Constitutional Truth on Foundations of Freedom Thursday

Rick Green: 0:12
Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture, it's WallBuilders. We're taking on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical and constitutional perspective. Appreciate you joining us today. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach and a former Texas legislator. I'm here with David and Tim Barton. Tim Barton is a national speaker and pastor and president of WallBuilders. David Barton, of course, America's premier historian and our founder here at WallBuilders. We appreciate you joining us. Check out our website at WallBuilders. com , that's WallBuilders. com and then also want to encourage you to join us for Constitution Day events. Constitution Day is September 17th. It falls on a Sunday this year, but you can still be part of getting Constitution education into your local school. If you go to ConstitutionCoach. com and get signed up for free. In your dashboard you'll be given a curriculum that's 45 minutes long that you can take to your local schools. Federal law says that every school in America that receives any federal funds has to do something on Constitution Day. Or, in this case, where it falls on a Sunday, they do it on the Monday after or the Friday before, and we'll coach you on how to do that and get that good teaching into your local schools. And then the other thing I want to invite you to is our Constitution Day celebration in Fredericksburg, Texas, right by the Patriot Academy campus. We're going to be having an incredible celebration. Kirk Cameron is coming in for American Campfire Revival, combined with the Comedy and Constitution, which means Brad Stine and myself will be bringing the Comedy and Constitution part, Kirk Cameron bringing the revival part. It's going to be great, looking forward to having you there, and you can come in early and do a Constitutional Defense course or stay after and do that Constitutional Defense course. It's your chance to visit the Patriot Academy campus, get your handgun defense training that we all need, your Constitution training, and then a great celebration with fellow Patriots from across the nation gathering in Fredericksburg, Texas. Learn more at PatriotAcademy. com . All right, David and Tim, let's jump into those questions. Folks, by the way, you can send those in to radio@WallBuilders. com , which is what CJ did and here's what he said, hello WallBuilders, my name is CJ. I'm a 16-year-old junior in Oklahoma. I love listening to your daily program and enjoyed reading Original Intent. Thank you for all you do. Okay, he's about to ask a question, but guys, I just want to pause. A 16-year-old got through Original Intent. That's impressive. Okay, that's a big book and very detailed and got all kinds of cases and legal theories and everything else in it. CJ, we want you at Patriot Academy, buddy. You got to come to Patriot Academy. Okay, anyway, he says something I did notice is that the court often builds on and cites other cases instead of laws or the Constitution. In geometry... This is so funny, man, this kid at 16 is picking up on the fact that stare decisis and the whole one judge pontificating about another judge about another judge is probably not a good idea. And he's 16 and he figured this out just reading the book. Okay, anyway, he said in geometry and okay, I don't know how to say this, Is this the right way to say this? Fractals of the same pattern build on each other, but if one single fractal goes awry, the fr... Is that right? Is fractal how you say that? You guys are math guys, or is there another? Is that even a word? I'm getting no help from my co-host here, folks. They're just leaving me hanging. I'm like hanging off the cliff.

Tim Barton: 3:20
So, guys, when I was homeschooled, so my mom actually did the majority of our homeschooling and so what I remember, my dad didn't know this stuff, but my mom taught us. And fractals are a real thing.

Rick Green: 3:31
Okay, fractals are a real thing. I think we've turned off David's mic so he cannot defend himself, even if he wants to, here. I'm just going to jump back to the fractals and CJ. Okay, our 16-year-old is educating us on what the correct words are in geometry and on the law. I love this kid. Okay, the fractals continue to build on each other and the consequences grow as they do. This is such a good analogy! If one judicial case goes wrong, it's like a chain reaction to other cases. Shouldn't they cite laws and the Constitution instead of other court cases? Mic drop, guys! This kid's incredible! What a great analogy, first of all, and his conclusions are spot on. Okay, tossing it to you. I guess we could turn David's mic back on so he can either defend himself on Tim's accusation that he didn't know math whenever Tim was homeschooling, or just comment on what CJ had to say. We'll leave it up to him.

David Barton: 4:27
This is a going to be a minute. Throw me under the bus and then drive the bus back and forth over the top. That's good. CJ has got the essence of this absolutely right and you hit it, is what they call it. There's probably one caveat that goes with this. So back up to say Constitution is the basis of what has to be decided every time. Now that's on content and substance. Occasionally you get into procedure, and on procedure, that's where the courts have the right to kind of use stare decisis, say no, no, no, we told you that on this kind of case you have to do the appeals this way and whatever. Because when it comes to the internal working, congress itself is the one who sets up the operation of the judicial branch. That was authority given to Congress in the Constitution, and so Congress can pass all these statutes. And at that point in time the courts say no, the way that Congress is set up, here's the way appeals work, or here's the way that sentencing works, or here's the way that whatever works. And at that point in time they can simply say look, we gave you this decision four years ago. And when you face a situation like this, here's the process you use to make this thing go forward. That's where quoting the courts is fine and great. The Constitution does give the courts jurisdiction in how to do process, quite frankly, but when it comes to substance, the Constitution is the final word. And this is something that we've talked about in some recent programs as part of the Good News over the last four years, where that back in '71 timeframe, the court came up with what was called the Lemon Test and for the next 50 years they said well, we told you in the Lemon Test you can't have free exercise or religion, even though the First Amendment says you can. The Lemon Test, we send you back to the Lemon Test. We'll quote the First Amendment. Go back to the Constitution. That's what the case is about. Well, we got back to that four or five years ago when the court started saying no, no, no, who cares about the Lemon Case? Let's go back to what the Constitution says. So we have seen this court in the last 4-5 years do more of that than I've seen in my entire lifetime. They have gone back to the Constitution on so many things and once they do, like in the case of some of these religious liberty things on conscience that the government can't prosecute people for having conscience if it's part of a religious belief or conviction. The court's saying hey, see the Coach Kennedy case we just did two years ago. That's our word on this. And for the Colorado case, see the Coach Kennedy case. We did two years ago. And so at that time it's okay to point back to their cases where they cite the Constitution and say this is the same kind of situation. It's a different fact scenario but the same thing. So see what we said two years ago with Coach Kennedy when we quoted the Constitution and said he has the right to pray period, football games anywhere else, whatever. So it's a great question by CJ. It's a great distinction, I would say, the only caveat is it's okay for the court to quote itself when it's doing process and procedure or when it's sending lower courts back to something that's already decided based on the Constitution. That's all good stuff, but to not use the Constitution as the basis of its original decisions, that's a real problem.

Rick Green: 7:43
Yeah, you know, David. I just say to CJ out there, if you're listening to this, everything that David's saying and that we're saying on the program, Clarence Thomas says the same thing and he's been on a real journey over the last, you know, 10, 15 years to get the court off of exactly what you're describing, CJ, where they just keep building on bad decisions, and to get back to actually quoting the Constitution or the statutes that they're reviewing. So you know, that's been a really, really good sign. I think Thomas and Alito have done a great job over the last couple of years to bring us almost, like you know, jerking the wheel of a car into the right direction. That's what they've been doing with these decisions. So good stuff, good stuff.

David Barton: 8:23
You know, and Rick, I was thinking about what CJ was saying. I think maybe an analogy of that is back in the days when you actually had printed photographs which nobody does anymore to speak of. But let's say, you have a printed photograph of your favorite pet. If you were to take that photograph and just take scissors and just cut out the outline of your pet, you want everything in the background gone. You don't have Photoshop and you don't have the new iPhone, and so you're going to do it the old fashioned way. You take scissors and you cut out just the shape of that pet dog, cat, whatever it is. Then you lay it on a piece of paper and you take a pencil or a pen and cut and go around the outline, just draw the outline of what you just cut out, then throw that away and then cut the outline out of that new piece of paper. It doesn't look like the original. And if you do that a second, a third and a fourth time, you're changing it every time. You don't go back to the original, and so every time they quote a previous decision, it's like they've moved away from the original and by the time you do this five or six or seven times. You can't even recognize what the original looks like. You've got this round blob out there with sides on it and you're not sure if it's a dog, cat or a fish or what it is. And that, literally, is what happens when the court does not go back to the original every time. If they keep cutting out from what they did in the last case, it gets further and further and further away from the original and it just the result is not good.

Rick Green: 9:43
Alright, guys, great answer and great question. Stay with us folks. You're listening to WallBuilders.

Tim Barton: 9:51
Hi friends, this is Tim Barton of Wall Builders. This is the time when most Americans don't know much about American history, or even heroes of the faith, and I know oftentimes for parents, we're trying to find good content for our kids to read and if you remember, back to the Bible, to the book of Hebrews, it has the faith hall of fame where they outlined the leaders of faith that had gone before them. Well, this is something that, as Americans, we really want to go back and outline some of these heroes, not just of American history, but heroes of Christianity and our faith as well. I want to let you know about some biographical sketches we have available on our website. One is called the courageous leaders collection and this collection includes people like Abigail Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Francis Scott Key, George Washington Carver, Susanna Wesley, even the Wright brothers, and there's a second collection called Heroes of History. In this collection you'll read about people like Benjamin Franklin or Christopher Columbus, Daniel Boone, George Washington, Harriet Tubman, friends the list goes on and on. This is a great collection for your young person to have and read and it's a provincial view of American and Christian history. This is available at WallBuilders. com .

David Barton: 10:56
This is David Barton, with another moment from America's history. The teachings of God's word are the best friends civil government has, because these teachings deal with the heart. Only by dealing with the heart can crime be prevented, for, as Jesus explained in Matthew 5, all crime comes from the heart. Understanding this, Daniel Webster, the great defender of the Constitution, once declared the cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness. It inspires respect for law and order and gives strength to the whole social fabric. Whatever makes men good Christians makes them good citizens. Indeed, it is not the good Christians whom the police arrest for armed robbery, gang activity or other such crimes. Understanding this, the founding fathers encouraged religious instruction, for as Daniel Webster so accurately noted, good Christians make good citizens. For more information on God's hand in American history, contact WallBuilders at 1-800-8-REBUILD.

Rick Green: 11:58
Welcome back to WallBuilders. Thanks for staying with us. We're taking your questions today on this Foundation to Freedom Thursday, and the next one comes from Linda in Clarksville, Tennessee. She said, good day, good day. Where is it that they say good day? Is that not. Australia, Good day, g'day, all right, and that was terrible. Don't do accents, Rick. That'll be my note from someone. From Biblical Citizenship, Linda says, I learned that the founders wanted to avoid lifetime appointments for judges. In the Constitution, judges are given leeway to hold their offices for good behavior. This language seems to have no teeth. Why did the authors of the Constitution not explicitly limit the terms of judges so that they would not stay in office for life? Kind regards, Linda Clarksville, Tennessee. All right, guys, boy, we've talked about this one a lot. We talk about it in Biblical Citizenship and Constitution Alive, and I've even heard some people say this was one of the mistakes by the founders because they hadn't dealt with judges that would stay in office for a lifetime. They didn't really expect that to happen. What do you guys think? And I don't remember, David was this debated more? Did they talk more about that language, or was that just kind of a default for them?

David Barton: 13:02
Well, this is a problem where you're in the 21st century, looking back to the 17th, 18th century, and we assume that what they did back then is the way we would have done it today, and that's not true. They were 100% into accountability, quick and easy accountability and for them, getting rid of a judge was not a hard process and they did that on a regular basis. They had state impeachments, they had federal impeachments. Getting rid of a judge was not a hard thing to do. They didn't have to do it often because the accountability factor's what they were after. Quite frankly, look Rick, you and I have differences on term limits, but we really basically agree on the same thing. We just kind of have nuances of how we say it and if a person is going to be right and do the right thing and if the citizens like what that person is doing and feel like they're being accountable, send them back. Send them back for 12 years or 14 years or 16 years or 18 years, or you know. Several founding fathers like Roger Sherman were lifetime legislators because they kept doing what was right. And the citizens, when they had a 100% voter turnout, they all wanted that guy back. So it wasn't that you had to have term limits because these guys are bad and you need a new rotation. If they're doing what you want, send them back, but if they're not doing what you want, you get them out really quick. And there's a number of examples. John Adams was a one-term president because he did stuff that people did not like. They did not like what he did with the Aliens Sedition Acts. They took him out. They didn't give him two turns, even though Washington had two. And you have the same thing with John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson beat the dickens out of John Quincy Adams and so he's a one-term president when the others had been two. So both Adams only were one-term guys. So the people back then were very engaged in elections and very engaged in accountability. Well, they don't suddenly come in and say, well, we believe in accountability, except for the judges. They get lifetime appointments. No, they don't. They get to serve for the duration of good behavior. That's what the Constitution says. That is a term limit, If you will. As soon as you decide they're not doing the right thing, take them out of there, and that's what they... There was an impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase, who signed the Declaration of Independence because he was being partisan on the court. Rather than giving constitutional decisions, he was giving federalist decisions versus anti-federalist decisions. People said that's not acceptable. So it's not that the process, a flaw in the process, it's a flaw in the people, because today we don't know the Constitution very well. We, the people, usually don't know who our leaders are. Try to ask most people around you who the mayor's name is or who the school board president's name is. We don't know that. They knew that back in those days. They knew all of those leaders and so they were much more attuned to having people who represented them and the community. And so that really is kind of why there's no term limit for judges, because it was easy to get rid of a judge. It wasn't hard like it is today. It was something you could easily do back then.

Tim Barton: 16:01
And I would point out too, they also acknowledged that the Constitution as written would not be totally adequate for rising generations and that's why they had article five of the Constitution, where there was an amendment process that if you see gaps and errors you can add amendments to this. But even as we look at even some of the amendments they added. We can look back now at the Second Amendment and go man, why didn't they clarify when they're talking about a militia, they're talking about everybody. The right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed. And people see the word militia and they're like wait a second, but does that mean only the military? No, you're being ridiculous, right, but we can say that now because the modern era, they have lost the context and the thought of what was actually being said. And when you read something out of the thought and context of what it is, you can come to a wrong conclusion and we can look back and go, man, I wish the Founding Fathers were to clarify it. I would argue they didn't think we would be as dumb as we are, number one. And number two, they would have thought hey guys, we gave you a clarification process and a correction process in Article 5. If you see issues, you can correct this. But, Dad, to your point, even as we look at this notion of holding judges accountable or impeachments or whatever the case is, it was a very different idea and mindset in that generation. Also, when you look at people like a George Washington or Patrick Henry, some noted Founding Fathers, noted political leaders in America and some of the most noted political leaders in America, these are people who didn't even want to be political leaders. They just wanted to be with their family and their farm. They wanted to enjoy freedom with their family, away from people in many respects. And that's become a very different idea today, where now being a political leader, being a judge, being a politician, is a career choice and it can be a very lucrative career choice for many individuals. It's very different than what it was in the Founding Era.

David Barton: 17:53
And I go back and emphasize again that's not their fault, that's our fault. We, the citizens, are not being the stewards we should be to hold these guys accountable, and some of that comes... We just don't know the Constitution like we should. And even Tim, as you mentioned the malicious stuff, the misunderstanding, Tim and I were at a meeting today and we're talking about this. The Founding Fathers could not have written it any more clearly than they did for that generation, because they have very clear definitions in law defining militia, and a militia is every able-bodied citizen 18 years and older. So when the Constitution talks about militias, it's not talking about the National Guard, it's talking about every able-bodied citizen 18 years and older. That doesn't mean you have to have the same uniform and you look like National Guard or look like the Texas State Guard or what... That's not it. If you're 18 years old, able-bodied citizen, the Second Amendment is talking about you. Well, the fact that we don't have that definition anymore is not their fault, because they wrote it down in the laws. All you had to do is read the laws, but we don't read that stuff anymore, and so that's what has become confusing. I think they did a really good job of making it clear and I think we've done a really poor job of studying the words, studying the meaning and knowing the history, because their intent all the way through is very clear and they used it. And if we just knew the history of the precedents, how many federal... what is it now? Nearly 80 investigations of federal judges over our years of history looking at impeachments where the judges crossed the line? It's been probably 10, 15 years, maybe back to Alcee Hastings out of Florida, maybe the last federal judge, or maybe Samuel Kent, but that's 20, 25 years ago. We haven't had another impeachment hearing per se over a judge in a long time. It's like you got to rape a child or murder somebody to look at impeachment today. Back then, man, if you looked like you were being political in the court, we're going to get rid of you, and that's a whole different point. And I don't blame the founders for that. I blame us for not knowing the documents as well.

Rick Green: 19:56
Yeah, and it's like you said, it used to be easier to remove them because people were paying attention and also willing to do what needed to be done. Where it's hard to get people to do an impeachment these days for the right reasons, because they're afraid of the political ramifications and all of those things. I'm, of course, like you said, our methods for how to get there, we disagree a little bit, but I think we got to reset the table and have new structures in place that, just because of the society we're in and because of the abuse of the system, both on the judicial side and the congressional side, that just setting in place those limitations, I would support. I think they need to be big limitations, like 20 years, 15 years, however long, but man, these people serving on the court for 40, 50 years or serving in Congress for 40, 50 years. I heard you though, Roger Sherman, I didn't know that. See, you had good evidence there, Roger Sherman, that long in the legislature because he was doing a good job. This is why I don't let my kids talk to you about term limits, David, because you turn them against me in the debates at Patriot Academy. So, no, this is a good, good issue to be discussed.

David Barton: 20:58
Rick, I think this is a good time for us to modernize our program and, since you and I are having a little disagreement here, we need to see what we can do to cancel each other and be more polarized, and let's not have any agreements. Let's see if I can get you kicked off this. Somehow.

Rick Green: 21:13
I'm not ever talking to you again because we disagreed on one thing.

David Barton: 21:15
Exactly. Let's not have discussions on things we might disagree with. No, let's not do that, no.

Rick Green: 21:22
Yeah, don't get me started on why Trump should have been in the debate Wednesday night. We need that civil discourse. We need people to show up and have discussions in that kind of environment. I love those debate stages because it's iron sharpening iron and it educates the American people. But man, yeah, it's boy, it's unfortunately a big disease in this country. Nobody wants to talk about things and actually have that iron sharpening. Okay, we got time for one more question today, and actually we got a question from Andrew, I guess a week or so ago, and a couple of them, and we didn't get to all of his items. So why don't we knock out one more of his? Andrew sent in four or five great questions. Andrew, thank you for that. Last one, for today is going to be does the Second Amendment apply to all weapons? It doesn't seem wise to allow people to own nukes, given the fallen nature of man. That's an interesting way to put that question, guys. So I never thought about the nuke question in the context of the fallen nature of man, but I guess we should approach every issue knowing the fallen nature of man. Okay, does the Second Amendment apply to all weapons? I know I want a tank. At least. I don't want a nuke, but I do want a tank, and I wouldn't mind having some, what's the word I'm looking for? Anti-aircraft missiles! That's what I'm looking for. Tim, what do you think all weapons?

Tim Barton: 22:35
Yeah, you know this is something, Rick, I think we've talked about on radio before. I know we've discussed it many times before. It's a question we periodically get, as we do different events. It really does make a difference, how we determine kind of the modern application versus the original intent makes a difference in this answer. But I would even go back to kind of a more fundamental philosophical question when it comes to this moral perspective, could we trust a fallen sinful human individual with nuclear weapons? And I would point out, I think that's why the founding fathers would want us to all have nuclear weapons on some level, not actually in this regard, not all nuclear weapons, but in the sense of why did they think every individual should be armed? Because they knew of a fallen sinful human nature and they knew that fallen sinful humans would do fallen sinful evil things. They knew that man, if he gained power, would become tyrannical. And it's because the sinful nature of man, it was a sinful nature of man that led them to advocate saying we all should be armed, because the best way to stop a bad guy is a well-trained, good guy and if that bad guy has a gun, that bad guy has an advantage over you and whether it be with how far they can engage you and how well they're able to flex their power with their weapons to subdue you. But if you have the same weapons and you have the same level of training, you are going to be able to hold them at bay and actually prevent a lot of the evil and tyranny along the way. So to me that's part of the important context. Dad and Rick, if you guys want to add some more clarity to that, certainly I have additional ideas about the founder's original intent, the modern application, but I would say even their understanding of the fallen, sinful human nature of man is why they thought individuals, especially good individuals, because the founding fathers were even clear that they said peaceable individuals should be armed. Every individual, as long as he is peaceable, should be armed. This is, those are two different quotes, but it's a consistent theme, you see from the founding fathers, as they didn't believe in an arming violent criminals and offenders, but they believed, as long as people were peaceable citizens who weren't trying to do trouble and destruction, they should be armed. But it was so they could stop the bad guys who weren't peaceable and who were trying to do destruction.

David Barton: 24:52
And I think there's another perspective on it. Part of this goes back to the Founders understanding, what George Washington said, the basis of the system is religion and morality, that Bible-based religion and morality. If you can control yourself on those Bible-based teachings, then you can be trusted with a lot of stuff. Now this is where we have trouble with North Korea and with Russia and with Iran, etc. They don't have that same foundation of biblical-based morality and religion and therefore you better have the same weapons they have, because that's the only thing that deters them is having something as big as they have. Well, that also reduces to my neighbor's level. If my neighbor has an arsenal of guns and he doesn't have religion and morality at the basis, I better have the same sized arsenal just to defend myself from his lack of morality and religion, the way he might work that out. I mean, quite frankly, if you don't have that self-control, that religion and morality basis, I don't even want you to have a BB gun. You're dangerous with anything you've got. And I think part of the answer to this is you have to presuppose what the founders presupposed, and that is, you start with the foundation of religion and morality at a biblical basis and once you have that, then you can be trusted with a lot of stuff and you're not going to abuse that power. Human nature will and, tim, as you said, that's part of the problem we've got is because of the fallen nature of man. That's why we really need to be armed. But if we're going to be armed, we shouldn't have the same fallen nature. We need to have that religion and moral foundation, otherwise we'll end up misusing those weapons in a wrong way. So I think both sides of that moral and religious argument because people are not moral and religious, you've got to be armed. And if you are moral and religious, you ought to be armed just as well as the bad guys are, so that you can stop anything they bring at you.

Rick Green: 26:36
Well, that's it, folks. We're out of time for today. Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Always an opportunity to get your questions in and give us a chance to tackle some topics with regard to the Constitution, the Declaration, the founding, biblical application of these things. Send your questions to radio@ WallBuilders. com . I mentioned at the top of the hour opportunities to do things for Constitution Day. It's just a few weeks away, that's September 17th. Get signed up as a Constitution Coach, Get a Constitution class started in your community and take that Constitution curriculum to your local school and make sure they're studying those things as well. You can learn more about all that at ConstitutionCoach. com and then also join us for Constitution Day September 17th in Fredericksburg, Texas. If you want to come in just for the celebration, you can do that. It'll be Comedy, Constitutional and Revival with Kurt Cameron, Brad Stine and myself, or you can come in early or stay later and do a handgun defense course on the Patriot Academy campus as well. Check all that out at PatriotAcademy. com . Thanks so much for listening to WallBuilders.