Foundations Of Freedom Thursday Kickoff

SPEAKER_02 0:07

It's the intersection of faith and culture, and it's a Thursday. So welcome to Foundations of Freedom Thursday on the Wall Builder Show, where we take on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. And on Thursday, you get to pick the topic. So send in your question, radio at wallbuilders.com. That's radio at wallbuilders.com. It can be about the founders. It can be about one of our biblical citizenship classes. It can be about what's going on in your state or maybe in Washington, D.C., whatever you got, send those questions in. Maybe a Supreme Court decision that was handed down in the last few weeks, send those to radio at wallbuilders.com. We'll get to as many as we possibly can.

Can A Convention Go Runaway

SPEAKER_02 0:42

Rick Green here with David Barton and Tim Barton. And guys, first questions coming from Robert. He said, I've been watching Biblical Citizenship in Modern America. I know that the Constitution can be amended, that there has been talk over the years about different amendments. What I'm not clear on is this. If a constitutional convention is called for a certain amendment, can other amendments be proposed during the same meeting? For example, if there is a proposed amendment for a balanced budget during the convention, could someone also bring up an amendment to try to repeal part or all of the Second Amendment? Thanks for your time. Robert, thanks for sending in that question. I know I've got an opinion on this one, but guys, I'll toss it to you first. What do you think?

SPEAKER_00 1:18

Well, it's going to be opinions because it's never happened before. We've never had a lot of people. That's right. That's right. So everything we express is going to be opinions. And my opinion is that yes, they could open it up. However, the difficulty is that a lot of the states will send their delegates with specific instructions to only deal with this issue. And so if their delegates were to open it up to something else, they would probably have those delegates recall, send others in their place. I think theoretically, there's no written document that prohibits them from adding other stuff, but I think the practicality of it is such that it's not going to happen. And I don't think the people would put up with it either.

SPEAKER_01 1:55

Well, I think, as Dad, you already mentioned, this is a theoretical exercise. Um, but I think it's it's a a fun exercise while also a little silly because you can argue both sides pretty well. Um you can argue one side, first of all, saying, hey, um, don't we have a federal government limited by the U.S. Constitution? So they can't do things it doesn't say. And you're like, they do that all the time. So can somebody propose an amendment that is not a valid amendment? Totally they can. But one of the things worth noting is that a lot of states that have passed these Article V calls for a constitutional convention, um, or actually a convention of states, which is what not a constitutional convention, I said that totally wrong. A convention of states, um, in their articles where they called for that, they specify uh in some of these states that they're calling for a convention to do very specific things. And so then if people did something outside of what it was called for, there could be questions about that legality. Can they do it? Um, because the call for this convention in a state um that they passed was not for um, let's say it wasn't for balancing the budget. It was for First Amendment related issues. And I'm just using examples. Um, could somebody do something outside of that? Well, of course they could. Could there be legal challenges that was wrong? Of course there could, but this is when it's just a theoretical exercise. That's your point, it's never been done. But Rick, I think one of the areas um that you might land, and I'm gonna toss this softball in your direction, is one of the great things about states doing this is they can specify exactly um what needs to be covered and what should be covered. And then again, softball uh in your direction, Rick, is one of the things that I think is uh a concern for some people is they say, well, the reason we can never do this is because there's gonna be a runaway convention. It's really hard to have a runaway convention when you have to have 38 states, legislative chambers involved in that process. Um, if you have 38 states come into alignment and agreement on the issue and the topic, that's not a runaway convention. That's a reflection of we the people uh being in charge. So not to digress, but Rick, what's your answer in this?

SPEAKER_00 4:03

All right, before you do that, Tim, I'm gonna step in for Rick for a minute. I'm gonna point out I don't know if Rick can hit a softball. He was a hardball player, he played baseball with hardball stuff. His timing may be totally off if you give him a softball.

SPEAKER_01 4:15

No, at this point, I've seen more gray in his hair than not. He probably the softball might feel fast at this point. So probably his timing's still perfect.

SPEAKER_02 4:27

It is so hard to hit a softball when you're a baseball player to wait on that thing to just float in there. Oh, I don't know about how it's hard. I don't have the patience for it. Uh so you're so right,

Delegate Instructions And Recall Power

SPEAKER_02 4:37

David. But uh, Tim, you're so right about uh just your last point first, the 38 state thing. I mean, I think people have to realize two big things. Number one, everybody's gonna be watching. I mean, when this thing happens, like the whole world is gonna be watching. Nobody's gonna get to do anything in secret. Nobody's gonna get to just, you know, have some closed door meeting, make a deal, and then suddenly the Constitution Amendment, everything's being watched by everyone. And as you said, Tim, no matter what comes out of that convention, it's gotta go back to the states and and 38 states got to say yes, which means you only need 13 states to say no. It'll be so easy to stop anything bad coming out of the convention. And and I think, David, you touched on this. I mean, most people that are worried about this are worried about integrity and honor. And I think they forget that even the delegations that came to the uh the early Continental Congresses, I mean, some of them were given specific instructions to not do something or to do something. And when things changed and they needed permission to now do what it was they were asked not to do, they went back to their state legislature and said, Can we do this? And the state legislature changed the instructions and let them do that. So I think that's exactly what would happen here. I don't worry about this one. You know, a lot of a lot of our friends that are really, you know, pro-convention of states and want to get these amendments done, they really want to make sure it's a very limited call. I personally don't worry about that at all. I think once you get there, if something else comes out, the 38 state thing is the safety valve. And so I don't sweat it, but I do understand other people sweating it. And so that's why some of our friends, some of our friends in Texas even, they when they passed uh the call for Convention of States, they also passed a delegate, uh, I forget what they call it, um. That's it. Yep, delegate faithful bill. And um so they give them specific instructions and they say if you go outside of this, you have to come to us and get permission or we can recall you. And so I think I think people are really thinking through this. I know all the legislators we work with with our with our pro-family organization, I mean hundreds and hundreds of legislators that we know they they don't do any of this stuff lightly. They think through it, they work through it, um, they're very deliberate. We've even seen the mock convention of states that we we did one here at the campus at Patriot Academy. We did another one out of Colonial Williamsburg, and even when it was fake, when it was only two days, we watched these legislators be so careful, every word, every every comma, everything, be really, really careful about it. So I don't sweat this question, um, I know, but but I do think there's solid, solid safety valves to make sure that nothing's gonna get put into the Constitution, as you said, Tim, unless we the people really want it, because you've got to have those 38 states to to ratify. Great question, though, because I think I think it's great for people to debate and talk about how's this thing gonna work, because it hasn't happened and it needs to happen in order to reign in the federal government. Certainly George Washington and Governor Morse and the rest at the con at the actual constitutional convention, as you said, Tim, this is a convention of states to use the language in the Constitution, but those guys certainly thought it would be a good idea at some point.

Fear Versus Constitutional Checks

SPEAKER_01 7:29

Yeah, and one of the things too, guys, as we talk about this, I understand that there's people that listen that that that uh, you know, they might agree with us and they're like, we agree on 99% of the issues, but this is the one issue I think you guys are wrong. I I I appreciate the fact that there are people that have a disagreement on this. And I would say the reality is we all agree on the problem. We we we agree that we have a federal government's not being responsive. We agree, you know, we can go down the list of the things we agree on. And then I understand why for some people they're like, but I'm so concerned of what might happen. Yes, but if our fear is of what might happen, um, then why do you ever get in a car and drive anywhere? Right? Like, I mean, like if we just think big picture, we can't be motivated by fear, especially when we recognize the founding fathers were brilliant enough to put checks and balances in the midst of even what a convention of states would look like. Because when you have any kind of constitutional amendment, the fact that it has to be um, you know, done by two-thirds and ratified by three-fourths, they put amazing checks and balances to make sure that it was actually reflective of the will of the people and majority. And this doesn't mean that people listening have to agree with our position or agree with everything we think, because guys, all three of us know we disagree internally and even on air sometimes, and that's okay. Um, it's okay to have a disagreement. I would just say that I think a lot of the fears are not as well reasoned or rational as some people think. And I would encourage people um to explore what that is. Now, again, this is not to say you have to agree with us, but and I'm saying that because I I do want to offer an olive branch to someone going, I can't believe you guys are spending so much time talking about this. No, no, no, it's okay that not everybody has to agree on this issue, but I do think if we uh were trying to rationale and reason through this, that a lot of the fears that I've heard expressed from people, I think are alleviated by the checks and balances the founding fathers put in, the amendment process, including even in the Convention of States Amendment process, the fact that it can't be a runaway convention if it's uh embraced by the overwhelming majority of Americans is reflective of the will of the people. And then if the concern is, yeah, but I don't trust the overwhelming majority of American people, well, now we're having a different conversation. And now actually the conversation is is the Constitution supposed to be reflective of we the people and how that process works? Different conversation, but I do think that some of the fears surrounding it should be alleviated as we think through the process of the checks and balances the founding fathers actually put in place.

SPEAKER_00 10:08

And just to point out how well those checks and balances work, more than 10,000 constitutional amendments have been introduced and only 27 have passed. And 10 of those were at one time, and most of the things that were in those 10 weren't really debated by the people. They all wanted freedom of religion. They all wanted freedom of press and due rights and right to confront your accuser and all the things that we see in the Bill of Rights. You've really only had 17 amendments out of the 10,000 that have been introduced that had any significant debate. So, really, the the chances of anything getting passed that does not have significant support from the people, it's just not going to happen.

SPEAKER_02 10:49

Yeah, and I think I think, man, to Tim's point, I I have had the privilege of sitting down with people that we totally agree with on 90% of the issues that are very much against this and and spend hours with good civil discourse. And as I travel the country and talk to a lot of these state legislators that are the decision makers on this, I actually love sitting down with the ones that do disagree on this and having those conversations. That's that's how the process is supposed to work for sure. And uh so yeah, I think it's a great topic for us to discuss. I think people should be willing to talk about it, talk about why the founders were for it, how it would work, what those safety vows would be. Don't take it lightly, uh, but obviously look at the seriousness of the situation and the federal government being completely

Disagree Without Canceling People

SPEAKER_02 11:26

out of control.

SPEAKER_01 11:26

Tim, before we go to break, yeah, and this is one of those topics that along with many, that we should engage in more reasoned conversation, a dialogue. Um, and one of the things that Charlie Kirk was so good at is he said, Hey, you have a microphone, I have a microphone. Let's just talk through this. And I think we need to be careful uh on either side of this issue and many other issues that don't cancel the other side, right? Don't blow them off because well, if you don't agree with me on this, then we can't be friends and we can't talk and blah, blah, blah. Like, okay, that is that is a very bad strategic approach. We need to, Rick, as you said, we need to sit down, let's have longer conversations. And sometimes we don't find agreement at the end of the long conversation, but we don't blow up the relationship and we don't discount. No, no, keep the open conversation, keep the dialogue. Um, and this is one of those areas where I do see conservatives and Christians have great disagreements, and I have a very strong opinion. But in the midst of my strong opinion, I also recognize one of the things the founding fathers agreed on is there also is something that we have to find common ground and continue to work together. Uh, we we can't just find a disagreement and walk away and be done. And by the way, if you feel that, then maybe follow Benjamin Franklin's advice from the Constitutional Convention and maybe just take some time and pray. Uh, because ultimately we need God to be part of this conversation and solution. Um, and we don't need to give up in despair on having conversations and working together with other Christians and conservatives to find common ground, even if you have some pretty strong disagreements on topics like Convention of States.

SPEAKER_02 13:03

Yeah, in fact, let's uh let's go to break with Patrick Henry's words, according to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of the debate. And it's obviously a big subject when we're talking about amending the Constitution. So freedom of the debate is great. And sometimes the debate goes for decades. Let's see, David and I have been debating term limits for what, David, 25 years now, and uh you haven't convinced me, and I haven't convinced you. So see, we have a lot of fun with with these debates. He's convinced all of my kids, they're all on David's side now.

SPEAKER_00 13:28

But Rick, I'm winning. I that they don't have term limits in Congress yet. So my side's winning. And and even the states that put it in are wishing they hadn't done it now. So we haven't had a state pass term limits in several years. I I'm winning, Rick. My side's winning.

SPEAKER_02 13:43

Tortoise in the hair, man. Tortoise in the hair. I'm the I'm the I'm the tortoise. Um it might be like 20, you know, 80, and I'm gonna be 100.

SPEAKER_01 13:53

Well, guys, right now, Dad, just so you know, uh, guys like Mitch McConnell are torpedoing your argument. Nancy Pelosi, Americans see them and they're like, look, even if I didn't want term limits, I see them and I'm like, we need term limits. No, wait a minute. This is a debate that will continue.

SPEAKER_00 14:10

I'm gonna tell you that McConnell and Pelosi are not torpedoing my arguments. They're proving my argument that the people under them are crazy enough to want to keep re-electing them. I'm I put the power in the hands of the people. So if those debate this more on break. My position holds.

SPEAKER_02 14:29

All right, we're going to break. Stay with us, folks. We'll be right back with the term limit debate. No, we're gonna move on to another question. We'll be right back. You're listening to the Wall Boaters Show.

Lives Fortunes And Sacred Honor

SPEAKER_01 14:41

Okay, we want to let you know about a new product we have here at Wall Builders called Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor, the Signers of the Declaration. Like most Americans, you might be someone that you recognize some of the names of the Founding Fathers, but do you know their story? We want to help remedy that. My dad and I have written biographies on all 56 signers of the Declaration to help reintroduce people to the men who literally signed their names on the line for the sake of the nation. When they did this, they knew that they were essentially signing their death warrants. They were risking everything for the hope that they might be able to purchase freedom for the rising generation with their lives, their fortunes, and sacred honors. In spite of the hardship that every one of them endured, none of them recanted or backed away. Now, if you don't know their story, you can get to know all 56 of them. Go to wallbuilders.com and look for the book Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor, the signers of the Declaration.

SPEAKER_02 15:44

Welcome back to the Wall Builder Show. Uh, it's Rick Green and Tim Barton. We turned off David's mic so that he couldn't win anybody else over on his argument against Termos.

Peyton Randolph’s Quiet Leadership

SPEAKER_02 15:53

All right. Uh, seriously, guys, we got uh, let's see, this one's from Catherine. She said, We love and appreciate you all, and thank you for bringing truth to all that listen by highlighting the facts about America's founding. Recently, in honor of the 250th, we traveled to D.C., to Williamsburg, and more places tracing the founding fathers' footsteps, and we learned about a man named Peyton Randolph. We were told by some historical actors at Williamsburg that Peyton was from a loyalist family, but became a patriot, and then was going to be presiding over the Continental Congress instead of Hancock when he unfortunately died. Apparently, he was very instrumental in bringing independence to our country. What more can you tell us about this man and does he deserve to have his story told? Has he just been forgotten or overlooked? Thank you for any help you can offer into this mystery about Peyton Randolph. Catherine, thank you for sending the question in and thank you for going with your family and tracing the footsteps of the Founding Fathers. Such an exciting thing to do, and what a great year to do that in the 250th. What do you think, guys? Peyton Randolph.

SPEAKER_00 16:46

Peyton Randolph is a really key influential figure. He is the president of the First Continental Congress, 1774. He is from Virginia. He was a loyalist. Uh, he was I I'm gonna call him a moderate. He wasn't a flaming patriot, and he wasn't an arc anti-patriot. He was a freedom-loving guy. He wanted to be really sure before any significant changes were made. He listened to the arguments of liberty, he supported liberty. He wasn't sure about overthrowing the crown. But then again, a lot of the Second Continental Congress that voted for the declaration even a month before wasn't sure about overthrowing the crown. So they they were very modulated in their debates and getting into it. He was a very reasonable guy, being wealthy as he was. He was part of that loyalist. Uh, a lot of the loyalists in Virginia tended to be uh wealthy folks. They had a lot to lose. They it wasn't like the farmers and others. They were the business owners or they were the landed people, the the kind of lords and nobles, if you will, uh, of that area. So Peyton Randolph, really good guy. He's a God-fearing guy. He's a strong Anglican, um, and and he was respected by the others, which it's interesting that it was all the states that chose him to be the president of the Continental Congress. That means it's Massachusetts and it's Georgia and it's North Carolina, it's all the others, and they say, hey, we recognize a stable hand in this guy. He's not radical one way or the other. He would probably be a good guide for our arguments, but he was getting on in years and own in health. And so as it came time for the second Continental Congress and they looked at him going back, they recognized that, you know, his health may not be such that allows him to go back. So just in case he can't make it, we need to have somebody there to represent us. And they chose Thomas Jefferson as a potential replacement. So Jefferson kind of went as reserve. If Peyton Randolph shows up, uh Jefferson's not needed. If Peyton Randolph doesn't show up, then Jefferson will be the delegate. And as it turned out, Peyton Randolph's health did not let him show up. So Jefferson was there. What a brilliant choice that was. I I don't know that things would have turned out the same if anybody else had been asked to to lead the committee to write the the declaration. I mean, what what Jefferson did, 2,000 words in the original draft, and 75% of what he wrote was retained unchanged. That's unbelievable when you get several dozen guys in a room and they leave that much there. And the way he expressed the ideas, the so much of the language that he put there that we still love today as part of that seminal language on the principles and rights came from Jefferson. And that was all as a replacement for Peyton Randolph. So Peyton Randolph is a really significant guy. He was a very balanced hand. And again, he kept the tone right moving into the second continental Congress where the declaration is done. The Second Continental Congress was kind of the second term of the Second Continental Congress. It was really the third meeting of Congress when they wrote the declaration, but it's called the Second Continental Congress. And so that transition from Peyton Randolph to Jefferson was really cool. But I think that had they not had a Peyton Randolph at the beginning, it could have gone in a very different direction. If they'd had a firebrand or if they'd had a hardcore loyalist, it would have polarized the convention. And as it was, they all kind of moved as a body and they kind of evolved in their thinking and went from, I don't think we should separate to well, maybe we should separate to yes, we should separate. So Peyton Randolph was key in all of that.

SPEAKER_01 20:13

Well, and dad, the cool connections to some of the stories that we tell is that like the first prayer in Congress, where uh when when Congress first meet, it's September 5th. Um, they meet later in the day and is the the very first time the founding fathers ever met each other. Uh the the guys from Virginia, for example, have never met the guy, like George Washington, Patrick Henry, they'd never met John Adams and Sam Adams. But that first meeting, September 5th, they only do really two things. They choose a president, Peyton Randolph, um, to be over the uh this Congress, and then they set the rules of Congress. But the next morning is when they start the business. And the first motion made on the first day was made by Thomas Cushing. They open with prayer. And this this is when the prayer in Congress unfolds. What's cool is Peyton Randolph is the president of Congress during the first prayer in Congress. That's super cool. Well, then Peyton Randolph is also the guy who doesn't end up showing up to the second continental Congress. Jefferson's his replacement, and his replacement's the one that writes a declaration. So Peyton Randolph, to your point, Dad, is very connected in these stories. But seeing like even some of the bigger picture, where some of the things, the stories that we've told many times, like the first prayer in Congress, Peyton Randolph was that president presiding over Congress when that first prayer happened. So he's certainly a name that should be remembered. Um, but he probably is more famous for some of the things that happened during his tenure or the fact that he wasn't able to go that next time and Jefferson replaced him. Um but again, certainly a name that should be remembered.

SPEAKER_02 21:42

Catherine, thanks so much for the question. Ironically, I think that was when I first learned about Peyton Randolph was at Colonial Williamsburg. So appreciate you sending that in and uh and for the incredible travels you're doing with your family. All right, guys, let's try to

Abortion Abolition And Incremental Wins

SPEAKER_02 21:54

get one more in. Caleb sends this one in from Missouri. He said, I'm a youth pastor in Missouri, and I'm wondering what is the perspective? Perspective of law builders on abortion. Abolition or pro-life? How should Christians navigate the debate? There seems to be growing support for it, including organizations like Abolitionist Rising. If that is the ultimate goal, why is that not how many Christians perceive abortion? Thank you for your time. God bless. Okay, you know, we always uh make make sure we uh acknowledge or reject the presumption in the question. So I do think saying abolition or pro-life might be a little bit of a presumption we might not agree with. I think you can be pro-life and not necessarily believe that you have to get it all at once and and incrementalism is okay. Absolutely love the fact that we have abolitionists out there. We support a total abolition, but there is a sometimes a strategy of taking less than everything that you can get if you can't get the votes. Okay, that's my two cents. What do you guys think?

SPEAKER_01 22:46

Yeah, Rick, I totally agree with already the starting place. So for those listening, if you're not familiar, um, an abolitionist is someone who says end all abortion and anything other than a total end, a total abolition of abortion is not right. It's not godly, it's not pro-life. And not everybody takes like the extreme position that, like, if you don't support this, you're not godly. But that's not an uncommon position. If you're an abolitionist, um, then you're like, hey, either in this whole thing now or you're totally wrong. Uh, on the other side, and this is where there's um the contrast that was showed even the question, are you an abolitionist or are you pro-life? Well, it's it's suggesting that a pro-liper isn't necessarily in favor of the total abolition of abortion. Um, and and uh, although it's fair to say there might be some um people that support um what they would consider a pro-life position in some areas and not all, I would think that's totally wrong. If you're not in favor of defending life at every stage, um, then I would contend you're probably not pro-life. With that being said, and Rick, you alluded to this. One of the things that we point to is in Solomon, one of the pieces of wisdom that you gain from Ecclesiastes, uh, when Solomon writes that is that you cast your bread upon many waters, not knowing from which it returns. And we have no problem with some someone saying, like in state legislation, for example, saying, hey, let's introduce a bill to ban all abortion in our state, no mail-in drugs, no different crystal, whatever else. We support that piece of legislation. We also support in states where they're like, hey, right now, abortions legal up through right the ninth month. Let's do a 20-week ban. Anything we do to preserve more life, we are in favor of. And Dad, I know we're running out of time, so I won't keep going, although I could. What are your thoughts on this?

SPEAKER_00 24:30

Well, I look at what God told Moses. They're they're going into the promised land and it's full of Canaanites and all sorts of pagan practices. And God specifically told them in Exodus 23, verses 29 and 30 in Deuteronomy 7.22, he says, I'm going to give you the land, but I will not give it to you all at once. He said, I will give it to you only little by little. And that's the way so many cultural issues go. John Quincy Adams was an abolitionist, but he was willing to take every 3%, every 7%, every 8%, every 2% he could get. It's not one or the other. Although he was surrounded by people who said, No, if you don't do 100%, that's compromise. I won't compromise. And so they got 0%. You look for progress anywhere you can get it, and you add that 2% to 8%. Now you got 10%, get another 3.5%, you just keep going. But I think that that passage that God gave Moses is the key to it. I'm an abolitionist, but I'm going to take every victory I can get, no matter how small it is, too.

SPEAKER_01 25:25

Yeah, and yeah, that doesn't mean that we don't try for abolition right away. Um, but it does mean that again, like this idea of casting your bread upon many waters, we encourage state legislators and our state legislative network, we work with an awful lot of people with views across the board. And some are like, hey, I want to do a 12-week abortion mail. We're like, man, that's great, do it. And some people are like, hey, we want to abolish abortion right now. And we're like, that's great, do it. Some people are like, man, we want to pass laws to be able to charge these drug companies that are mailing in Mifepristone. And we're like, man, that's great, do it. Whatever steps we can take, we support because ultimately we want to end abortion. We believe that God is the author and giver of life, that life should be valued. So I don't think necessarily that's pro-life or abolitionist. Um, I think sometimes abolitionists would argue that if if you don't support a total ban right now, you're not pro-life. I would disagree with that a little bit. I am in favor of ending all abortion. And if we can do it right now, awesome. If not, let's take what steps we can take right now so that we can end abortion in the future.

SPEAKER_02 26:30

Well said, fellas. All right, we're out of time.

Final Takeaways And Next Questions

SPEAKER_02 26:32

Last question for today, uh, to a good one to end on. I encourage people to send in more questions for us for next week. Send those to radiowobblers.com. Don't miss tomorrow. We've got a lot of good news coming your way on Good News Friday. You've been listening to the Wobbler Show.