Welcome and Introduction

Speaker 1 0:00

Welcome to the Intersection of Faith and Culture . Thanks for joining us today . On the Wall Builders Show website is wallbuildersshow . I bet you've missed a show or two . So you got to go to wallbuildersshow catch up on the programs . You might've missed some great interviews or some of our other Good News Friday programs , foundations of Freedom , thursday , which is what we'll be doing today , and then , if you've got some questions maybe you've got some things you want David or Tim to address send those to radio at wallbuilderscom . That's radio at wallbuilderscom .

Speaker 1 0:32

And Daryl's got the first one that was sent in here and he says what does this phrase mean in the Constitution ? The phrase is this the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature . And guys , I thought when I first read that I thought it was referring to the Electoral College , because I always think when it says electors , electoral College , but we're actually over in Article 1 . So it actually is talking about the electors of Congress . So what does that long phrase mean , which is kind of that old English , I guess , and hard for us to understand today ? But what does this specifically mean in the Constitution ?

Speaker 2 1:06

What it boils down to is if you're qualified to vote for the members of the most numerous branches of the state legislature , which is going to be your state house of representatives or your state assembly or your state house of burgesses , depending on which state you're in in the United States . Which state you're in in the United States ? If you're able to vote for the representative in the state house , then you're also able to vote for a representative to Congress from that state . So all it takes to be a representative , all it takes to vote at the federal level , is to be able to vote at the state level , and if you can vote , if you're a legal voter at the state level , then you're a legal voter at the federal level . It has the same requirements and that's the bottom line .

Speaker 1 1:47

All those fancy words and they could have just said could have used some ebonics here . They could have said yo , if you can vote at the state , you can vote at the Fed . Oh , that was terrible . Okay , please , please , tell me . We're not going to air that , but we probably will .

Speaker 3 2:01

Producer Justin , can you help us on this one ?

Speaker 1 2:06

All right , all right . So , daryl , good question and a pretty simple answer for you there . Okay , next up we've got Sheila and Sheila's . Let's see Sheila Blower and she's going to give us a question about naturalization . So we're also in the Constitution here , folks , which , by the way , there's a lot of causes in the Constitution we've never covered . So if you've got a question about some obscure part of the Constitution , it helps us go dive into an area that we haven't necessarily studied . Now , this one we have talked about before . That last question we had not , but this

The 14th Amendment and Anchor Babies

Speaker 1 2:32

one Sheila asked .

Speaker 1 2:32

I know the founding fathers were against the concept of anchor babies and strongly believed that citizenship passed from parents to child . But doesn't our 14th Amendment essentially allow for anchor babies ? Quote all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside . Thanks for any clarification you can provide . Sincerely , sheila . Sheila , great question . Huge debate on this going on right now at the Supreme Court in state legislatures across the country . A lot of people are wondering what does that mean ? And subject to the jurisdiction thereof , david , go for it , man .

Speaker 2 3:08

You always have to go back to the original intent of what every clause means , original intent of every clause in the Constitution , original intent of every law passed by Congress . Original intent is it . If you don't use original intent , you'll end up using a screwdriver for a shovel rather than something to put screws into a piece of wood or wherever . Everything is made for a specific purpose and you have to apply it to that purpose . If you don't , then law can become very abusive . If you can take a law and apply it and try to enforce it on something that was never designed to do , then it's an abuse of law . So you go back to the 14th Amendment . Why was the 14th Amendment passed ? Okay , what is the 14th Amendment ? That's one of the post-Civil War amendments . How many were there ? There were three . Why were those three amendments passed ? Because they were trying to secure to recently freed slaves and all black Americans the same equal rights that every other person had . So when you look at the 13th Amendment , it abolishes slavery . That happened . Slavery is abolished .

Speaker 2 4:08

But a number of the Confederate states , a number of the Southern Democrat states , said well , you may be free , but you don't have the right to keep and bear arms and you don't have the right to get married and you don't have the right to own land . And so the 14th Amendment said no , if you're in a state , you're a citizen of that state and you get the rights of every other citizen of that state . So now blacks can get married and now blacks can own property , and now blacks can have school and all these former slaves that the Democrats didn't want to have . That's what it is . And the 15th Amendment came about because they said , well , all right , maybe you get those rights , but that doesn't mean you have the right to vote . And so they created separate rights to vote for blacks living in Southern states , and the 15th Amendment said no , no , no , everybody gets the right to vote , regardless of race in the state .

Speaker 2 4:55

So what you're talking about here is the condition of former slaves . You're not talking about anchor babies that are vacation babies that come in from Mexico or Cuba or British Guiana or anywhere else and are born and go out . You're talking about . This is an example where they were trying to keep blacks from having any civil rights , and that's all this was about was the Civil War context . It's not about every baby born in the United States from some other nation . This is Civil War context .

Speaker 3 5:26

And Dad . This reminds me , too of when we see examples like , for one obvious example being the separation of church and state . We see examples where people would take a phrase , a known phrase , using it out of context , as they see , look the founding fathers , they wanted a separation of church and state , and we go . But the way you're arguing it , the way you're using it , is not what they were talking about , it's not what they meant by that . And fortunately , with something like the separation church and state , you can go back and you can read the entire letter from Jefferson and realize , oh , he wasn't talking about keeping religion out of government . Well , similarly , you can go back and read the context and details surrounding the 14th Amendment and you can see what were they talking about . And , as you mentioned , they were talking about giving equal rights to the people that were enslaved in America , those that were brought here under very bad circumstances more times than not , and then , once they were here , the ones that were having kids and having families . Because if they said in the 14th Amendment that if you were brought here in the slave trade , then you're forever free , and there would have been potentially slave owners saying , well , not all my slaves are brought here in the slave trade . Therefore I can keep some of them . They said okay , no , so if they were brought here in the slave trade or if they were born here , if they've been enslaved , not only are they free , they get all these rights . That was the context behind it , and so , just as silly as it would be to hear people argue the separation of church and state and use it in crazy context , it's just as silly to hear people argue the 14th Amendment and say that that's your point .

Speaker 3 6:55

If somebody flew in from China , which has happened multiple news articles and examples of women flying in from China at a time when they shouldn't be traveling , based on the level or the links , the weeks into their pregnancy , they are , but they fly to America , they deliver their child , giving birth in America and they take the newborn child back to China and that newborn child is considered quote unquote a US citizen . Well , that's not the way the 14th Amendment was written to give the full citizenship rights to anybody , as you mentioned , dad that might be having a vacation , kind of baby that's coming in to have a baby and then they're leaving and going back home . And then the idea that now the parents , the extended family , can all be US citizens , because the baby is quote unquote a US citizen . That was not what the 14th Amendment was about .

Speaker 3 7:42

And again , people can go back and they can read the context surrounding the 14th Amendment , because this was something that in Congress . They discussed this , they debated this . It's not like this is unknown information and there's unknown context surrounding it . This is well-documented and well-known , but people don't want to talk about the context in the modern era because it doesn't help support their agenda that they're promoting with this idea of open borders and everybody should be an American and we're going to just give citizenship to anybody who wants to come here . That's not the way the 14th Amendment was written and that's not the way it should be applied .

Speaker 2 8:15

Yeah , and just this whole concept of anchor babies . Tim , going back to the point you just made , read the wording and context of supply . But in this case I think you can read the wording outside of that context and still get to what we're talking about . So let's do this . It says here's the wording , all quote all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside . So we got a problem here . A China vacation baby . Are they subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ? Clearly not . It says if you're born or naturalized here and subject to our jurisdiction . And it says and the state wherein they reside . They're not residing in a state They've flown back to wherever they are or they're here illegally , in violation of law . I mean , I think even the wording of the 14th Amendment precludes so much of what people try to do with it .

Speaker 3 9:06

And I don't disagree with you . However , I do think there would be those that would argue right , if somebody came across the southern border and they've been here for two years now , right , they came over the Biden administration . They would say , well , they are residing here and they are subject to our laws because they're living in our nation now . Therefore they could . So I do think there's a way people could still distort it . I don't think it would be as broad encompassing now , because it certainly wouldn't include the weekend baby kind of scenario .

Speaker 3 9:32

But for those that came here illegally you know 10 , 11 million known that came here illegally under Joe Biden I think there'd be people that might read and argue that , although , dad , you're right , if we read it with some basic understanding , even what it's saying clearly indicates that this doesn't apply in the context that people are trying to apply it now . The 14th Amendment was not written to say that anybody from those 180 , whatever nations that have come across the southern border . Nearly every single

Constitutional Question on Electors

Speaker 3 10:02

nation in the world has had people come across our southern border and for now Democrats and liberals to argue that they should be given full rights as US citizens is really ridiculous and to cite the 14th Amendment . They have to do it , taking it incredibly out of context from how it was written and what it was intended to do .

Speaker 1 10:22

Our first quick break . We'll come back with more questions from our listeners For Foundations of Freedom Thursday . You're listening to the Wall Builders Show .

Separation and Inequality of Powers

Speaker 3 10:36

This is Tim Barton from Wall Builders with another moment from American history . Founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson originally worked closely together but later became ardent opponents . This troubled Dr Benjamin Rush , a signer of the Declaration , who knew both of them very well . In the Bible , 2 Corinthians 5.18 tells us that God has given each of us the ministry of reconciliation . Dr Rush believed this and set out to bring the two back together . It took a while , but Adams and Jefferson once again became close friends and looking back on his role in helping bring about this reconciliation , dr Rush stated it will give me pleasure , as long as I live , to reflect that I have been in any degree instrumental in affecting this reunion of two souls destined to be dear to each other and motivated , with the same dispositions , to serve their country , though in different ways . For more information about Dr Benjamin Rush and his other remarkable achievements , go to wallbuilderscom .

Speaker 1 11:36

Welcome back to the Wall Builder Show . It's Foundations of Freedom Thursday . Thanks for staying with us .

Speaker 1 11:38

I love something , david , you said a few weeks ago where you said you know , at the beginning of the Constitution it doesn't say we , the people in the United States , it's we , the people of the United States , and that is literally referring to that subject to the jurisdiction thereof .

Speaker 1 11:48

So if somebody comes here and they're just hanging out , or even if they come across the border and they're quote unquote residing or they're inhabitants here for two years , it's no different than a diplomat that comes here and might be working for three or four or five years or 10 years . They're still here working on behalf of their nation and they're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof , meaning as a citizen . And I think that also means and you've heard some constitutional scholars make this argument they also don't get all the same rights . Just because you're here physically doesn't mean you get all the constitutional rights of a US citizen . It is different and that's why that whole due process thing is different . For somebody that's here illegally , what kind of an arraignment or hearing do they get and then get sent back ? That's whatever Congress decides to give them , but it doesn't mean they get to drag this thing out in court for three , four , five years . This is a really important question , a really important subject that's been brought up today .

Speaker 2 12:48

And if you go back to even the concept of the rule of law , you're saying that someone who came here and whose first exposure to America was to break our laws gets all the protection of our laws for breaking our laws , that they're here illegally . They came here illegally . The failure of the government to enforce the law , that's on the government , that's not on the people , but that doesn't give them all the rights of due process because they are here breaking the law . Had the law been enforced , they wouldn't be here . And you can't say that just because you stayed here illegally for two years or 10 years or 20 years , suddenly that that's an amnesty for you , because if you can , if you can out survive the cops for 20 years , then none of the laws apply to you . That doesn't even make sense logically , which is kind of where we've headed with this debate , which it's a crazy debate . And I mean , when you get to the point where that there is no respect for the law , you cannot maintain a healthy nation .

Speaker 2 13:37

And we've got now where the Democrats have such little respect for immigration laws , such little respect for free speech laws , so many other laws , and it's well . Here's what I believe . And so when Biden administration comes in , they just wipe out all the existing laws on that and we're not going to enforce that . And you know we'll invite everybody to be here and we think all the laws passed by Congress elected by the people , that none of those are right , and it's just .

Speaker 2 14:04

We're in a really bad situation where it's what the scripture says in that day , every man did that which was right in his own eyes , and that's a time of anarchy , and that's really what's happened now . We no longer have a respect for the rule of law , and the rule of law is no longer what guides at least one party for sure . They don't have a respect for the rule of law . And now we're in a situation because they don't respect the rule of law , so much of the governing of the nation now is being done by the executive through executive orders , which is not a healthy situation . But that's what the Democrats have driven us into , because they don't respect the law , they don't obey the law , they don't enforce the law , and now you have to do things by executive decrees and that's just not a healthy constitutional place for the nation .

Speaker 1 14:49

Yeah , they've forgotten that line in America , the beautiful liberty in law . So if they really want liberty and they want freedom , it's got to be within those boundaries , within that rule of law , with a healthy respect for it . Quick break , guys . We've got more questions , in fact , speaking of the powers of these different branches and who's going to execute what . We've got a question on the separation of powers between the three branches at the federal level . Stay with us . You're listening to the Wall Builder Show on Foundations of Freedom Thursday .

Speaker 3 15:20

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 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 to 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 wallbuilderscom and get your copy of the American Story Building the Republic .

Speaker 1 16:19

Welcome back to the Wall Builder Show , foundations of Freedom Thursday Today answering your questions . The next one comes from Rick Vigland , I believe is how you say that . He said if the three branches are supposed to be equal , we'll have to talk about that . Why can't the executive branch go to the Supreme Court and ask Notice that guy's ask oh , that just grates on me that you would have to ask . Let me bow to our overlords , the court , and beg . Anyway , go to the Supreme Court and ask you are the highest court in the land . Can you get them to tell these Soros-purchased judges that they have no business telling our president how to do his job ? And let us get back to business .

Speaker 1 16:54

I couldn't think of anyone better to answer this question . All right , rick , great question . Rick Biglin , and I don't have a city . I don't think on you , but thanks for sending the question in , david Tim . Why doesn't the president just go , hat in hand , and ask these you know there's so much more moral and neutral and unbiased and the high priest of the law ? Rick , I'm not making fun of you in your question because most people in the country really think it's that way , but that's the attitude . In fact , president Trump did do that with a recent thing and I was like don't ask , just go do it . All right , sorry .

Speaker 2 17:29

Go ahead ahead , guys . So the premise is that the Supreme Court should be telling the lower judges stop being stupid . And that does work . I mean , there is grounds for that . We've already seen some shots across the bow with Chief Justice Roberts saying the lower courts , you guys cannot issue nationwide injunctions . That's absolutely wrong . You work it up the chain . So that premise that the Supreme Court can tell these source purchase judges get back in your box and stay there , quit being activists . It's not your role . That's accurate . That's correct .

Speaker 2 18:03

The other part is like you , rick . It's part of the premise that it's wrong in this . But if you accept the premise that Rick set forth , which is what most people have been taught in school , then the question is logical in that sense . So back up just a little bit on this . And you reacted to the first , rick Wright , the part where it says that the three branches are supposed to be equal . Now I hope Rick is doing that kind of tongue in cheek that they're supposed to be equal . At least that's what the argument is , kind of tongue-in-cheek that they're supposed to be equal . At least that's what the argument is . We're going to make really clear they are not equal . They have never been equal , except when progressives say so . But no documents from the founding fathers made them equal and there's a lot of documents from the founding fathers that made them unequal for a very specific reason Two of the branches are elected by the people . One of the branches is not elected by the people . It therefore is not equal with the other two . It doesn't have the same standing . The people are in charge , we the people . So I'm just going to read from a couple of Federalist papers here .

Speaker 2 18:55

Federalist this is the original commentary on the Constitution of the United States . It's considered the best commentary on the Constitution because it was written by those who wrote the Constitution . But in Federalist 51 , it says the legislative authority , one of the three branches , legislative branch the legislative authority necessarily predominates . So if you've got one branch predominating then it can't be equal with the others . So the legislative authority is and it just it predominates . That's the word .

Speaker 2 19:26

Then , if you take federalist 78 , it says the judiciary . So that's that other branch can take no active resolution whatever . Imagine that a court that is not activist . How long has it been since we've had restrained judges that weren't activists ? And when you have nearly 700 federal judges and they're appointed by presidents , not based on their competency but their beliefs and affiliation . They are activists , but the Federalist 78 says the judiciary can take no active resolution whatever .

Speaker 2 19:57

It's not supposed to have any force to make policy . It may truly be said to have neither force , nor will Now listen to this phrase . The judiciary is beyond comparison . The weakest of the three departments is beyond comparison . So if one branch predominates and the other is beyond comparison , the weakest it's not even in the same level as the other two . You do not have three co-equal branches . So if you start with that premise that the branches are not co-equal , president Trump doesn't need to go to anybody in judiciary and ask for permission to do anything . He might go to the head of the judiciary and said get your guys in order here because they're way out of line , and that does make sense to do something like that for sure .

Speaker 3 20:41

Well and along those lines too . This is why , historically , we can point to guys like Andrew Jackson that really rubbed his nose at the US Supreme Court and we would argue he was very wrong in what he did . But he was kind of correct in his assessment when he was actually doing some of the Indian land removal really bad , evil things he was doing . But there were several cases of the Supreme Court . In fact former President john quincy adams , who at that point was a member of congress , he he actually had one of those cases at the us supreme court , arguing andrew jackson could not arbitrarily break these treaties that had been made with some of these native tribes and then work to change things . And the us supreme court agreed , agreed and said Andrew Jackson was wrong . And this is where the famous quote kind of attributed to him , where Andrew Jackson notes the Supreme Court's made their decision , let's see them enforce it . The US Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism , which is why they're , beyond comparison , the weakest . They can issue an opinion , but their opinion and , dad , you've talked about this multiple times Anytime you read something from the US Supreme Court , if you read one of their decisions , at the very top it says the opinion of the US Supreme Court . All they're doing is giving you their opinion , but the President can also give you his opinion . Congress can also give you their opinion . There are three different branches

Final Thoughts on Constitutional Authority

Speaker 3 22:00

, there can be three different opinions , but the US Supreme Court is not the end all when it comes to authority and power . And it used to be that in previous generations , with people that maybe even had a little more practical and constitutional knowledge and understanding , they would say the Supreme Court has no power and authority to do anything concerning the legislative branch or the executive branch . Now , certainly they can have control over that , as you mentioned , judicial branch , they can say and do things that impact those below them in the judicial branch , but they cannot give orders to the executive department , the executive branch , and along those lines , as you kind of point out , even as outlined in the federalist papers , when it says that legislative necessarily predominates . If we look at the Constitution , the only argument someone in my mind , the only argument they could make for three political branches is well , all three of them are in the Constitution and all three of them are given powers . That would be the only argument I could see from the Constitution . But then we would point out .

Speaker 3 23:01

Well , of the seven articles of the Constitution , what is the largest article in the US Constitution ? It's Article 1 . Well , who is the main kind of theme , individual thought , the main branch , in Article 1 ? What's the legislative branch ? And in Article 1 , it gives the most directions but also the most power to the legislative branch . What's the second largest article ? It's Article 2 . Well , who is kind of the theme , the hero , the branch of Article 2 ? It's the executive . Well , guess who is given the second most power and authority and directives ? That's the executive branch .

Speaker 3 23:38

The third article is where it gets to the judicial branch and this is smaller than the first two articles and it gives less power , less authority and smaller jurisdiction to the judicial branch .

Speaker 3 23:49

So even just a basic reading of the Constitution , you go wait , a second legislative branch they're given the most authority by the Constitution . Executive branch they're given the second most authority by the Constitution . And judicial branch they're given the least by the Constitution . There's no way you can read this and come away thinking that judicial branch is the one that's going to make and enforce things , when , again , previous presidents used to know this and Rick , you kind of pointed this out , you know , just groaning when President Trump should have just gone and said hey , here's what we're going to do , Right , Because the executive has far more control and authority than does the judicial branch , constitutionally speaking , and even Dad , as you mentioned . This is what James Madison , Hamilton , these guys pointed out in the Federalist Papers . It wasn't confusing to them . It's only become more confusing , as you mentioned , in our far more progressive thinking understanding of the US Supreme Court .

Speaker 2 24:42

Here's another point to add to what you were just saying , tim . The first two branches the Congress and the president are both created by the people . The people call them into existence and keep them in existence every two to four years . The third branch is not created by the people , it's created by the president and by the legislature . The president nominates the judges , the Senate confirms them . So the third branch can't even exist without the president and the Senate doing their act , and they can't exist without the people choosing them .

Speaker 2 25:12

So the people are up top . They choose two branches and then they let that first and second branch choose part of the third branch , which means that third branch is not a result necessarily of the Constitution . It's a result of the Constitution allowing the people to choose leaders to make that third branch . So they're not a co-equal branch , they're not created by the people , they're not run by the people . They're almost like an agency , if you will , under the other two , which is why they have , beyond comparison , the least amount of power . And so , man , if we could get back to understanding that , that they don't get to make policy . They don't make nationwide policy , they don't have the permission to do that . They can only deal with the issues in the Constitution and those are called original jurisdiction issues . And there's only four or five of those issues I forget maybe six , but there's a very limited amount of issues the Constitution says that the Supreme Court can specifically deal with constitutionally and they've gotten way out of their box and need to be put back in that box for sure .

Speaker 1 26:10

Yeah , it actually makes me glad that these cases are happening , because it brings it to a head , it makes people pay attention to something they kind of ignored for a long time or didn't want to deal with or didn't

Closing and Resources

Speaker 1 26:19

know anything about . And of course , Trump is pushing it to the point that hopefully we can get some real changes here in philosophy and , if nothing else , get a lot of people educated on exactly what you guys have been talking about today . Folks , if you want to dive a little further into that one , go to wallbuilderscom today , get Constitutional Live or Biblical Citizenship in Modern America . Go through those courses and you'll learn a lot more about the proper balance of the three branches . Thanks for listening today to the Wall Builder Show on Foundations of Freedom Thursday .