they were held to be self evident truths, and chances are a king would not have agreed to them anyway. indeed, the connection between magna carta and the declaration of independence -- it did not escape winston churchill, a
proxy of thoughts on the matter, who said the declaration of independence is not only an american document, it follows on magna carta, the british bill of rights, the third great title deed in which the liberties of the english-speaking people were founded. now, over the years, we have had our disagreements, and we have held those founding documents in very high regard, so when war broke out in europe in 1939, the document happening to be in new york at the time on display at the world's fair. to save this precious document from the bombs on its return to britain, they very kindly offered to keep the document for the duration of the war. it was kept at the library of congress and then moved to fort knox until 1946. now, eventually, you gave the
lincoln magna carta back, with an exchange of ideas as leaders in human rights continues until this day. it is actually a great privilege and a power for our countries to be at the forefront of this conversation. we are two countries which have set the tone of what is to follow. now, when we say that magna carta is a crucial part of british culture, i think it would be a classic understatement, very much like saying the constitution is a moderately important american document. but while part of the magna carta seem modern, there are other parts of it which really show its true, true age. and so it is really up to us to reevaluate what magna carta means. indeed, as a professor has said, the conversations of right and balances of power look much different in the u.k.. we don't have a written constitution. that in fact, even that is of for debate among legal scholars.
you can't really agree to the entirety of whether one exists or not i urge you to think of it constitution with a lowercase -- a lowercase c. i want you to think about what is right and what is just. it is ingrained in our national character. into our care or into our constitution runs like a thread through everything we do as a nation. in legal terminology, that translates it into what is known as an un-caught a fight constitution rather the n the theish system relying on -- british system has relied on the rule of law, a system of checks and balances. that means our values are woven into statutes, or judgments, in treaties. that has resulted in a constitution that is not supreme law that is both monarchical and democratic.
it is unitary and parliamentary sovereign. so this sort of contradiction might see more trouble the young it is worth. but i would argue, i would contend that it has provided us with a living, breathing and a quite accessible said laws. -- flexible set of laws. and in examining those laws, we have a collection of legal instruments that we referred to as constitutional conventions. just a few you examples of how our flexible system works. the prime minister of the united kingdom is the leader of the party with an absolute majority in the house of commons. but of course, this has not always been the case. the last government i served before this one was in fact the coalition. example, all legislation related to money or financial means must originate in our house of commons and the sitting
monarch has the right to royal dissent. giving consent to all legislation. however, queen elizabeth ii has only used her veto once, which was against a military action in iraq. it was a parliamentary approval will. power fromo transfer the sovereign to authorize military strikes against that country. we also have some very important documents that accompany our bill of rights passed in 1689, which lays down the limit of powers of the monarch. it sets requirements for free elections, free speech and regular element to more recently, we saw the european community act of 1972 which regulated our then [indiscernible]
of the united kingdom with the european union. adding further layers to this has been the devolution of powers within the european union, as well as scotland, wales, and northern ireland. for hundreds of years, documents have worked in their own way. it has meant that rather the n of aerculean effort constitutional amendment, laws can be amendment -- and amended and revised easily. but on occasion, that system has been called into question. most recently, there has been the human rights act of 1998. it would seem from confusing the title of the bill of rights there would be little need for the human rights act.
however, the human right act of 69 was not concerned about the plight of the common man. it dealt more with the relationship you to the parliament and the crown. before, democratic accountability, checks and balances favored in overall styler the more american bill of rights. but in the 1960's in the 1970's, a more formal document picked up speed. the u.s. model of american rights has been reject did because it would require a change. it draws distinctions that contrast quite radically with the constitution here, especially in unqualified rights. for instance, the convention includes the right to life in
-- and the right to liberty and security. including the right to free expression, religion, and privacy cannot be balanced against the rigel interest of national security and public safety. when this was passed, it was ofd as brilliant and a thing intellectual beauty, not just by those who drafted it. it was seen as particularly exceptional for the fact that it does not enjoy legal status and can be modified and amended with relative ease. now there is a movement to replace the human rights act with the u.k. bill of rights. the aim is to restore -- quote/unquote,
to human rights. interestingly, this has not been part of my government's legislative agenda for this year. rest assured, that kind of debate continues in the united kingdom. but a speech on the 800th anniversary of magna carta, my prime minister vowed to restore the reputation of human rights. and in 2015, the consecutive government added it to its election manifesto and and efforts for continued reform has been led by lord chancellor michael gove. there are those who would argue that we should strengthen human rights instead of wasting time by starting over. now here of course, in the united states, such a thing as the bill of rights would almost insanityutable he to if not heresy.
it on the anniversary of the magna carta, a conversation around the u.k. written conversation continues. should the u.k. right to a new magna carta or one that would bring the government together? this question has been examined by the committee of the house of commons. their final verdict was, if we are to create a new magna carta and a written constitution, it should involve all of the people. it should be democratic and its process and not only did hated by legal experts and bureaucrats like myself, but by the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the god-fearing and the atheists the magic of the -- because the magic of the constitution is it stands as a symbol of what we are and what we believe in. and that is something i think we should all have a voice and. thank you very much. [applause]
>> thank you very much. let me ask you a follow-up question. we are aware of this forthcoming referendum next month on whether or not the u.k. should exit the european union. suppose the vote is yes. suppose the voters of the u.k. decide to leave. what are the of occasions for -- what would be the implications for some of these to mystic constitutional arrangements. with some have to change because of that vote? raised ak you have question which is on so many people's minds in the united kingdoms. as we approach the referendum, a lot of discussion and debate on the question you have asked. is very clear that we would be safer, stronger, and better off in the european union. not leasty reasons, because we cooperate so closely issues ofnt security
the day like counterterrorism but also from a prosperity viewpoint because we have access to a single market. 500 million people which is an important thing. i think the phrase that has been most commonly used by the government is that the eu would be in fact a leap into the dark to leave. the way we interact with our european colleagues and partners. these are questions we're trying to work through. the government i serve is very much focused on making the argument to stay in the european union because of the importance to the u.k. in doing so. there has been speculation but that debate is moving around the pros of staying in.
you so much.nk we will turn to the american side to william hubbard. you were in england last year conducting countless interviews thingssiding over the there. as i recall, they ask you questions about squaring the magna carta are into the u.s. constitution with the detention practices at guantanamo. >> it they did. the reporters there are quite welly and insightful and prepared for the interviews. one question in particular was the issue of detainee rights and how you square that with magna carta. as a general discussion, i frame did as you know, we have these words on a document and we have courts and lawyers have to argue about what are the limits. how do you apply this particular document to specific facts that is why we have a court
system to make those determinations. and fact, there have been four cases since 9/11 that deal with detainee rights that have been decided by the u.s. supreme court. in all four of those cases, the court has held for the detainees and into other cases, the magna carta was cited as authority. in the case versus rumsfeld, justice souter in his concurrence in the case decided that due process must be made available for hamde to make his defense. decided in opinion,
2000 eight, justice kennedy wrote for the majority in that case, holding that detainees had detentionto challenge through habeas corpus. in that decision, he said magna carta decreed that no man would be imprisoned contrary to the law of the land. important as the principal was, there was no prescribed legal process to enforce it. gradually, the writ of habeas corpus became the means of which the promise of magna carta was fulfilled. dick: chapter 40 of magna carta i mentioned earlier is the one , that says that justice shall not be sold, the later denied. or denied.layed, obviously an important principle. on the american scene, perhaps a modern counterpart's questions about judicial independence, a phrase that we are very much concerned with. sayhat respects would you
that to we in america are falling short of the promises of chapter 40? david: let's go back to chapter 40. justice should not be sold or delayed. is not how they thought of in the separation of power or judicial independence. it specifically held the common pleas or not to follow our court, but are to be held in subjects place. this became the court of common pleas as opposed to the king's court, which followed the king around for the purpose of having confirmation of the king's decrees. so in chapter 17, we see the foundation being laid for separation of powers and physically separating courts from the king himself. that separation from the king's court made it clear that judges were to operate independently of the king of and this led to the development of the concept of judicial independence. so we see the seeds of that
judicial independence there, a combination, i would submit, of chapter 40 in chapter 17. hamilton, a man of some modern popularity and currency in the world today, placed a judicial independence as reasons why he took up arms in the cause of independence and then wrote eloquently about the importance of judicial independence in the federalist papers. today we see a deep, important discussion about judicial independence. justice ginsburg has written recently that essential to the rule of law in any land, is an independent judiciary. and it is vulnerable to assault, she says. it can be shattered if the society it exists to serve does not take care to ensure its
preservation. justice breyer recently said society around us can undermine judicial independence, that is the rock upon which the judicial institution rests. justice o'connor, freed from the constraints of being an active justice on the court, has been even more forceful in her concerns about judicial independence. she has stated that there is a crisis of confidence in the impartiality of courts. she says it is real and growing. she noted that elected judges in many states are compelled to solicit money for their campaigns, and has noted, that polls have shown, three of four americans believe campaign contributions affect judicial decisions. i would like to quote her to give you a sense of the rover with which she feels this is a
deep problem in our society. says that in too many states, judicial elections are becoming political fights were partisan and elect moral decisions seek judges that will answer to them and set up to the law and the constitution. fortunately, there is some relief and it stems from a decision that was issued on april 29, 2015, the case is william -- versus the florida bar. dealt with the prohibition of the florida bar that limited the ability of judges to actively seek campaign contributions in support of a reelection campaign. chief justice roberts wrote in favor of the court in deciding on -- in favor of the florida ban on those personal solicitations.
he said this, judges charged with exercising strict neutrality and independents cannot supplicate campaign donors without diminishing public confidence and judicial integrity. he went on to say, this principle it's back to at least eight centuries and magna carta, which proclaimed "to know what will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right to justice ." so drying explicitly up on chapter 40, he upheld the limitation on judges seeking campaign contributions it is an interesting time, as we discussed the separation of powers and judicial independence. all three of the remaining presidential candidates have indicated that they will insist upon certain litmus tests before they would seek to appoint someone to our supreme court and
two other judgeships. matter of some concern, rather than seeking those that are simply best qualified to have our political situation, but now all three remaining candidates are talking about this litmus test as being an essential part of the process. dick: chapter 39 is perhaps the most famous chapter of mattock carta.a the one that requires the proceedings to be to the law of the land or what has become known as due process of law. when i was a clerk to justice himself was a great student of the magna carta. perhaps one of his most famous opinions was gideon versus wainwright, the one that requires that if a state appointed counsel for defendants who were too poor to afford a lawyer.
it was half a century ago when that opinion was written. in your judgment, have we fulfilled the promise? submit we have not. in fact, a young lawyer who was a major participant in that case and wrote the bulk of the brief, in a recent statement on it gideon in 1963i believe, on the 50th anniversary, he stated very publicly and forcefully that defendants are not adequately and confidently represented and he described this as the unfulfilled promise of gideon. in the last couple months, there has been another u.s. decision, it actually came out this month, and in that case, justice breyer acknowledged a sixth amendment standards for adequate counsel and he cited a recent department noting that tort
only 27% of county-based public defender offices have sufficient attorneys to meet caseload standards. this is in the same context where we see budget is being cut in public defender parts offices across the country. in fact, the most recent budget puzzle in the state of louisiana, the proposal in the defender office would cut it by 61%. the question becomes what under funding defender in public defer offices and public case loads become a greater issue in sixth amendment cases going forward? >> a little less well-known than chapter nine and 40, chapter 20. that is the one that decrees ineffective -- i'm translating -- the punishment should fit the crime. the punishment should not be disproportionate and outlandish.
there is a great deal of debate in america over sentencing. whether our sentencing laws are consistent with chapter 20 of magna carta. what do you see are the prospects for reform and sentencing? adopteduth carolina, we reform. in 2010, it was adopted at the state level and the number of admissions to the state is in system has decreased 24% in that time, saving the taxpayers $5 million of out-of-pocket expenses and i'm amounts not having to engage in additional capital spending. majority of the prisoners in south carolina have now been convicted for a violent offense rather than i nonviolent offense. there are bipartisan efforts in congress to affect the same kind of sentencing reform under the
federal criminal laws. been at it now for several years and it has not moved. there seems to be some optimism interestingly, again, you tie a lot of this back to the magna carta. chapter 20 stated that a free man was not to be immersed accept in proportion to the nature of the offense. saving to him his livelihood. this goes to the question of excessive fines and penalties which have been used recently in many famous situations to support the court system. perniciousa incentive and something we need .o be very careful of we must know that in many circumstances, particularly at the state