Historic Quote: 0:12

President Calvin Coolidge said, the more I study the Constitution, the more I realized that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity, to live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.

Rick Green: 0:29

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. We're doing that with David and Tim Barton. Tim's a national speaker and pastor and president of WallBuilders. David Barton, of course, America's premier historian and our founder at WallBuilders. And I'm Rick Green, America's constitution coach and a former Texas legislator, it's an honor to serve with these guys, I hope that you enjoy the program, hope you check us out at WallBuilders.com . So many great tools there, whether you want to get into some of the videos or you know, books, or whatever it is, and dive a little deeper into our founding principles and learn those things. Or you just want to listen to some of the archives of the radio program. There's so much there. But one thing I do want to ask you to do when you get to that website, WallBuilders.com , make a contribution, help invest in freedom, you know, lives, fortunes sacred honor- fortunes, it takes fuel in the tank, everybody's got to be willing to give a little bit you know, if you can just do a small contribution there, maybe you can do a big one, today. It helps us to train more pastors and teachers and young people and legislators and all the things that we're doing a WallBuilders to restore America's Constitutional Republic. And also it helps us to add stations to to reach more people with this program, where we're teaching truth. We're getting into the foundation. And that's what today's all about. Foundations of freedom Thursday is to get into... it's an opportunity for all of us to get into those foundational principles and answer your questions. And it's a great time for us to share and learn and sharpen each other's countenance. Alright, David and Tim, let's dive in. We got a lot of questions from the audience today. First one from Murphy, Texas. Man I used to... I grew up right by Murphy, Texas in Wylie, Texas. So been through Murphy many, many times. This one's from Opher in Murphy, Texas. Opher said, hello, David, Tim and Rick, thanks for all the good information and teaching you provide through your daily radio program. My question is very current. On Friday, the Supreme Court decided that despite the clear statement in the Constitution that the state and federal courts can review election rules established by the state legislature. How can they get it so wrong? And more importantly, what can we the people do about it? My next Class Constitution Alive, at the Collin County GOP headquarters starts next week. And I'm sure this question will come up. How can I explain to my students that we live in a constitutional republic while the Supreme Court is ignoring the clear statement of the Constitution. Opher, thank you, first of all, for being a coach for bringing the Constitution class to my old home county of Collin County. And thank you for asking the question. Great question. David. Tim, what do you think?

David Barton: 2:44

Well this one is a pretty partisan answer. But it's... I can't blame it totally on Democrats, you have to blame it on human nature. The reason that you had the Supreme Court get involved in the districting and redistricting of some of the southern states goes back to the fact that after the 13th, 14th and 15th, amendments were passed to the Constitution. At the end of the Civil War, giving to every citizen, including black citizens who formerly had been slaves, gave them the right to vote, it gave them the right to have all political opportunities everybody else had. It give them the right to every state right that was there, the right to be married the right to own land, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to serve on a jury, the right to have schools, it gave all of those rights. And for 80 years, the Democrats in charge of those states had said, well, that may be what the Constitution says, but we're not going to do that. And so what happened over that period of time, Democrat legislatures would draw lines in such a way that it would particularly dilute and exclude black vote, because the black vote was strongly Republican, overwhelmingly Republican. And so the Democrats in a very partisan way, said, hey, we're going to make sure blacks who are republics can't vote like we do, so that we can keep control of the state, because in states like Georgia, in states like South Carolina, you actually had more blacks who had been former slaves, than you had whites who were white citizens. And so if blacks are allowed to vote, well, my goodness, the white Democrats lose all their power. So the Democrats abused this for so long, for 80 years, that finally in 1964 and 1965, new civil rights laws were passed, the Voting Rights Act of '65. And the Civil Rights Act of '64 that gave the federal government authority to help enforce voting and those southern states because up through the 1960s, this kind of nonsense was still going on. And so this really is a response to the southern Democrat states absolutely wanting to keep blacks under control, and not allow them to have any voice. And that... now everybody's paying the price for that. Certainly the Civil Rights Movement has done a great job of what they did in the 60s and 70s, the changes that were brought there, and we've seen things significantly change. That doesn't change the fact that the federal government was allowed to get in volved in that through federal laws that were passed, because Democrats ignored the Constitution, particularly the 14th, and 15th amendments. So that's kind of the short answer to it. We're all stuck with bad Democrat policy and behavior. And that's what we're fighting right now.

Tim Barton: 5:15

Constitution, Article One, Section four, it does identify that states are the ones who are in charge, time place, manner of elections. It does say, however, that Congress can come in and pass a law. So feds are not excluded from all the election process. But there are certain things that have been understood to belong to the states and traditionally have always been in the States. So just let's offer a little clarity. What are we specifically referring to? What's the question specifically asking it?

David Barton: 5:52

Yeah, it goes back to the Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court decision looked at Alabama, looked I think it was North Carolina was the other, and the legislatures there had drawn the new congressional district lines under the 2020 census results released in 2021. And so they draw the new lines for 2022. And that's where the elections were held. Well, in both North Carolina and Alabama, traditional southern states where there was a lot of racism, a lot of anti civil rights under Democrat leadership for 80 years, they had enforced laws back in 1964, 1965, to make sure that blacks had fair representation, that it could not be shut out of the process. Technically, if you're only 14%, 15%, 18% of the vote, you could literally draw every district where that that 18% of the vote could never win anywhere, any place in the state. And so that's essentially what was happening. And so what happened was, after the slash redistricting, the lines were redrawn in such a way that was much more Republican, because it's Republican state legislatures, they drew the lines to be more Republican. But since now, about 93%, to 97%, of black voters are Democrats it makes it more Republican than Democrat and blacks get shut out in their representation. So this was the Supreme Court saying, Hey, we're not going to let those two legislatures pass the laws as they pass them, because they were too strongly Republican. And so the argument was by the Democrats who were fighting this thing, because they lost the elections, and therefore they lost redistricting, they said, hey, Republicans winning this makes it anti black. And you've got to step in on behalf of blacks and give Democrats more power. And so it really is a partisan kind of thing that went on over race. But race became an issue because of the way Democrats did things back for 80 years. So that's really what these two cases are about. It struck down the congressional districting maps done in those two states. And the legislature has to go back and draw lines that look a little more fair, for all races, not just Republican versus Democrat. Now, this is not an issue that happens in really most of the other states that are not the former Confederate states, I mean, this is not an issue that's going to happen in Wisconsin, or it's not going to happen in Oregon or California. This is essentially civil rights laws in the former Confederate states.

Tim Barton: 8:14

Now, let's also point out I think anytime there's redistricting, this is the way it happens. And Rick you can speak to this as a state legislature, but... or state legislator, you were part of legislature, but anytime that one party gains power and redistricting is happening, that political party, whether it's Democrat, Republicans or whatever other group might be in power that time, they're always going to redistrict to favor their own party to try to win as many seats as they can. And so Dad you're saying, you know, this is something that is especially going to be decried in southern states. No, I mean, I think if Republicans start redistricting in Wisconsin and a more favorable way for Republicans to win, then Democrats would say... use the same arguments, because anytime their power is threatened, they're going to cry out with what they feel like is the most effective tool in their toolbox to try to stop the other side. And right now, they think the most effective tool they have is to decry racism. Is that you are racist for not doing what we want, right? I mean, we've seen this attack from the left a long time. And so I think that's going to be an argument we're gonna see in lots of states, regardless of it being a Confederate state or not, but to your point, one of the reasons that there is a precedent for federal government stepping in on redistricting, or enforcing some of these constitutional rights, is because traditionally, historically, there definitely were some of these southern deep Democrat, Confederate kind of states that were revoking basic civil rights to a lot of black Americans. And that's why the federal government got involved many years ago,

David Barton: 9:46

Tim, you're exactly right. This happens in every state. It's already happened this last cycle in New York where Republicans sued against Democrats. And what I wasn't clear about, the difference is they don't use the issue of anti black As part of the reason you got to overturn the law, that was not the claim of the Republicans against the Democrats that the Democrats made this anti black, they use different arguments. But you're right, the losing side in most states, they tried to go back in and get another district or two picked up. It's just a different argument in the south, from what it is in the north. And, so that was the basis of what the court looked at. And the decision that they came down with on Alabama, and I think it was North Carolina was the other state that kind of put together. You're exactly right, Tim, it goes on in all states, just for different issues and other states.

Rick Green: 10:33

It was Alabama and Louisiana and a couple thoughts on this guy's, this is... I was really upset about these decisions, because it is so much more than just partisanship, it is racism and continuing to use racism in these lines. And you can't... here's the thing, first of all in the politics part of it, and just like you guys are saying you're not going to be able to get politics out of redistricting, you not going to get partisanship out of redistricting. Because what is redistricting? It's drawing the lines for politics, it's drawing the lines that are choosing partisans. And so everybody always tries to come up with a commission or some other way to do this. And there's a reason the Constitution put this in the power of the legislature. To Tim's point, 100% right, there's a little clause in there, I've actually been advocating for getting rid of it, because of what they tried to do after the 2020 election, that allows Congress to actually modify it... by law if they decide to do so. Here's my big problem. And Thomas and Alito, were with me on this. So they wrote dissenting opinions in both these cases, because as Thomas said, in the affirmative action case, you don't solve racism by continuing to be racist. And these decisions are all about being able to draw lines to guarantee that someone is elected not on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin, to judge the results of the elections based on the color of the skin of the person elected is racist. So I think this is such a step backwards, what the court has done here, they should have left it to the States, there's always going to be partisan battles, but they made these decisions based on racist viewpoints.

David Barton: 12:03

You know, and I totally agree with you, Rick. And I think we're reaping the fruits of some really bad democratic philosophy. And had the Democrats done what they should have done and follow the Constitution when they took the oath to do so, we wouldn't be looking at this. And I'll also point to one other thing. It was in the 1829 election, the Democrats won the presidency, and on the floor of the Senate, when they nominated some people for office that had to be confirmed by the Senate, and the Senate objected to them because of the character of those individuals. The Democrats, Senator Marcy from New York, he said, well, to the victor goes the spoils. And that became the new mantra of the Democrat Party. If we win, we get to do what we want to do. And too often Republicans say, hey, we're going to do the same thing to you guys you did to us, which is just as wrong. And it's got to be on the content of character, not on the color of skin or any other superficial demographic, inalienable rights belong you just because you're human, not because you're of any demographic. So I totally agree with you, Rick. And I think that even what we do, in trying to retaliate one against another is the fruit of a bad Democrat philosophy introduced in 1829. When they said to the victor goes the spoils. Now, you have the spoil system. So if we win the presidency, our guys get to do... that's not the way government's supposed to work. And I'm totally with you, Rick, I totally agree with you on every aspect.

Rick Green: 13:21

You know, and that's an important point too, David, you know, just the lack of morality and lack of ethics and lack of being honorable, you know, that there used to be a time where Republican and Democrat, yeah, you duked it out, you... bet you came together, and you could logically discuss things and say, hey, this is best for the state or best for the country. Boy, it sure seems like it's hard to find people that will have that discussion like that. Everything's like you said, victor goes the spoils. We're going to put it to them as hard as we can, as bad as we can, just because they're a Democrat, or just because they're a Republican, instead of saying, wow, this is, you know, this policy, like I have a friend that I served with when I was in the house that was an inner city, you know, black Democrat, we disagreed on virtually everything except guns and school choice. And so we would stand there together, he helped me pass my bill to stop cities from suing gun manufacturers. We worked together to get, you know, try and get school choice back then. Why? Because we sat there and said, you're a Democrat, from the inner city, very different from me, a Republican from the country. We have different ideas about a lot of things. But on this, we agree, and we can think logically, boy, I wish we could see more of that today.

David Barton: 14:22

You know that spoil system mentality where that is partisanship and polarization. I was struck... we'll have a new book coming out later this year. It's the American Story, it's the second volume, which is building the Republic, and it covers the first seven Presidents. And I was really shocked to see the negative impact that Andrew Jackson had in many areas, not the least of which was that spoil system. But this is a stat I found that really shocked me, is if you look at the first six presidents, and that's 40 years of the presidency. You're going from George Washington all the way through John Quincy Adams and six different presidents for 40 years. If you look at all offices, that are federal offices, in 40 years, those presidents replaced only 74 individuals in 40 years. So that is an average of two individuals a year. Jackson gets in. And in the first year alone, he replaced one thousand federal employees with his people. It went all the way down to the local postmaster. And they issued an edict that says, you know, what, if you're a local postmaster in the south, and you don't want to deliver mail that has abolition stuff in it, you don't have to do that you just, you do the mail the way you want to, for your community. And that's the spoil system where that now you're not looking at anybody's merit, whether they're competent, you're looking at whether they're your follower, and whether they're going to move your agenda forward. And Rick, the time you're talking about where that, you know, Democrats and Republicans would link hands together and find common ground, man, and the fact that you're an R or a D today is all the polarization you need, and there's going to be no central ground and I take a lot of that back to Jackson, quite frankly. But you're spot on, Rick, with with what you're saying.

Rick Green: 16:03

So interesting. He weaponized the postal system, I mean basically... Yeah. Politically weaponized, you know, the postal system. Wow. All right. Well, we're going to be looking forward to that second book. Let's take a quick break guys. We've got a question from, get this, Walla Walla, Washington. All right. We'll be back in a moment. You're listening to WallBuilders on foundations of freedom Thursday. Have you noticed the vacuum of leadership in America? We’re looking around for leaders of principle to step up and too often, no one is there. God is raising up a generation of young leaders with a passion for impacting the world around them. They’re crying out for the mentorship and leadership training they need. Patriot Academy was created to meet that need. Patriot Academy graduates now serve in state capitals around America in the halls of Congress, in business, in the film industry, in the pulpit and every area of the culture. They’re leading effectively and impacting the world around them. Patriot Academy is now expanding across the nation and now’s your chance to experience this life changing week that trains champions to change the world. Visit patriotacademy.com for dates and locations. Our core program is still for young leaders 16 to 25 years old, but we also now have a citizen track for adults, so visit the website today to learn more. Help us fill the void of leadership in America. Join us in training champions to change the world at PatriotAcademy.com .

Historic Quote: 17:27

Thomas Jefferson said in questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man that bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Rick Green: 17:42

Welcome back to WallBuilders. Thanks for staying with us on this foundations of freedom Thursday. Next question is from James. Yep, you heard it right before the break, Walla Walla, Washington. All right, he said, I've much enjoyed your inspirational teachings and have been an avid listener of WallBuilders for the past 10 years. Prior to that, I enjoyed the information I got from David's historical instructions on VHS, back in the late 90s. So we're going to pause here and educate the audience on what a VHS is. And how... No, just kidding, I currently have been posting the Constitution class, ah sorry, hosting the Constitution class once a year, in the winter months over the past five years. And every time I do it, it keeps getting bigger. I only do it in the winter months after the first of the year because people are more available. And I'm actively a precinct committee officer in my precinct. My question for you today is, is it proper? Is it legal? Is it ethical, for an individual to run or hold more than one elected office at a time? For example, is it proper for one to be a state legislator and a precinct committee officer? Seems to me this would be a conflict of interest. And it would be difficult at best, if not impossible to properly fulfill the duties in both offices. I've seen this firsthand; do not agree with it. What are your thoughts? Thanks. And may God continue to bless you in all that you do, James. James, thank you, thank you, thank you for hosting classes for for being a force multiplier. And man, that's a lot of classes, a lot of people that are now engaged as citizens because of you, and we greatly appreciate it. Okay, guys, I think he's asking, now the offices he's mentioning, it sounds like one might be a party office, and one might be a public office. So that might be a different question, then can you hold to regular type public offices.

David Barton: 19:06

Yeah, and that is the distinction. A lot of this is going to be regulated by state laws. State laws, in some states, you can hold an office and run for another office. That was the situation with DeSantis in Florida. He is governor of Florida, he's running for president, they had to pass a law in Florida just to allow him to run for a second office at the same time. He can't hold both at the same time. And most states have laws that regulate what you can do with the dual office. But Rick at your...

Rick Green: 19:34

But he could have ran... like Texas already has it where you can be running for a different office while you're finishing out your term. So what he did in Florida really was just kind of bring in line with what most states have now.

David Barton: 19:43

That's right, but that's up to the state and they didn't have to change that law for DeSantis in Florida. And I'm not saying they changed it for DeSantis. He was the reason they changed it. So he's the reason they recently changed it. And they didn't have to change it for anybody. They could have left it the way it was and generally, holding to state offices, elected offices are very different from Rick, as you mentioned, holding a party office, even if it's elected and holding a state office, as that's elected, generally, as a state official, you're going to belong to one party or the other, and to be involved in the party process is not necessarily conflict of interest with the state process. And so since state laws really do govern a lot of this, you got to pretty much go state by state on this to see what the state law is. But I think we all agree that there's really not a conflict of interest, per se, if you're holding a party office, and you also run for a state office, on an elected office, one is elected by your party, your delegates, and the other's elected by the voters. And that's not the same thing as having two offices, elected by the voters, whether you might have that conflict.

Tim Barton: 20:48

And where we've seen conflict of interest in more recent times, whether it be some of these leaders of like the BLM organizations, who then become mayors, and who are, you know, involved in their local party, it... the conflict of interest is not because of having different positions. It's a lack of character that leads into doing immoral and unethical things that have caused it to be an issue. And that's where today people are looking at maybe some of those examples and going, wait a second, they shouldn't be doing both things. Well, if it was a person of character, and integrity, those are different offices. And right, you could do two things at once. Right? It's like wear, this is a ridiculous example, but as a sports guy, right? Is it possible that for someone, could they be an assistant coach for a team, and still they're a referee at other games, right? Like, can you do two things at once? Well, yes, you can. And as long as you're not refereeing your own game, right, like, that's not a conflict of interest, you can have two positions at once and it not be a conflict of interest unless you don't have the character and integrity in those positions. And you make it an issue because of your immorality, your lack of ethics. And I think that would be the only time we would see there being an issue. But the issue is not the positions. It's a lack of character and ethics.

Rick Green: 22:00

Yeah, and sometimes it can be to the benefit of, say, a local county, maybe, you know, if their county commissioner or county judge is also, let's say, a precinct chair, or as a delegate to the state convention, or you know, maybe even a state chair of a party, sometimes it can be to the benefit and work well. And like you said, it very much depends on the individual. I do remember just a little fun history for everybody here, another Barton not you two, before you served as vice chair, David, there was a big convention fight. It was one of the first conventions I ever went to. And it was a big convention fight, between a friend of mine named Tom Paquin, and a friend of mine named Joe Barton, who you guys know, who is not related to you, but he's a congressman. And so he was... Barton was in that position, Joe Barton was in that position, because he was a congressman. But he was running for State chair. And so I distinctly remember, Phil Gramm, who was the US senator, running from district to district, you know, you remember how when you would campaign, David, and they had all those district meetings, and you would literally be running from meeting to meeting to be able to go talk to everybody. But that's the last one I remember like that where it was a party office, and a pretty big public office, you know, Congress. And I think if I remember right Paquin... Well, I can't remember if that was a reelection and Paquin won that I think he did, I think he won And that was part of people's, you know, objection, that.

David Barton: 23:10

Yep, Paquin won. right? Was, hey, you're already holding this office over here. And anyway. And so it's a good question. But it depends on the Yeah and Rick as as you pointed out, Paquin won. individual or the office. And a lot of it was because the voters themselves thought that was a conflict of interest, but not an illegal conflict of interest. The voters chose Paquin over Joe Barton, because they didn't think that it was right for him to hold a state office, which is an elected partisan office, at the same time, he was a congressman do one or the other. It's like you're trying to make a monopoly out of politics, let somebody else get involved. And that was kind of the belief was, you know, spread it around, let other people get involved. But that was the decision of the voters at the convention. And back in those days, I'm going to brag a little bit, back in those days, Texas had the largest political convention in the world. We had 17,000 elected delegates at the state convention, counting delegates and alternates. So nobody in the world had 17,000 people participating. And we would get 11,000 or 12,000, showing up. We literally had the largest political convention anywhere in the world. And that was a state convention. And those people were active, they were involved, and they cared about government, and they're not dummies, and they chose what they wanted. And they wanted Joe Barton to be congressman, they sent him back. But they also wanted somebody different for state chair, and they elected Tom Paquin and he was elected then. So that's another way of handling it, is let the people decide. And if they don't see it as a conflict of interest, you know, you can enforce by law, what people don't themselves want to submit to. And when it comes to, if you think there's a conflict between holding a party office and a state office, well, my goodness, let the voters not elect one... elect them to one or the other. But you don't have to have a law to regulate that, although some states do. And that's up to the states, and that's the cool part of having a Federal Constitution is it gives a lot of authority to the state to do what they want to do on that. The feds do have federal laws that won't allow you to hold two federal offices at once. And that's pretty much what states have to do as well.

Rick Green: 25:07

Yeah, we call it the Boss Hog law. You can't be everybody in town on the Dukes... You can't have all the power, positions of power in the... on the Dukes of Hazzard. So you got to spread it out, right, spread that power out, and whether it's party office or political office. But you know, our biggest problem is not people serving in too many offices. It's not enough people that think like us with a good biblical foundation and a biblical worldview, Founding Fathers philosophy, not enough people like us, even serving in one office. So I hope that today actually you, after you get more of these foundations, after you learn from these questions, and we go back into history, and we study these things, I hope that you'll be motivated to do more, that you won't just sit on the sidelines. Faith without works is dead, that you will take your faith, you'll live out your faith in every area of the culture, including how we treat our neighbors, and what our society looks like. Get educated on these things, get more information at WallBuilders.com, take our Biblical Citizenship class, host that class, become one of our Constitution coaches, and host those classes in your home or at your church. I just got back from a coach's conference, got to hear all these great testimonials of what's happening in communities where they're hosting these classes. It's absolutely phenomenal. And you can be the catalyst for a restoration of those biblical values and constitutional principles. You can be the one to lead the way in your community, every single one of us can do something, every single one of us has a voice that needs to be heard our values need to be counted. Step up and be a part of the solution folks. Thanks so much for listening to WallBuilders.