♪ In England on the banks of the Thames River is a meadow called Runnymede. In old English, it means meeting meadow. And in that meadow is an ancient tree. It's over 2500 years old and it's still alive. Its name, the Ankerwycke Yew. It was just a sapling when Nehemiah and Ezra were rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. Think of that. It was there when the Romans built the old Roman road nearby. The first king of England, Alfred the Great held witness or war councils there.
And it witnessed King John signed this document under its branches, the Magna Carta. It was a pivotal time in history, and it was the birthplace of the Constitution. Runnymede Association with the ideals of democracy, limitation of power, equality and freedom under law as attractive placement there of monuments and commemorative symbols. The Magna Carta and its role in the beginning of political freedom for individuals is also called the Great Charter.
Now, it's a document that was signed in 1215 by King John of England. Now, it was in response to the demands of the English nobility, the Lords, who were very unhappy with the way the king was ruling. The Magna Carta, it established a number of things and protections for the nobility, including the right to a fair trial and the protection from unlawful imprisonment.
But perhaps, I mean, I think that the most important aspect of the Magna Carta was its acknowledgment of the limits of the king's power. Unheard of, almost it's stated that the king was subject to the same law. I mean, just like any other person, and that he could not act of his own or unfairly. Now, this was very significant and a shift in the way that rulers were viewed because it marked the beginning of the idea that political power should be restricted by the rule of law, an amazing thing.
At the Magna Carta, it established the principle of due process that guaranteed that individuals have the right to a fair and impartial legal process. It's the cornerstone of the modern democratic societies. It has been... it's been so influential in the development of laws and legal systems around the world. ♪ [Narrator] The Magna Carta, or Great Charter, is one of the most important documents in the history of constitutional government.
♪ Signed in 1215 by King John of England, it established a set of rights and limitations on the power of the monarch, which were crucial in shaping the development of modern democracy and protecting the individual liberties of citizens. But the significance of the Magna Carta goes beyond its historical context.
Its principles have continued to influence the development of constitutional government around the world, providing a foundation for the protection of private property, individual rights and limitations on government power. ♪ England has a unique history that has always had a vein of freedom and individualism running through it.
This can be traced back to the biblical foundations of Christianity, which emphasize the inherent worth and dignity of every individual and the idea that all people are equal before God. These principles help to lay the groundwork for the Magna Carta, which established the idea that all people, including the monarch, are subject to the law. ♪ [Doug Bonner] So what's great about this 800-year-old document?
Well, it was like a crack in the dam that opened the way for really a God-given individual rights to trump, you know, the king's right. I mean, the right of kings. So the king was it, he said what the law was, but all of a sudden it changes now. And there's a law that applies to the kings and everybody else. So the great thing about this document, it was the beginning of something that grew and grew and grew to the American Constitution.
I mean, the Constitution that brought individuals into government, that brought the individuality of the person was preeminent over the state or over the king. That was so important. Even right now, even today, we recognize that this began at that 800-year-old, 1215 document that started the ball rolling that we have today. ♪ The Magna Carta was the culmination of these efforts to limit the power of the monarch.
It was signed by King John in response to pressure from a group of nobles who were dissatisfied with his rule. The document established a set of rights and limitations on the power of the monarch, including the right to a fair trial, the right to due process of law and the protection of private property. One of the most significant aspects of the Magna Carta was its recognition of the idea of Habeas Corpus, which requires the government to provide a legal justification for detaining a person.
This principle has been crucial in protecting individual liberties as it prevents the government from detaining people without cause or trial. The Magna Carta also established the principle of the rule of law, which holds that everyone, including the monarch, is subject to the law. This was a radical idea at the time as it challenged the divine right of kings to rule without the consent of the governed and the notion that the monarch was above the law and could do as they pleased.
♪ The principles of the Magna Carta were not immediately enforced, and it would take many years of struggle and conflict before they were fully realized. However, the document provided a foundation for the development of modern constitutional government, and its principles have continued to influence the development of democracy around the world. ♪ [Gene Bailey] Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem about the Magna Carta that sums up the vision of the stubborn English determined to defend their right.
"The first attack on Right Divine... That settled John at Runnymede. Your rights were won at Runnymede. No freeman shall be fined or bound or dispossessed of freehold ground, except by lawful judgment found and passed upon him by his peers. Forget not, after all these years, the Charter signed at Runnymede." The Magna Carta is widely accepted as the first constitutional document that formed the basis of modern democracy. So what does this all mean for us today? Watch this.
♪ [Doug Bonner] This ended the idea of divine right of kings to rule over men. It made the king subject to the rule of law. Now, this is one of the reasons why England was the cradle of the idea is that eventually gave birth to the English Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that gave birth to America. But it all began with the Magna Carta.
[Narrator] One of the key ways in which the Magna Carta has influenced modern constitutional government is through its recognition of the biblical principle of private property. The document established the principle that the monarch could not seize the property of his subjects without just cause, and that property rights were protected by law.
♪ This principle has been crucial in protecting individual liberties as it prevents the government from arbitrarily taking away people's property or using it for its own purposes. It has also been a key factor in the development of free market capitalism as it provides a foundation for the protection of property rights and the ability of individuals to own and control their own economic resources.
In addition to protecting private property, the Magna Carta also established limitations on the power of the monarch and provided a foundation for future constitutions. ♪ England was a unique place because it always had a vein of freedom and individualism that ran through its history. And when you consider the biblical foundations of Christianity, of individualism and liberty that made England a natural birthplace for a constitution because of the English heritage of Christianity.
♪ [Gene Bailey] The Magna Carta was ratified over 40 times by successive kings. It eventually evolved in the English Bill of Rights, passed in 1689. The English Constitution on the other hand, is not a single document, but rather a collection of laws like the Blackstone's Commentaries on the common law. Blackstone use so much Bible and English common law that a young lawyer named Charles Finney got saved, get this... by studying the law.
The English Constitution also included customs in the agreements that form the basis of the British political system. Over time, this unwritten constitution evolved to include parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and protection of individual rights and freedoms. Let me introduce you to this man, Walter Bagehot. ♪ He literally wrote the book on the English Constitution. Watch this. [Doug Bonner] Walter Bagehot. Now, this guy was called the most important Victorian.
He was both English banker, essayist. He was the editor of The Economist newspaper. Now, Bagehot, he was forming his views at the time of the US Constitution during the American Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln was overstepping his executive power at the American Constitution in order to execute and fight that war. So this affected Bagehot's views on the very American Constitution. Now, Bagehot, he was writing when England was the only stable Western democracy, the only one at that time.
Now he has good points if you filter through the lens of history he was living in. ♪ [Narrator] The characteristic danger of great nations like the Romans or the English, which have a long history of continuous creation, is that they may at last fail from not comprehending the great institutions which they have created. Walter Bagehot was a prominent British journalist, economist and political analyst.
He is best known for his book The English Constitution, which was published in 1867 and is considered a major work on the British political system. Bagehot was known for his insightful commentary on political and economic issues, and his work was widely read and respected. In 1867, Bagehot published his most famous work, The English Constitution. The book was a critical analysis of the British political system, and it has been hailed as a classic of political science ever since.
In it, Bagehot argued that the British Constitution was a unique and effective system that had evolved over centuries of political and social change. Bagehot's analysis of the British Constitution was groundbreaking in its time, and it has continued to influence political science and constitutional law to this day. His insights into the nature of political power, the role of institutions and the importance of tradition and precedent remain relevant and insightful.
♪ "The English Constitution, in a word, is framed on the principle of choosing a single sovereign authority and making it good: to the American upon the principle of having many sovereign authorities and hoping that their multitude may atone for their inferiority." [Doug Bonner] But now Bagehot, he believed that the English Constitution was superior to the American Constitution because it was more flexible and adaptable. Now he argued this.
He said that the ceremonial trappings of the English Constitution, such as the monarchy, House of Lords, served as an important role in providing stability and continuity, while the clear separation of powers in the American Constitution made it more prone to gridlock and political polarization. Bagehot also believe that the English Constitution was better suited to the needs of a complex, industrialized society.
His book, The English Constitution influenced so many politicians, including the American President, Woodrow Wilson. [Gene Bailey] Walter Bagehot believe that the English and American Constitutions had their own distinct strengths and distinct weaknesses, mainly the flexibility of the English Constitution versus the rigidity of the American Constitution. And this is the most important part.
His book had an immense effect on American politics by influencing a young college student named Woodrow Wilson and his view of the Constitution. ♪ [Narrator] Speaking about a limited and divided government. Woodrow Wilson once said, "The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine but a living thing. This is where the living and breathing constitution comes from. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life."
♪ When a young future president was in college, he was radically influenced by both Walter Bagehot and Charles Darwin's books and made it the subject of a college paper he authored. Woodrow Wilson's paper and the comparison of how the founders thought of Newtonian principles govern the US Constitution and how it should evolve with the new idea of Darwinian principles of evolution is an unusual ideological piece of writing.
In this paper, Wilson puts forward the idea that the American Founding Fathers believed the U.S. Constitution was designed to work within the framework of Newtonian principles, which believed the universe was created by God as a clockwork machine, with everything operating in a predictable and orderly manner. It should not be changed or tampered with.
However, he believed that the principles of evolution, as outlined by Charles Darwin, should now be applied to the Constitution so that it could evolve with the changing needs of society. This was a way to go around the fixed limitations in the Constitution. Wilson's argument is based on the belief that the founders of the United States viewed the universe in a way that Isaac Newton viewed the world.
This means that they saw the world as a clockwork machine with everything operating in a predictable, orderly and unchangeable manner. The universe was seen as a vast machine governed by mathematical laws that could be understood and predicted. The founders applied these principles to the U.S. Constitution, which they designed to work in a similar way. The Constitution was seen as a set of laws that would govern the United States in a perpetual and orderly manner, just like the universe itself.
Wilson, on the other hand, believed that the universe was governed by the principles of evolution, as outlined by Charles Darwin. He believed that the Constitution should reflect this and that it should evolve with the changing needs and morals of society. ♪ [Gene Bailey] Bad ideas of a living constitution resonated with Wilson, who believed that a constitution should be able to adapt to changing needs and realities of society.
Furthermore, Wilson was also deeply influenced by Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which he saw as a metaphor for the way in which society and government should evolve over time. He believed that just as species evolved to adapt to their environment, so too should the Constitution evolve to adapt to the changing needs of society. In particular, Wilson was a proponent of an evolving document that could evolve as a bureaucratic state evolved.
He saw the bureaucratic state as a living organism that needed to adapt and evolve to meet the changing needs of society. And it was Walter Bagehot that most influenced Wilson's ideas about the living nature of constitutions, combined with what he considered a modern worldview of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now, this is important to understand, because it was in this progressive era that the Darwinian ideas were applied to the birth of big government.
Have you ever heard the Progressive nowadays say the Constitution was a living document? Well, that was the beginning of that idea. [Narrator] Woodrow Wilson's belief in a living constitution sparked the progressive views prevalent in America today. He stated. "Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics.
It must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission in an era when Development, Evolution, is the scientific word to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle. All they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine." [Gene Bailey] And here's why that's important. It's antithetical to the way founders believe government should work. It's Newtonian, as in Isaac Newton.
The founders set up the government so that the three branches balanced each other in checks and balance like a clockwork machine. John Locke and Montesquieu hold that conflict between different branches of government, between the people and their leaders who are good and healthy and protective of liberty. The analogy is just like Newton's laws of gravity. This is how the founders thought, and we think too. It has roots in biblical principles.
Now, Woodrow Wilson didn't believe in this kind of balance anymore because it conflicted with the Darwinian type of ideas. He thought, "Instead we should apply Darwin's evolution principles to a living government." [Narrator] This meant that the Constitution should be seen as a living document capable of changing and adapting to new circumstances, just like the universe itself.
Wilson's argument is a humanist, ideological one, and it raises some important questions about the role of government in modern society. The question of whether the Constitution should be seen as a living document capable of evolving with the changing needs of society is an important one. There is an argument that the Constitution is a sacred document written by the founders of the United States and that it should be treated with reverence and respect.
On the other hand, there is an argument that the Constitution is a living document capable of evolving with the changing needs of society and that it should be updated and revised as necessary. Wilson's argument is based on the belief that the principles of evolution should be applied to the Constitution. This means that the Constitution should be seen as a living document capable of changing and adapting to new circumstances.
This is a radical argument as it recognizes the fact that society is constantly changing and that the Constitution should be able to keep up with these changes. However, there are pitfalls to this argument. One of the main concerns is that if the Constitution is seen as a living document, it could be subject to political manipulation.
There is a danger that politicians could use the Constitution to justify their own policies, even if these policies go against the principles of the Constitution itself. Another concern is that if the Constitution is seen as a living document, it could undermine the principles of democracy. If the Constitution can be changed at any time, then it becomes less important as a safeguard against government tyranny.
There is a danger that the Constitution could become a tool for government control rather than a protection against. Wilson's argument that the Constitution should be seen as a living document capable of evolving with the changing needs of society is a dangerous one that has been a part of the progressive movement since its inception.
The left view of fixed constitution as a roadblock to their progressive agenda instead of a sacred document to protecting the principles of democracy and individual rights. [Gene Bailey] The theory that Wilson believed is that the government is not a machine but a living thing. It falls not under Newton's laws of God, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton.
It's a modified by its environment necessitated by his task, shaped to its functions, by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and balances and live. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of evolution. Well, we can see that that's just simply not right. He sought to achieve this vision by attacking what Wilson called the wall of privilege.
Any of this sounding familiar? "Government", Wilson said, "was a living organism accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. He thought since no living thing can survive when its organs work against one another, a government must be free to adapt to its times or else it will perish. The adaptation Wilson had in his mind was to neutralize Congress and consolidate power in a vigorous executive. What? Neutralized Congress? Free will for officials and none for the people?
His Darwinian philosophy went for freedom for humans to freedom for the government. How did allowing each human to manage and exercise his own free will change to the demand that all individuals submit to the control in the experts and government? It was a plan he had been developing for more than 30 years and Wilson's essay of 1887, the Study of Administration.
He completed this plan while he was the college president of Princeton, which long ago lost its preacher college roots and became a university celebrated by liberal theologians and Democrats. The idea of a living constitution takes concrete political shape in the form of bureaucratic administrative state. And as a result, the modern American government, to a large degree, consists of thousands of unelected bureaucrats and numerous unaccountable regulatory agencies.
In other words, today we call this the DC swamp. The progressive movement altered the way American politics work alongside the branches of government that the Constitution establishes. There is now this fourth branch of government that's not accountable to the people. ♪ By their very nature, they undermine the founding principles of limited government, representation of the people, for the people and the separation of powers.
Unless the American people halt the growth of bureaucratic despotism, we risk losing our constitutional government entirely. The Progressives were applying Darwin's evolutionary principles to virtually every part of government and society: Arts, media, education, church in the family. Today shows a bit different from our typical revival history, but it's church history.
Since the Tower of Babel, when God divided the nations, kings have ruled over men and kings have claimed right or wrongly, a divine right to rule over men, until the English change that the English with their unique Christian heritage that believed that rights came from God and not the king. Our American Founding Fathers built on these biblical principles to hand us the stewardship of the freedom the Church enjoys today. So let's pray, "Heavenly Father, we commit our nation.
We return once again to the foundations that our forefathers established this nation on, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. Father, we do return and we call this nation back to You, to serve You and to serve a God who is known as Jesus Christ, our Lord.