Rick Green [00:00:07] Welcome to the intersection of faith and culture. It's the WallBuilders show on a Thursday and of course Thursday's Foundations of Freedom Thursday which means we're looking for questions from you in the audience about Constitution, Declaration. Maybe what's going on politically? Perhaps theologically and application of of course the Bible to everything that's going in the culture. So whatever you want to ask about send it in to radio@wallbuilders.com that's radio@wallbullers.com. I'm Rick Green here with David Barton and Tim Barton, and we'll get to as many questions as we can. David and Tim, first one is coming from Oklahoma. Sharon said, Dear Tim, David and Rick. Now, David, why did she say Tim first? I thought it was supposed to be like an age order thing here. Like, you know, older. 

David Barton [00:00:49] I was going to ask, why did she put Rick last?

Rick Green [00:00:56] I think she was going in order of who she liked the most. Everybody loves Tim, then David, and then oh yeah, that Rick guy. That's what I think it was. Anyway, all right, Sharon said, thank you for all the great programs that keep us so well informed about issues of the day from a Biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. Sharon, thank-you. That proves you listen often. I appreciate it. I have a question about the government shutdown. The Republicans keep saying the shutdown's being caused by the Democrats in the Senate because Republicans don't have the numbers for cloture in order to vote on the CR. However, if the Republicans would vote to change the filibuster rules, Couldn't they then get cloture and pass the CR? So isn't this really ultimately a Republican shutdown because the senators don't have the gumption to change the rules they themselves created. And how can we get them to do this? Since the filibuster rules defy the idea of a majority rule, which is what I thought the founders wanted. Thank you for your input on this issue, Sharon. And she's a Constitution Coach. You can tell that she has heard us talk about the filibuster and going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson's rules and yeah, good stuff. Good stuff. Go ahead guys. 

David Barton [00:01:54] Yeah. So when you look at this, you know, just to cover ground that people may have heard before George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the kind of two political spectrums back in the founding era, the early part, they both agreed that the will of majority is the fundamental principle of the constitution. Everything is based on the will of the majority. You don't let the minority prevail over the majority and so that's the way it was until Woodrow Wilson days. And then they added that filibuster and they've had a number of occasions since then to get rid of that filibuster rule. There was a good while when the republicans had the majority and they didn't get rid of the rule because they said, you know, someday we'll be in the minority and when we are, we don't want the democrats running over us. So it's really kind of, as she described, self-inflicted. 

Tim Barton [00:02:37] Well, and dad, if we can clarify too, you know, they had a filibuster before Woodrow Wilson, but Woodrow Wilson, it was in that timeframe when some of the rules changed on what a filibuster was and what it wasn't, um, on who could hold the floor and how they held it, et cetera. And I'm saying that only to clarify, cause if someone goes, was there no filibusters in the Founding Father's era? Well, it would have been different. It would have more of somebody, he, you know, that might call it grandstanding. And you dominating the... The whatever they would have used podium rostrum, that's exactly what it was. 

Rick Green [00:03:09] Mr. Smith goes to Washington. It's the Jimmy Stewart thing. Three days without going to the bathroom. You got to stand up there and speak. You know, the whole time

David Barton [00:03:17]  And if you, if you step off the floor, then they can take it away. And by the way, Tim, good point. Cause John Quincy Adams still a filibuster back in his day that lasted for 13 days. And it kept Texas out of the United States for a long time. He said, we're not having another slave state coming to the union. And so Texas was a Republic and it was trying to apply for statehood. And John Quincy Adams, I think kept Texas out for like six years, but he had a long filibuster. But back then you had to earn the filibuster. It wasn't just a perfunctory kind of procedural vote that, hey, let's see if 60 will vote on this before 51 pass it, which is crazy too. You have to have 60 to pass it before 51 can pass it. Which what, what a crazy rule is that. And so we've had the position for a good while that look, there's, this is, does not go with constitutional principles, but I, I agree. I admit I've had to rethink this more recently in the last two to three years, because back then at least you had consensus. On general moral and religious principles. You had consensus that the Ten Commandments apply. You don't have that consent. I'm not sure you can get 60 people in the Senate today to agree that the Ten Commandments are good guidelines for life. And so when you have such morally different views to allow 51 to be able to sit their morals as a standard for all of the nation, now you're moving into a democracy kind of an era kind of like France was. And so it makes me kind of say well, you know that filibuster thing was wrong at a time when we had a consensus on moral and religious values. But it's I'm not sure we're there this point?

Tim Barton [00:04:53]  Well, but Dad, I think now you're talking to about what is dangerous and what is not dangerous, not what is constitutional versus what is not, just to clarify. Right? Because I mean, obviously all of us right now, we all agree when the Founding Fathers talked about religion, morality being the foundation without it, you know, where John Adams says our constitution was made only for moral and religious people. The more we've removed that, the more dangerous position we are in, of removing some of the basic guidelines, underpinnings that will allow America to be successful going forward now. And I'm only saying that to throw the caveat in, that even though we can agree with what you're saying, that's not quite the question that was asked. And it is still, it's a really good question going back to, right? Can't they just have a simple majority vote and say they're changing what the filibuster is, and we're going to a simple Majority. Can they do that vote with a simple majority or would it require two thirds or sixty votes to even change the rules of the senate and I think I know but this is just I think fundamentally the question being asked. 

David Barton [00:05:57] Yeah. And the question being asked, the answer is yes, they can change that rule at the start of every session. They have to follow the rules of the Senate and the rules in the Senate say that the start each two year session, you have a vote on what the rules will be for the next two years. And so they will vote on that as part of their organization of the, of the senate after every election. And they can easily and by their own rules say, Hey, we, by 51 people we're voting to say that this filibuster rule is no longer any good for the next two years, it's off the books, it it's gone. So at any point in time, either party who has the majority or any combination two parties, anywhere you can come up with 51 votes, you can get rid of that filibuster rule at any point in time. That's where I was kind of alluding to the fact that republicans started protecting it when they had the majority, because they said, you know, there's going to come a day when we're in the minority and we don't want them running over us with everything they do. So. Let's have a little, and, and this is why you see so many executive orders now from presidents, because you can get so few things through the Senate, including a budget for the last 30 years, you just can't get it done. And so they've gone back to really the president ruling by executive order, which was never the design of the Founding Fathers. That's not where policy is supposed to come from. So the filibuster really has goofed up a whole lot of things. And I wish we'd gotten rid of it back in the day when we still had some moral values. I do have questions about it now, and I admit constitutionally, it is the right thing to do. And it's just, man, what are the consequences going to be if that happens? And maybe it would be bad enough that Americans might change their voting on parties, but based on what we saw Tuesday night, man if you can elect a guy to office who's rejoicing and hopes to, you know, to dance on the grave of somebody that got murdered, that's a real lack of moral values. And so that's, that would be the only question I have, but Tim, you're right, she asked a question about constitutionality. Constitutionally it easily can be done at the start of every session of the Senate by their own rules. 

Tim Barton [00:07:56] Dad, just to clarify one more detail on this. Now, obviously at the start of a session, when they're determining the rules, they can do that then, and maybe this is a question for America's Constitution Coach as well, if they've determined the rules, can they change those? Like, can't you go to rules committee? Can't you update or change the rule? So is it only at the start of every two years, they determine the filibuster and this cloture, you know, 60 vote threshold, whatever it is. Or can they change that in the middle? And I asked that because if the rules of this point have already been said, that it would seem like, no, Republicans couldn't change it even if they wanted to, but do you have the ability to change those rules and by the way, even if they did just a little more nuance and I know we are so in the weeds right now and the people that are not policy walk nerds are like, you guys, this is ridiculous. It's too much. I, I apologize, but one of the things that, again, is Dad, kind of you point out a lot of republicans now are against the idea of removing the filibuster because of the potential danger it can be for them in the future. They want to maintain the precedent. So they, they maybe didn't create this precedent, but they want to maintain it. So I'm not sure that they could even necessarily get the votes needed to overturn this. But again, back up, can they change this now? Can they go to rules committee and can they say, Hey, we're going to go ahead and get rid of the filibuster now? Or since they've already determined the rules for this two year term, more or less, right before there's another election, are they now stuck with these rules or can they change and update them? 

David Barton [00:09:32] It's a good question, Tim, and the answer really kind of is in the rules, because they get to set the rules and the rules say if you do it at the start of the session, it's a simple majority. As they go through the session the rule was, unless they changed it this time, the rule was it would take two-thirds of the Senate to change a rule during the session. And so it actually becomes a higher threshold if you try to do it in the session and I'm assuming that's still part of their rules, but that's the way it used to be, which would make it even harder going forward during the session. 

Rick Green [00:10:01] Yeah, I mean, the Constitution itself just says that they will have their own rules. And so within those rules, they can decide whether or not they allow for modifications throughout the two years. What I'm really curious about that. I don't know off the top of my head is there's definitely been times where they selectively removed the filibuster. In other words, they went with the, what we call the nuclear option for a specific vote, and I think they just did that for some of the nominees a few weeks ago as well. Um, so I I'm assuming that the way those rules were written and I don't have in front of me, so don't know off the top of my head, but I'm assuming there's a workaround. There has to be some motion that can be made and 51 be able to choose to, uh, do the nuclear option. And of course, guys remember they did that as well for. Was it a Supreme court nominee? I know it was for some, some major judicial nominees years ago. The same thing happened. They did quote-unquote the nuclear option and bypassed the filibuster, but only for a few select votes. So that tells me there must be a mechanism in there to do this midstream during a session 

David Barton [00:11:07] Rick, the one thing I do remember too is the nuclear option, the way they had it written worked for appointments for if you're trying to confirm appointments and you could also use the nuclear options on economic kind of issues. So budgeting issues and other things, which is why, you know, there, but, but it didn't apply to all. And that's a great question. I don't know how, how they wrote their rules currently to allow them that nuclear option of being able to break their own rules occasionally and not break the rules when they break their rules. So. Good observation. I don't remember the answer to that one. 

Tim Barton [00:11:39] Well guys, it sounds like then not only was this a really good question, it sounds like we have a question we have to do more homework on to try to find the correct answer. 

Rick Green [00:11:48] No, no, no homework guys. Come on, this is, we're not in school anymore. We're always in school. Who am I kidding? I love it when people stump us, especially at live events and then we get some homework to do as well. So great question. And folks listen, you may have a topic like that as well where you wanna drill down on some of these things because it's important for us to know these things. I mean, we are ultimately in charge, we the people. So we need to know how the process works. As Tim said, sometimes this stuff gets in the weeds. And and man David taught me a long time ago when we first do it started doing Patriot Academy - We got to teach process better. We don't pay enough attention to process, we love policy, but we don't pay attention to process and so I think it's great that our audience loves this stuff and asks these kind of questions. I tell you what, let's take a break. We got a lot of more great questions, but good time for a break We'll take a break. We'll be right back. Stay with us folks as Foundations of Freedom Thursday. You're listening to the WallBuilders Show 

Rick Green [00:13:46] Welcome back to the WallBuilders show. We're taking your questions, send them into radio@wallbuilders.com, radio@wallbuilders.com and special thanks to that Constitution Coach out of Oklahoma, stumping the whole team. And now we got to go do homework. All right. Amy's up next. Her question is about also about the Constitution and the two term limit on presidents. She says, what does the Constitution really say about an American president serving two terms? If I remember correctly. There've been some presidents that have served more than two. Is it true that president Donald Trump can only serve two terms? Thank you, Amy. Amy, just so that liberal heads will explode. We're just going to say, you know, Trump might get a third term. Okay. Next question. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding, I think he loves to just get people talking about this. Even though we probably, I've talked about this on the program before,  that there is no way he's going to be able to serve a third term. I think he should get a third term just for restitution. Because of what they did to him in 2020, but it's not gonna happen. Anyway guys, what do y'all think? 

David Barton [00:14:48] Well, I mean, what you've just raised is they're saying, oh, he can be a vice presidential candidate and that way he can get in. Now the constitution says the vice presidential candidate is subject to all the requirements of the president because the vice president might become the president. And so there's only one president in history who served more than two terms. And that was Franklin Roosevelt. And he was in his fourth term when he died. And then after he died, his vice president who became president, Harry Truman said, that's enough of that. And so passed a constitutional amendment at that time. To say you cannot serve more than two terms. So since really Harry Truman, we've had that constitutional amendment, that's what limits Trump today. And prior to him, there was only one president served more than the two terms and that was FDR. Everybody else before that held themselves to two or one. 

Tim Barton [00:15:35] Well, and Dad, too, it's worth pointing out. You mentioned that it changed with Harry Truman. Harry Truman, not to be confused for those that have listened to the program and know some of this you know, Harry Truman is not the one that did that constitutional amendment. The American people are the one who did that constitutional amendment because it has to pass right with the states. And the majority of the state legislatures, it's actually 38 state legislative chambers once we had all 50 states. That's what it would be today if you have to do that. It's three-fourths of what has to pass in the state, so they approved that. But I say all of this to say that this wasn't somebody arbitrarily deciding. Now, this was the American people at large recognizing through oftentimes, they're elected officials going, hey, what President FDR did was not great, where maybe some of his argument was, hey, we're in the war and you need something you can rely on, you need somebody you can depend on and then you know who I am and just keep voting for me. George Washington had set the precedent. This was not constitutional enshrined, but he set the precedent. And part of what he's kind of credited with is acknowledging if somebody is president for. longer than two terms it's kind of like they would almost be a king because they invoke their will and desires and demands on the American people and that ends up leading the the rest of the presidents up until FDR to say we're just gonna do what George Washington did. We think he's a good example to follow. We're gonna follow that example FDR is the one who went the opposite direction. But the American people at the end said only two terms now bringing that back up because it's only two terms, Dad as you mentioned, President Trump cannot go vice president or president for another term. He's not eligible, but Rick, to your point, he does love to, kind of make liberals heads explode. And therefore we will say bombastic things like, Hey, I'm just going to get Gaza and put a golf course up in Gaza, right? Trump hotel in Gaza and people lose their mind. Yeah. He, he just plays games a lot in some of these areas. And it's, it's not something he can do constitutionally. Early on, it was an example of a precedent. It became legal matter after FDR had been elected four times, died right at the beginning of his fourth term when Truman takes over. So really he served three full terms, made it to his fourth turn, but then he dies. So. FDR is the reason that we now have a constitutional amendment limiting presence to only two terms. 

David Barton [00:18:09] The other thing interesting about that is when FDR ran for his third term and ran on that third term, the newspapers really beat him up and said, you think you're greater than George Washington? If George Washington held himself to two terms, what are you doing? And so he took a beating on that, but it's interesting. And I got to be careful how I say this. I think it could have been very providential that he ran for more than two terms because I think he was a major difference in winning World War II. As president of the United States, he had, he'd been presiding over the buildup of the military leading up to World War II. He had seen all the stuff that was going on. He was getting the early intelligence of the Japanese, and the Germans and the Nazi Alliance and all that stuff. And so he had all this top secret information that would not have been available to another president and that president would have stepped in at a point in time that we, you know, essentially it was not that long after the Japanese whacked Pearl Harbor and we're in the war And I do think that having FDR in there, as much as he may have been progressive, he did a really good job at executing the war and making the right choices for commanders in chief with, with Eisenhower and with Patton and with MacArthur and, and, others, I mean, he did really good jobs. So that's the one thing I say about, well, that's one time when it may have been all right to have more than more than two terms and fortunately Harry Truman was there to finish the war. But again, it goes back to two terms that have been the precedent set by George Washington. Tim, as you pointed out, that's the constitutional precedent we now have. 

Tim Barton [00:19:43] And Dad, one thing I would add too, is even though there was potentially a positive outcome, obviously there's a lot of things under FDR, the New Deal that was not good, a lot of negative things, and certainly we could look at other presidents and go, you know what, George Washington could have served more than two terms and been great. Thomas Jefferson could have serve more than two terms, and been great. There's other presidents we could point to, even a James Monroe, maybe, that we might could acknowledge could have done really well at more than two terms. Just because you can do well at than two terms doesn't necessarily justify you should have done, it again following President  Washington, but Dad, to your point FDR's third term was something that did maintain some level of consistency, but as you point out he was, I would say very rightfully, criticized by newspapers and people of the day for thinking that maybe he should do something different or better than every president before him. Certainly reason for criticism but the reason again, that Trump is not going to run for a third term, he's just going to toy with liberal minds, is because there is an actual constitutional limit limiting that today. 

Rick Green [00:20:49] Well, and I love, I hope people that are listening appreciate the consistency and intellectual honesty of this program. Two things today that I would point out. Number one, the filibuster. Uh, I remember when we first started the program, David, and we took a lot of heat for taking the position on the filibuster that we did, we got a lot of hate mail and people did not like the fact that we thought the filibuster should go away, and it should be majority rule. And then secondly, the fact, that you, you know, you're the things you're saying about FDR. And I remember the first time I heard Glenn Beck talk about some of the positive things about FDR. And it made me, it really made me pause and go, you know, too often I label a person in history for some of the bad things they did and I don't recognize that we're all flawed human beings and we're all a mixed bag and a lot of these, especially consequential, uh, historical figures, you know, there's bad and there's good and there is ugly, but you know the good should be talked about. And so anyway, David, I just appreciate you saying those things and recognizing that. I will say I heard a commentator. This was Tim, you'll love this. That this was their sliver of possibility. They said well You know, we think some constitutional scholars say that in the 12th amendment, when it says the vice president has to be eligible to be president, it's only talking about the age and the, whatever the other little, you know, little things are. It's not talking about whether or not they meet, you know, meet the 22nd amendment requirements. So anyway, it definitely like this crazy sliver of hope that will be just enough to explode liberal heads. 

Tim Barton [00:22:28] Well, okay. So let me, let me give you guys a possibility as long as we're exploding heads. So there's no requirement to be the Speaker of the House. So if you're the Speaker of the House, your third in line and if for whatever reason, the President and the Vice President, if that's right, JD Vance and Rubio, and they're like, hey, we feel like we need to step down. The Speaker of the House becomes the President. And there is not the same limitations on the Speaker of the House as there is on the President, Vice President. So there might be a way. And I'm saying this only to make heads explode, right? But, but I mean, Speaker of House, that's a direct route. There's no limitations on Speaker of the House. Maybe that's the way he does it. 

Rick Green [00:23:09] Yeah, now, now we're, we're definitely going to cause people to be focused on whether or not Trump's gonna have a third term so anyway I know it's crazy I just love the fact that it distracts, he does it he usually times it right when he needs to right he needs them to be focused on that instead of some other thing that he's getting done and he doesn't need their opposition. Too fun too! Too fun! Okay one more constitutional question for today guys, here we go! According to our Constitution is it not a crime for political leaders to intentionally open our borders and allow unvetted people in you know maybe maybe even a more direct way to ask guys is that some sort of you know, treason against the country that you would undermine the country in that way. 

David Barton [00:23:52] You know, that first answer is treason- it consists in levying or waging war against your country. So what we often call treasonous is a pretty loose adjective that we throw around, but the definition is, is waging or levying war against your own country. Now we can say, well, you're doing that when you let illegal people cross the border. Okay. Maybe, but that's not the definition of treason we, we may think that is a sellout. Okay. But the other thing that goes with this, this aspect of, there's nothing constitutional about this except that you take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the United States and the Constitution. You've taken an oath of office to uphold laws and there's this law that you're not upholding. And on the other hand I've got to say, you know what, if I've been in Congress in 1850 and I would have taken that oath I would not have upheld the fugitive slave law because I think that's a direct violation of all our founding documents. It was a bad law by the democrats. And so this is such a hard thing to answer in the way people want. But number one, there's not a constitutional provision that requires prosecution if you don't uphold the laws of the land. It's not there. That's up to the Attorney General if they decide to do that. And it's not treason because you're not following the laws. There's all of us would have federal laws we would not follow because there's, we've talked before, there are enough federal laws and federal statutes on the books that if you read 700 pages a day, it would take you 25,000 years to read all of them. So there's going to be laws all of us would agree we're not going to uphold. So that's a tough question. That should be an honesty and integrity question is you're not following basic laws that have been passed since the founding era. This is not just a matter of conscience over fugitive slave laws. We're talking something here that goes back a long way and you're trying to reconstruct America from within after getting in office and that's, that's just not permissible. So, no constitutional violation here, but certainly a violation of ethics, oath of office and public trust. 

Tim Barton [00:25:47] All right, and Dad, one thing too, that this is nuance, but I think to your point, even though it's not this strict definition of treason, because it is something that does seem to undermine the Constitution, I think that's what a lot of people think of as treasonous, you're undermining the Constitution. Or even, as you pointed out, there might be some laws that we would say, hey, that's not a law you should uphold under the principles of the Constitution. I think this is where there's nuance that people that, for example, aren't protecting and securing the nation and the borders, they're undermining the values and principles of the Constitution and the Declaration. Therefore, people might jump to that conclusion. So even though this might not be the strict letter of the law, certainly you can see where the very acts they're doing are certainly at least at minimum undermining the Constitution, if not maybe to some degree unconstitutional. 

Rick Green [00:26:34] Well thank you to everybody that sent in the great questions today. Be sure and send them to radio at wallbuilders.com and share this program with your friends and family. Thanks so much for listening. You've been listening to The WallBuilders Show.