Is it fair for a single landowner's decision to potentially reshape the agricultural landscape of an entire community? We grapple with the urgent conversation about property rights versus the communal interest in preserving farmland, as prime agricultural spaces face the threat of becoming solar farms. We dissect this complex issue through a biblical lens, while also considering the constitutional rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment. Our vibrant dialogue uncovers the challenges a young county commissioner might encounter as they strive to make choices that honor both individual freedoms and the broader good.
Venturing further into the intricacies of land use, we shine a spotlight on the Beef Initiative in Texas and the unintended consequences of government incentives on the free market. Our discussion reveals the delicate balance between liberty and the necessity for regulations that reflect the collective vision of land stewardship.
In a candid response to a listener's concern, we also pay tribute to the diverse tapestry of American history, acknowledging the significant Catholic figures who played pivotal roles in shaping our nation. As we navigate through these chapters of discourse, our aim is to empower listeners with a deeper understanding of the intersection between history, policy, and ethics.
Is it fair for a single landowner's decision to potentially reshape the agricultural landscape of an entire community? We grapple with the urgent conversation about property rights versus the communal interest in preserving farmland, as prime agricultural spaces face the threat of becoming solar farms. We dissect this complex issue through a biblical lens, while also considering the constitutional rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment. Our vibrant dialogue uncovers the challenges a young county commissioner might encounter as they strive to make choices that honor both individual freedoms and the broader good.
Venturing further into the intricacies of land use, we shine a spotlight on the Beef Initiative in Texas and the unintended consequences of government incentives on the free market. Our discussion reveals the delicate balance between liberty and the necessity for regulations that reflect the collective vision of land stewardship.
In a candid response to a listener's concern, we also pay tribute to the diverse tapestry of American history, acknowledging the significant Catholic figures who played pivotal roles in shaping our nation. As we navigate through these chapters of discourse, our aim is to empower listeners with a deeper understanding of the intersection between history, policy, and ethics.
Child
President, Thomas Jefferson said I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
Rick Green
Welcome to the Intersection of Faith and Culture. It's Wall Builders and it's Foundations of Freedom Thursday, and we've got some great questions from the audience to jump into. So we're going to dive in quick. Be sure, and visit our website, wallbuilders.com. That's where you can make that one-time or monthly contribution which, financially, that's a very important way to come alongside us, help us reach more people with these truths and these foundational principles. So, wallbuilders.com, you can get some great materials there as well for yourself and the whole family, but make that contribution and help us reach more people.
I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach, here with David Barton and Tim Barton. Tim's a national speaker and pastor and president of WallBuilders. David Barton's America's premier historian and our founder here at WallBuilders. All right, David and Tim, we're diving into those questions. Mark knupp has the first question. I think it's Nupp. It might be Knupp, but it's K-N-U-P-P, Mack, and it's not even Mark, it's Mack, Mack. I'm sorry if I pronounce that wrong. Feels like the K should be silent. He says I'm 28 years old, from Shelby County, Ohio.
I'm a fourth-generation farmer, Christian conservative. I was just elected as the youngest county commissioner. Oh, great! Congratulations, Mac. I have a passion for hard work and protecting my community. A big topic affecting us is the destruction of prime farmland to build solar fields. Destruction of prime farmland to build. So I'm just letting that sink in, guys. Okay. Just outside of my area, they are destroying 1,100 acres to build a solar farm. My question is what is the biblical way to look at this when putting restrictions on landowners in order to stop the destruction of our food-producing land? Farm Bureau has always been a defender of landowner rights. However, we are having to backtrack in order to save our land. Thank you, Okay, guys. So this is one of those kind of classic conflict of rights or whatever, and you know. So let's break this down, just kind of going through the principles, how would you guys decide this particular issue?
David Barton
You know, this is kind of one of those situations we've talked about in recent weeks where you could say something and this is not the analogy for this, but we were talking about it a couple weeks ago that you can look at something and say, yeah, this is completely constitutional. But then that's when you don't read the spirit of the Constitution by looking at the Declaration of Independence or looking at Washington's Farewell Address, and if you look at the spirit and intent, then you get a different interpretation on it. And that's kind of the way it is with land ownership in this question. I really sympathize. We're a member of Farm Bureau as well. We're very committed to farming, agriculture, country kind of life, stuff that goes with it, everything that surrounds it.
And what happens is, if I take this and strictly look at it from the standpoint of a landowner, the traditional view is our landownership. We know it's an inalienable right because it's part of the fifth amendment. The government can't take property without without paying for it. So that is a that is a property right that goes to individuals. There was a property right long before America did that. That was an inalienable right. That goes back into British common law and mag Carta and all that kind of stuff. So when you look at it, it's your property. You have the right to do what you want to with it, with a couple of exceptions. You didn't have the right to do something criminal or immoral. You can't take your property and turn it into a brothel, because that hurts the whole community. You can't take your property and make it necessarily a nuclear waste stop today, because that hurts the whole community. You can't take your property and make it necessarily a nuclear waste up today, because that hurts the whole community. So if you can keep what's on your property limited to just what's on your property, that's your property. You can do that. And if you want to sell it for solar panels or something else to say, here's where the spirit of it comes in.
We used to understand, we used to have a much bigger perspective on how important agriculture was, how important food production was, how important that lifestyle was to America, how important that the morals and ethics of farmers and ranchers were, and so because of that it's like it almost got extra protection because it was such a point, but today we don't know that. I think I've shared once before that we worked with the ministry, out of New York City and we went out to talk at Long Island and they would take young people out of New York City, from, I mean, the deep inner city, who had never been outside a six-square-block area of the city, and they would take them out in the country and the kids would take their socks off and run in the grass and the first time they'd ever felt grass in their feet and would show them cows and they'd say what are those? Those are cows. Wow, what do you do with them? Well, that's where milk. That's not where milk comes from. We get milk at the store at the corner. No, it's that kind of thing that they had no concept of what farming, the culture did. How important to say, the food production comes from the grocery store, it doesn't come from farms and ranches etc.
And so we're looking at a situation here where that we're no longer transgenerational in the sense that we don't teach certain principles across the generations. We're at a point right now where I can make some money. I can, I can sell my land and get some money, and I don't care what happens with my kids. They're not going to need the land because I'll have the money. Well, you probably won't save it long enough for the kids to get it, but nonetheless and so it's very much into one generational decision making and that's not necessarily a safe way. But if you go to property rights, yeah, you have the right to take and do what you want to with your property, as long as it's not criminal or as long as it's not immoral. But is that the smart thing to do? And this is where defensive agriculture and farming and food production and making sure that we have an American food chain rather than having to import our food from China or anywhere else that’s where it becomes so important. I’ve got kind of a split answer on this if I were answering that. I mean your neighbors and those doing what they want to and selling their property yeah, technically, that's what you have protection for constitutionally. But if you go back to the spirit of what was intended, you don't want to have that short-sightedness.
And I think that's the problem we have now is we have short-sightedness, a lot of selfishness. We don't think about the next generation or two generations away. You know the scripture says that a wise man leaves an inheritance for his children's children. That means your grandkids. So the land you have right now, you need to be thinking about getting that to your grandkids. You leave an inheritance for your children's children. That's what's not happening in America now. We're not being the wise man that thinks about two generations away, or even three generations away. We're thinking about our own generation right now, and what I want and that's not necessarily the real wise thing to do, so that's what I would throw out is my thoughts. Guys, where are you?
Tim Barton
Well, dad, I would also add that for some people I think they might be thinking of their kids and grandkids even selling their property, thinking, hey, we're not doing a lot with this property if we can get the money. But I think maybe kind of to your point, thinking maybe a little more strategically there's only so much land that there's ever going to be on earth. This is not a commodity that the government is going to go print more of this off as they will with money. So value of land can fluctuate, but there always will be value in land because it's always a limited commodity and there's always going to be demand for it to some extent, based on where you live, what that might be, and so at times there can be greater value to keeping that land for future generations than selling it to make the initial profit, and that's not to say that sometimes you shouldn't do that. You're dad Now, my grandfather. He sold some land in South Texas and ended up doing a land swap and swapped 200 acres for nearly 2,000 acres and pocketed a decent amount of money because of where that land in South Texas was. There was a big real estate boom and there was a lot of things going on, and so it's not that it's always a bad decision to sell land, but that's your point. I think you're talking thinking a little deeper and strategically through what's going on and making sure we're not just pursuing what feels good or seems good in the moment, what might be short-sighted oh man, it'd be great to have this money right now. Not thinking about that, you might burn through this money and then you have no land and then you've kind of lost what could have been a really great thing in the future.
And even going back to the constitutional position, it seemed like a little bit of what you were trying to communicate is just because you could doesn't mean you should. There's some things that you might, could argue. Well, I'm allowed to do this legally. It doesn't mean it's the most moral or ethical thing. Necessarily. Just because legally something is acceptable doesn't always mean it's moral, which there's a lot of states now giving us really good examples of that, and this is not a fair comparison other than to just understand. Just because something might be legal doesn't mean that it's moral. Where in California they say we're not going to prosecute you if you steal less than $1,000 worth of goods or products, whatever the case might be, and they would say well, it's still against the law, right, but if we're going to penalize and punish you, right. In essence, they're saying that we this is not of concern to us, but just because you can get away with something doesn't mean you should do it. At least, it seems like that's part of what you were trying to communicate with that comparison.
David Barton
It is definitely a long-term versus short-term mentality that if in the short term you can help the long term, that's okay. And I think the example you gave of my dad and your grandfather switching the 200 for the 2000, well, that we now have 2000 acres, that essentially is protected agriculturally, as opposed to giving up the 200 acres that was agricultural but it was surrounded by residences all side and was not good agriculture anymore because it had been squeezed in by developments, and so now we're back to being able to protect a greater amount of land. So I think in the short term, long term, that's a good way of saying that just because it's legal doesn't necessarily mean that it's the moral or the right thing to do.
Rick Green
Yeah, and I think too, one of the things Mac is asking is is there a point for any kind of community or government limitation? You know we're very much pro-property rights here and all three of us we talk about this all the time and that it's the landowner that should make those decisions. And you know you could run into a national security issue with. You know, China buying up all the land, that sort of thing and food supply could become a national security issue. But I think we're short of that right now. I think we're at this point. It's more education.
Like I'm working with some guys on this thing called the Beef Initiative down at where I am in Texas, down in the Hill Country, and they're, of course, doing it all over the country. But it's the kind of the same thing where we're losing a lot of the ag land to the solar fields that did get hit with hail and all get ruined, which I have to chuckle a little bit when that happens, because everything the environmentalists do ends up not working. But this beef thing is huge because it's getting harder and harder to get actual American beef. Most of what we're buying at the store now is coming from Latin America and that sort of thing. So even just educating people, getting to know your ranchers, finding people you can buy from direct, all of those things, I think, are the first kind of freedom step to take before we start talking about saying, well, we don't even. We want to somehow pass a law that prevents someone from putting in a solar farm. I don't think we're there yet. What do you guys think?
David Barton
Yeah, but you know part of what you're saying that would be a good thing is should it be American beef? Does it matter if it's American beef?
Tim Barton
Well, rick, I would say that this is such a double-edged sword that right now my wife and I live in an area that has an HOA. Now, it's a very friendly HOA, it's kind of a farmer's HOA kind of, so to speak. So it's not real intrusive. But the very idea that someone is going to tell me what to do or not do with my property is always offensive to me. If we're going to build another building on our property, then there are certain specs or things it has to do to, and I understand right the nature of the. If you're agreeing to live in this property, in this area, you agree to abide by these rules. But there's just something fundamentally repulsive to me that I have to let somebody else tell me what I can and can't do with my land.
I know you are working to build out your Patriot Academy campus down in Fredericksburg that you're having to navigate with city council. You're having to get approvals and on some level I totally understand why we have to get approvals and permits and I get the concept behind it. But at the same point, at some other level, you're like I paid for this land and if I want to put up a building right here, I should be able to put up a building right here, and I think that's a double-edged sword, that if someone wants to do something non-agricultural on agricultural land, then if it's their land, shouldn't they be able to do what they want with their property? It's a little bit of a libertarian argument and not to divorce a moral component from it, but I'm just saying I understand the challenging nature of this because I don't want somebody to tell me what to do with my land, but it's also because I am trying to have the highest and best use of the land. But that is a subjective thought, because it's for me and for my purposes, and so my highest and best use might be different than what somebody else thinks their highest and best use of that property would be.
So this is a tough question to navigate, but I do think that part of what changes some of the structure and dynamic is what the government's incentivizing, where, if we are taxing or trying to regulate agricultural industry more and then we're incentivizing by giving all kinds of financial benefit to people that are going to do solar farms, then the federal government is taking an active part in what is being done with that land. And I think that's where it is different, not what can somebody do with their land, but what is the government going to reward or what is the government going to punish. And it certainly does seem, dad, to your point of thinking more long-term. Long-term, even though solar might be a great thing of the future, to take up all the agricultural land with solar farms or wind farms or whatever it might be, does not seem like the most wise or prudent long-term thought of highest and best use for that land yeah, you know
Rick Green
Tim, I'm so glad you mentioned that because I was thinking earlier. If it's pure free market decisions, that's one thing, but when government's tipping the scales, you know putting their hand on one side of the scales through regulation, making it harder and harder for cattle ranchers, for instance, making it harder and harder to, you know, even to get your meat processed or your crops to market, or you know all these regulations the government comes up with and they're involving themselves in the decision. So it's really important what you just raised and it's not as simple an issue as sometimes we think. But it's a great question, max. So really appreciate you thinking like you are and really excited about you being a commissioner. 28 years old guys, that next generation coming up already. It sounds like he's grounded and thinking through things in the right process. Quick break when we come back. Elise has our next question. You're listening to the Wall Builder Show.
Tim Barton
Hey guys, it's Tim Barton and I want to tell you about our new book, the American Story Building the Republic. We start with George Washington as president and we've already become a nation. So really now it's how do we function as a nation? And if we look back in American history, the stability, the prosperity, success we enjoyed as Americans is because of the foundation that our early presidents laid, because of the examples they set. How do we live in America under the Constitution? What is the role of federal government and really what part did each one of these early presidents play? We go through the first seven presidents and a lot of people probably know the names Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison. Very few people know about Monroe or John Quincy Adams or Andrew Jackson. Now, we might know some of their names, we really don't know their stories. We want you to relearn, rediscover American history and see how it applies to today. Go to wallbuilders.com and get your copy of the American Story Building the Republic.
Child
Thomas Jefferson said, the Constitution of most of our states and of the United States assert that all power is inherent in the people, that they may exercise it by themselves, that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed, that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of press.
Rick Green
We're back here on WallBuilders. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Elise has the next question. She says why is Catholic contribution so ignored? Catholic French and Spanish fleets stopped British fleets at New York and blockaded Mississippi respectively. So a ragtag army defeating the British is not quite accurate. She says why do you ignore so much Catholic contribution? Who gave evangelicals the Bible in the first place? All right, guys. So Elise closes out saying is this because you do not like to include the Catholic influence? Okay, I'll be honest, guys, never even thought about this, like, definitely wasn't on purpose, because I've never even thought about leaving out certain parts of the story. I think we try to tell the whole story, but I also didn't think about, you know, French and Spanish being Catholic if they Anyway, go ahead, fellas.
Tim Barton
I would say my first response would be a question I want to know what noted Catholic founding father have we not highlighted? Okay, right, like, who is the Catholic hero we haven't talked about in the American story? And I mean this kind of sincerely and genuinely, because the only Roman Catholic signer of the Declaration was Charles Carroll and we talk about him often. In fact, earlier this week we were up in Washington DC doing a Capitol tour. We talked about Charles Carroll. We read a letter from Charles Carroll that talked about his faith and that he was relying on God and on Jesus for pardon of his sins. I'm very curious saying that we're not highlighting, we're not talking about some of the Catholic role and influence when it comes to the American story. Who are the American Catholic heroes that we're not highlighting and I don't ask that flippantly because there were some, but that's my point the ones that we know that were Catholic heroes we talk about! So it's not like we're ignoring and overlooking them, but it's like saying, wait a second, you should spend more time talking about how George Washington was Catholic but he wasn't. He was Anglican right. Thomas Jefferson was Anglican, John Adams was Congregationalist. We actually don't spend a lot of time on any of their specific denominations, but we do highlight who the heroes were
Rick Green
we just don't like the french, that's what you say we just don't like the french. I'm just kidding.
Tim Barton
Well, and you know there's I mean there's even more context with the French right, because certainly they were catholic. But also, once America wins her independence, then, right, they go through their revolution and they're thrown off Catholicism because they feel like they've been abused, uh, by some tyrannical kings who have used religion in oppressive manners against them. And this is not knocking Catholicism again, it's just, it's identifying. We talk about the French contribution, but the French weren't contributing because they were Catholic, they were contributing because they were against the British, which, again, is a different motivation than what we're talking about.
And again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or rude to anybody, but if there's a noted hero we're not talking about, I want to know who that person is, because if they're a noted hero, I want to talk about them. We kind of are very intentional about talking about the forgotten heroes of our nation, and if we're overlooking heroes, let's talk about them. I just don't know a Catholic hero with a significant contributor that we haven't talked about, and so I do think that even the question has a little bit of bias, where maybe somebody has talked about. Well, Catholics always get overlooked. Well, not for much that I know of, but if you can maybe highlight this a little more clearly for me, then I might be open to it. Dad, I know you have thoughts as well.
David Barton
Well, part of what we do too is we're not looking at group labels, we're looking at individuals. And so there are Protestants we throw under the bus all the time because they're not very biblical. And in the same sense, we don't care whether they're Protestant or Catholic, we care whether they're biblical. And so our analysis really comes more from the perspective of not whether you're a Baptist or whether you're a Catholic or whether you're a Presbyterian or anything else. It's whether you're biblical, and we highlight biblical contributions of individuals, regardless of who made them. And so you know, if we want to identify Catholics like Charles Carroll, we can, or Daniel Carroll.
We've got signers of the Constitution, three signers of the Constitution for Catholics, and we talk about that. We've also got you certainly have Rochambeau, and you've got Marquis de Lafayette and others who are Catholics. And so none of that we hide in any way. But it's that we're not interested necessarily in the labels of which brand of Christianity you follow. It's just whether you follow biblical Christianity, and that's the examples we look for and try to highlight.
So I don't know that we single out Catholics or Protestants, we just single out biblical and Christians, and I think those are the bigger terms we use more often, and we also, because we highlight what's biblical, we also highlight what's not biblical, and so that's why we throw a lot of Southern Christians under the bus on some of the positions that they have taken in the past, as opposed. You know, that's what we do with both the American Story 1 and 2. Happy to throw Andrew Jackson under the bus, even though he was a Presbyterian Christian, because he was wrong in so many areas, like the Trail of Tears, and happy to talk about an Anglican Christian like George Washington who did quite different from Jackson. So it really doesn't matter for us, I don't think what brand of Christianity it is. It's whether it's biblical, whether it comports to biblical teaching, and I think that's kind of the standard we use.
Rick Green
Yeah, I think that's a great approach to have. All right, one more question, guys. I think we can do this one pretty quick. It's about the national popular vote. Maine, just this week actually just a few days ago adopted national popular vote and so I think the number at this point is 205. So they're not far from 270 electoral votes, which we'll have to explain.
But a question comes from Joel, formerly of Hawaii, now calling Orlando home. So he says aloha from Orlando, which is interesting. Okay, he says prior to this going into effect, is there a way to challenge it before an election and it being used to subvert the whole idea of not being a pure democracy? David, you mentioned earlier the spirit of the Constitution. This really falls into that, for sure.
He says why, or why not, would courts allow this to happen and not shut it down before the harm could be done? As we saw in 2020, the courts, in the narrow window between Election Day and Certification Day roughly 60 days didn't take up the cases based on standing and latches, where they would say it was already too late. Thanks for your answer. All right, Joel, great question, guys what do you think? They're not quite to 270. I don't know that they. I don't think they would get there for this particular election, and I'm not sure what the legal challenge would be, because the Constitution does say that the legislature thereof gets to decide how they assign their electoral votes. I think the founders just never dreamed they would actually give them away to other states and say you decide for us, which is essentially what this does.
David Barton
You know, Rick, I think the question here is what is the constitutional standing on this? Because that would determine where they get to court. And I was looking at this and it does give the states latitude. But I read a part of Article two, section one, clause three, that really struck me and it talks about the electors from meeting their respective states and the vote by ballot for two persons of them, one at least, shall not be in the same state with themselves. And then it says and they shall make a list of all the persons voted for and of the number of votes for each. And I think that that may be what changes.
Rick Green
Interesting
David Barton
I say, all right, Tim Barton and Rick Green are in an election and Tim got 100 votes and Rick got 60, and Rick wins the election. I think that would be a legal challenge because, fundamentally, history and law both have said the one with the most votes gets it. And so if you're Maine and you say, for example, Trump gets the most votes, but we're going to go with what the other states have done and they're going for Biden, so Maine goes for Biden, I think you'd have a constitutional challenge on that. And I think, because of the way that it's worded, that you have to make a list of the persons voted for and the number of votes for each person. That would be almost unthinkable for the court to say, oh yeah, this other person got more votes, but they're the loser. I mean, that's just not part of the American system.
Rick Green
David. That is such a good point, man. That is such a good point because I've always thought of it as they can decide how they want to assign them as pretty much open ended. What you're saying is what that really means is they can decide whether they're going to do a popular vote, whether the legislature is going to name the electors, that sort of thing, how they pick them within the state, and then they have to, however they're picking them, actually do that counting of those votes, whether it was by popular vote of the legislature, whatever their internal in-state process is not the idea that they just have a meeting and go, hey, this meeting's irrelevant because Trump won national popular vote. So California's 54 electoral votes, we don't care who won in California, we have to give them to Trump or other way around. I think I understand what you're saying and I think you're right. I don't think that our argument's ever been made in court.
David Barton
And I don't know that it's ever been made, because we've never had a national popular vote movement. But see, the guys pushing this are the guys who don't like the Constitution anyway. So it makes sense that they would push something like this because we want what we want and we don't care what the Constitution says. This is what we want, and they've been doing that with government agencies and everything else for a long time. So it's not surprising. But I don't think the founding fathers necessarily anticipated a scenario like this.
But in the spirit of voting, when I see that clause in the Constitution, I can't imagine a situation where the court would say, you know, ignoring I mean a very obvious constitutional clause of impeachment and the Senate trying not you know, Schumer, trying not to even have a trial and do their duty. I mean, you're right, they don't. The rule of law means nothing to them. And we know, in our beautiful America, the beautiful song it's liberty in law. It's you got to have law in order to have liberty. But whew, man, it's amazing how far they'll go.
That's why it's so important for us to know the law and know the Constitution. You know that old John Jay quote about you've got to study the Constitution so you know when your rights are violated, perceive when they're violated and then know what to do about it. How do you properly defend and assert those rights? So important for us to know these things. That's why we do Foundations of Freedom Thursday around here at Wall Builders. Thanks so much for listening. Share it with your friends and family and don't miss a Thursday ever. Or Friday, or Monday, or Tuesday or Wednesday, that's right, All five days every week. Get your 30 minutes of Wall Builders, constitutional education and just uplifting message. Joshua and Caleb style approach as we're watching all this chaos in our country. Thanks for being a part of the program watching all this chaos in our country. Thanks for being a part of the program. Share it with your friends and family. God bless, You've been listening to the WallBuilders Show.