Foundations Of Freedom Setup

SPEAKER_00 0:07

It's Foundations of Freedom Thursday on the Wall Builder Show. Welcome to the Intersection of Faith and Culture. Glad to have you with us. Rick Green here with David Barton and Tim Barton. This is the day where we take on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective, but you pick the topics. So send those questions in to radio at wallbuilders.com, radio at wallbuilders.com, and we're going to just jump right

Can Socialists Run For Office

SPEAKER_00 0:28

in. Pastor Jim has the first question. He said, How can any Democrat socialist candidate legally run for office in the United States? By platform and ideology, the Democrat Socialists adhere to a form of government that does not at all align with our national or state constitutions. How is it legal for Democrat socialists to run for office, let alone be elected, when they reject our constitution, our bill of rights and laws, and want to replace it with a totally different form of government? Well, David Tim, first of all, I'm just glad a pastor, Pastor Jim, is thinking about these kind of things. So this is a great question to ask.

SPEAKER_01 1:02

It is a great question, and man, I wish I wish there were a good answer to it, but there's not. So let me take you back to the slavery days when the state constitutions prohibited slavery. They absolutely forbid slavery that did not keep a pro-slavery person from running for office and getting elected and then getting in the legislature trying to overturn the anti-slavery laws. And that's the issue you always have. And I don't know of a single state constitution anywhere in the United States that prohibits socialism. It just doesn't. Now, it may prohibit the way you tax or spend money, but there's nothing that prohibits that philosophy per se.

SPEAKER_02 1:39

Hey, one thing too, guys, is as you look at um the thought of socialism, uh there's an interesting overlap, as obviously we know with communism, but there was a law passed that prevented communists from holding office. And I'm trying to think if that was 1950s, 1960s, one of y'all might remember that better than I do. But what ultimately uh what where it is now is essentially um judges have identified that's not really enforceable, that that you can't um prevent somebody that has their expression of belief. And you know, under First Amendment, it doesn't really say belief, but it says uh religion and freedom of speech, and they kind of lump in the communism thought to that and saying, well, see, you can't really prevent uh a communist from being elected, even though that's literally a law. Uh and guys, one of y'all might remember and I I would have to go back and look it up. And I'm currently sitting in a uh rental car right now as we're having this conversation, so I can't look that up at the moment. But guys, one thing to point out too, remember that there was a law, and I don't remember it was the 1950s, 1960s. One of y'all might remember off the top of your head, uh, we often have to record from different locations, guys. And this is just this is part of our life. From wherever we are, we jump on and do this episode together. Um, but uh all that to say, I don't have a way to look it up at the moment. However, my recollection is the 1950s, 1960s, somewhere in there, there was a law that was passed against communism. And essentially, uh, current judges have said that's not really enforceable in the sense of uh you could not hold office if you were communist, right? Communists could not hold office in America, and I'm saying that because socialism and communism, uh, they're basically uh siblings, if not twin sisters, um, not identical, but almost identical and certainly what it produces. And the the reason I say that is even though there have been times we've passed laws saying, hey, you know, you can't right, you can't be a communist in all office in America, or in this case, maybe you can't be a Democrat socialist in all office in America. If if the the number one thing you hate is the U.S. Constitution, we're probably not the nation for you, but Dad, to your point, one of the things that was long understood is you don't have to ideologically believe exactly the same thing to run for office or to try to change the laws of the nation. And that's where there is a challenge. Um, it it's one of the dangers of freedom. The founding fathers understood and talked about this well and often, that when you give freedom, freedom only works if you have the right moral underpinnings, if you have the right education system in place. Because once you fail to educate, once you remove the morals, that leads to a breakdown in society and ultimately uh politically of the nation, you can kind of go down the list where that trickles down. But I think this is one of the challenges today, is we recognize what the detrimental impact, the outcome would be of communism or socialism in the nation. And that is completely correct that we should be opposing this because it is detrimental and awful. But constitutionally, do people have the right, the freedom, the privilege to do awful detrimental things? And I think you'd have to argue and say, Well, I I think probably they do. Um, but where do we draw the line? That's a different conversation, but I I do think it is one of the challenges. The founding fathers left far more freedom and flexibility than what most of us uh would appreciate. And the founding fathers honestly never thought we'd come to the place that we would be this dumb. Uh, shock and surprise for them. We are, and here we are. Uh, so it's it's a a new problem in many ways from what they would have imagined, and it's a reflection of a lot of the breakdown. So I don't think legally, even though we've tried to pass laws saying no communism and socialism, I don't think legally you can enforce those today, um, even though uh they should be enforced, and I wish we did. So I I dad, to your point, you know, even if we had a law in place and I wish there was, I don't know that it would be upheld by current judges who would say, well, the First Amendment gives you the freedom of belief and expression, et cetera. So I think it would create a lot of challenges that probably wouldn't solve all the problems we want it to solve.

SPEAKER_01 5:56

See, this is exactly why Washington in his farewell address said that it has to be built on religion and morality, because that is a self-enforcement mechanism. That's what limits yourself. That's the kind of stuff that's gonna help you think right, act right, behave right, et cetera. And that goes back to the voters. And Pastor Jim, I am so glad you asked the question. But this goes back on the voters. If the voters want somebody stupid and dumb, they're gonna choose somebody stupid and dumb. If the voters are educated enough to say, hey, that's suicide to the nation. I'm not gonna help the nation commit suicide. That's on the voters to do. And that's why we have to teach the voters about religion and morality as the basis of all this. Because if you don't understand love your neighbor like you love yourself and all the things with the golden rule, then we're gonna get people in there that are gonna be selfish and self-centered, who are anarchists, who want to overthrow this, who want to, you know, give themselves breaks they don't want to give the people. It comes back to really us instilling religion and morality throughout the nation. And then you can vote this kind of stuff in. And Tim, what you mentioned, I mean, this is a problem because the Constitution does give you rights of association, and that's part of the First Amendment, there's a right of association. And so if these guys want to be associated and they're not actively taking a hand in overthrowing the nation uh in in an actual definition of treason, even though we might say what they are saying is treason us, if they're not actively engaging in treason, the courts aren't going to throw them out. And that was part of the enforcement mechanism with with eliminating communism is well, they lean communist or they're 20% communist or they're 90% common. You just never could draw a line on how to enforce that, which is a difficulty. So great question, Pastor Jim. Uh, but it does it does come back to us instilling religion morality in the voters. There's just not a way to keep these guys out of office unless the voters themselves choose to keep them out. You you can't force people through law to do what's right if the heart's not.

SPEAKER_00 7:56

Yeah, you guys absolutely absolutely nailed it. And sorry for the background noise to our audience. I'm not in an airport like Tim's in a rental car place, so we're uh on the road, as he said this, our life, but uh you nailed it. And and and it it does come down to you know what our education system teaches, what are the values that our people hold. Because Tim, you you you were spot on too. There were several laws back in, I think, 50s and 60s, and even before that in the 40s, and it was all about the Communist Party of the United States and preventing them from holding office, and the Supreme Court, you know, struck all that down and it all became obsolete. And the only thing that that I remember that that, you know, even to this day, you can kind of enforce is the what we call the Bradenberg test. And that was a case with a KKK guy that uh or a response to the KKK where a guy had said something that could have incited violence, but it really wasn't like an imminent inciting of violence. And that's essentially what the court said. And the reason I went that kept commenting on this, guys, is because this is gonna also carry over not just communists and socialists, but on the Islam thing. Like this is gonna be a really important debate over the next few years. What goes too far? And is there anything that we can outlaw or what are the things that state legislatures and the and the Congress can do? So I'm sure we're gonna get more questions on this very topic, you know, over the next couple of years, specifically because of the threats that we're genuinely facing. But I think you you're what you said, Tim, I I don't I don't know if I'll paraphrase you correctly, but basically it's one of the costs of freedom. You know, this is this is how a free society works, and if we don't educate our people better, we run uh the risk of of losing the whole system. So again, thank you, Pastor Jim. Thank you so much as a pastor for thinking about these things and for sending in that question. Okay, let's try another one before

Can A Convention Go Off Script

SPEAKER_00 9:32

we go to break, guys. So this next one comes from Robert, and he said, I've been watching Biblical Citizenship in Modern America. I know that the Constitution can be amended and that there's 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 that same meeting? For example, if there's a proposed amendment for a balanced budget during the convention, can someone bring up an amendment to try to repeal part of or all of the second amendment? Thanks for your time. Robert, thanks for sending in the question. Uh David Tim, of course, I got strong feelings on this one and answers, but you guys go ahead first.

SPEAKER_01 10:03

Well, first off, uh, I mean, the answer is you can't limit it. Um that they that was the original constitutional convention as they were sent there to revise the Articles of Confederation. Once they got there, they said, eh, that's not working out. Hey, let's do something different. Now, this is one of the debates that happens today over the proposals to have a a kind of constitutional commitment to to put a balanced budget amendment or whatever. And states are saying, well, we can help this by doing a delegate enforcement act that says if you do anything other than what we sent you there to do, we're going to remove you. And that did happen with some of the states at the constitutional convention, where their delegates got into stuff and they said, nope, you're coming back home, we're sending different delegates, or where they refused to do what they were sent to do there for. So it really falls back to the states to be able to control some of that. But once they get in a convention, if they get the the necessary numbers uh to be able to pass something that goes forward and it's not legally blocked, then yeah, uh it can go into all sorts of areas. So that's why, again, states are doing delegate faithfulness acts right now where they're worried about maybe this thing gets out of hand or it gets out of control or they do stuff they're not we didn't send them there to do. And that's kind of the security that's out there for for some of those states. But answer to the question is no, if you have limitations when you send them there, that doesn't mean they have to abide by those limitations unless you, the states, want to enforce that and bring them home and send somebody else to do it.

SPEAKER_00 11:25

Well, as well, so why it's so important to remember that it's a it's a suggestion convention. It's not a there's nothing in that convention that happens that actually goes into the constitution. They're literally just getting together to make suggestions to send to this back to the state legislatures for actual ratification, which takes 38 states. So really, really important for for people to remember that. And then of course, um, you know, this is hotly debated among constitutional scholars. About half of them think you can limit, the other half think you can't. I'm with David on this. I think there's really no provision for limiting, other than limiting the what you can tell your particular delegates or commissioners uh what they can do, and you can recall them, but I don't think you can run roughshod over the convention itself. And and I will uh Robert had a phrase in there. He said constitutional convention. The original convention was a constitutional convention. I used to make this this mistake and call a convention of states a constitutional convention, it's not, it's a convention of the states for amending the current constitution. That's a really important distinction. Tim?

SPEAKER_02 12:22

Well, yeah, one of the things uh too that dad you said I might have a slight disagreement with. Um when the founding fathers met, I don't think, and and and you might not uh even agree uh with my contrast, like you might agree with me and be like, yeah, it's not what I meant. But uh I don't think all the founding fathers showed up thinking they were going to amend the Articles of Confederation. I think there are many that showed up thinking, no, we need a brand new document, we have to do something different. Uh and so I don't think they were just showing up to amend the articles. Uh, it's why many of them had draft proposals um and different models of what they wanted, and it wasn't the Articles of Confederation. But I say that to clarify because some people go, Well, what if they show up to do a constitution, then we get an entirely new constitution? Well, that's not what a Article V Convention of States does. Um, they they propose amendments now. If one of the amendments was to abolish the constitution and give us a brand new one, could that be an amendment? Well, yeah, that actually could, but it has to, Rick, as you mentioned, go through 38 states to approve of it, and that's the legislative uh chambers in those states. So it has to be bicameral in those states, so their house and senate from those state legislators have to approve of what happens. So so even then, like the likelihood this happens against the will of the people is like zero. The the Article 5 Convention of States could only do something that's a reflection of what the people want because the people have to approve it in their states through their state legislative bodies. Um, but even to the idea of could it be an open convention, could it be limited? Um, the reason that there's debate among scholars is because it's never happened. We don't actually know how it would or wouldn't go directly. Although, Rick, you've done some amazing things where you have uh done some mock conventions down at Patriot Academy to let people come and see what might this look like. How how could it go? So you've done a little war gaming, so to speak, with this, but it there's a lot of a lot of unknowns because it's it's a it's a tool in the toolbox, it has not ever been fully utilized. But uh, Rick, as you have become a very loud advocate, as our friend Mark Meckler has become a very loud advocate. This is becoming a tool that we need to be far more serious about should this be utilized, uh, and then how do we utilize it? So I think there are some unknowns, but I do think there's a lot of reasons that people that are are generally concerned and fearful that this might overturn or overthrow the constitution. The founding fathers put amazing checks and balances in place. And when you have to have three-fourths of the state uh to ratify any of the amendments that come forward, it then is not a runaway convention, it's a reflection of we the people, because the overwhelming majority of Americans, through their state legislative bodies, would have to support anything coming forward. So definitely some unknowns, but really good checks and balances put in place. And it's a a tool that's been in the toolbox that's never really been used that maybe we need to explore how we can use this tool and is now the time to use it.

SPEAKER_01 15:25

And Tim, I would agree with your distinction. Uh, the states that send them said, hey, go go revise the articles, and the delegates that arrived said, hey, we've got an idea for a new proposal here. So I think that distinction is exactly historically accurate. And the other thing is I I just, you know, where I am and looking politically, we can't even get 34 states right now to agree on a balanced budget amendment to balance the budget because ever since FDR, they've taught this modern economic theory that debt is what stimulates growth. And the greater the debt, the greater the government's going to spend, and the more growth you have. And so even something as simple as, hey, don't spend more than you have, don't go into debt, we can't even get agreement in 38 states on that. So I I I would love to see some, you know, some good changes made. But man, this is an uphill battle, and I think everybody acknowledges that. So it's nothing that that gives me any pause as you guys have already talked about. 38 states have to agree to it. That's that's a really high threshold. Um, but uh enough said, I'm just repeating what you guys have already said and totally agree with.

SPEAKER_00 16:29

Yeah, it's uh it's a it's definitely needed to be done. It's very difficult to do, and there's lots of safeguards there to make sure that it's done, as you said, based on the on the will of the people. Quick break, guys.

Break And Jefferson Draft Resource

SPEAKER_00 16:39

We'll be back in a moment. We got more questions when we return. You're listening to the Wall Builder Show.

SPEAKER_02 16:47

Hey guys, this is Tim Barton from Wall Builders. I want to let you know about a new resource that should be a tool in your toolbox. This is the reprint of Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence. Now, there's lots of reasons it would be cool to own a reprint like this, but one of the things that I want to highlight is not only is this a reprint that is in Thomas Jefferson's own hand in cursive, it shows some of his edits along the way, which is really fun, but it also shows what Thomas Jefferson thought was the most significant grievance in the original draft. It's the longest grievance, it's the last grievance. It was a grievance against the slave trade, arguing actually also against slavery, and arguing for the humanity of all that were in slaves. Thomas Jefferson thought that was the most important. Now, it didn't make it the final draft, and we will explain why in the resource packet you get when you order one of these copies. But friends, this is something that you want in your collection. Go to wallbuilders.com and look for Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence. This is Tim Barton from Wall Builders with another moment from American history. Alexia Togeville, a political official from France, traveled to the United States in 1831 and penned his observations in the now famous book Democracy in America. Being from France, what he found in America was completely unexpected to him. He reported, upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. And the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this. In France, I'd almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America, I found that they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. De Tocqueville recognized that it was biblical Christianity and the morals it produced that made America great. For more information about Alexei de Tocqueville and the positive influence of Christianity in early America, go to wallbuilders.com.

Can A President Demote The Chief

SPEAKER_00 18:48

Welcome back to the Wall Builder Show. Thanks for staying with us. Foundations of Freedom Thursday today. Next question up is from uh Brenton. He said, regarding the selection of Chief Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, is there anything stopping a president or Congress from changing who the current Supreme Court justice is? Meaning, couldn't they vote or decide to demote Roberts to an associate justice and have one other justice be Chief Justice? Outside of the Chief Justice presiding over impeachments and how justices are nominated, the Constitution doesn't specifically say how a Chief Justice has to be determined or selected. And under our current political circumstances, it would be a perfect time to make one of the other associate justices Chief Justice and send a strong message about usurping Supreme Court power and altering or rewriting legislation the way Roberts did with his birthright citizenship ruling. Getting tired of the wild card he's become and how unpredictable and impulsive he can be. Interesting question, guys. What do you think?

SPEAKER_01 19:40

Well, this would go back to the president. The president's the one who determines the chief justice, but what happens is if you demote him, you don't change anything. We're assuming that the Chief Justice has more power than uh than any other justice, and really the only thing the Chief Justice does outside of the other justices is he can decide who's going to write the opinion. It does not change the vote. It does not change a single vote anywhere. It just might say, hey, uh Leto, you write the opinion rather than Gorsuch or rather than than whoever else, rather than Clarence. Um that's the biggest thing that he does. They all vote on what which cases they want to accept. They all vote on uh on what they think about that case if they do accept it. They all participate in the arguments all the way through. He is nothing more than one out of nine votes throughout the entire process, except he will get to help set the calendar a little bit. He helps he uh he helps decide who's gonna write the final decision. So he doesn't have any more influence than anybody else except in that, because even if he chose somebody to write their opinion, the other guys are gonna write concurring opinions or dissenting opinions or whatever their opinions are. He did he can't stop anybody from expressing their will, and he can't stop anybody from gathering with others to vote something in 5'4, 6, 3, or 7, 2, or whatever. So and I would have to say on top of that, well, I I would I would classify Roberts more as a conservative moderate. I mean, he's a moderate, but he comes down with us maybe 60, 65 percent of the time. Um and that's better than than we have on the court because you got three on the court. There's one that's probably uh a 50 percent, 55 percent on the Democrat side. The other two are probably five percenters. Uh and so just he kind of represents kind of what's there. We've got some Republicans that are not particularly conservative. Gorsuch can leave the reservation occasionally, um, and and and so can uh Barrett. She that I think she's becoming more conservative, but she leaves the reservation occasionally. So changing the Chief Justice or doing something different there is not going to make a difference in any of the decisions or any of the operation of the court, in my opinion. Rick, Tim?

SPEAKER_02 21:53

The other thing to think about, too, guys, I I think that I would add to this is the reality now that you mentioned. Not only is it not going to change much, but also you would then highly politicize that position that then every president that comes in is going to want to reassign who the chief justice is. And so one of the concerns that we have seen from Supreme Court uh justice in general is that they're they're trying to show that they're not a partisan branch, um, that you know they want to be independent, even though we know constitutionally there's there's more to it than that. But I I think changing the Supreme Court justice doesn't have that much impact, number one, but then number two, it just politicizes the Supreme Court. And I think the more you politicize the Supreme Court, the more it strengthens uh the case when people say, well, let's put more justices on there because they recognize this is just one more political branch or political operation for their end game. So I I don't think it has a positive impact we would like for it to, but partly because there's limited power of what the Supreme Court justice, Chief Justice actually does. And and then we don't want to hyper politicize something that should just be basic constitutional uphol.

SPEAKER_00 23:02

I guess we got time for one more.

How Accurate Is 1776

SPEAKER_00 23:04

This one comes from Tim. He said, not our Tim, another Tim, wrote in and said, uh, what do you think about the 1776 musical? Is it fairly accurate historically? What do you guys think?

SPEAKER_01 23:15

Uh Tim will love this one. Uh, this is in your will. I got my opinion. Tim, you go for it.

SPEAKER_02 23:21

Uh yeah, it's you know, like like any of the historic things we look at. Um, there's some things that are good. There's some things that are not all that accurate. Uh, there's definitely some fun songs and fun moments. The one thing that I appreciate probably the most about it is that it does highlight uh Thomas Jefferson's original draft where he had the very long grievance against the slave trade and slavery. It shows Jefferson being very bothered by that. It also does show John Adams um being the very aggressive individual and Franklin um being the voice of reason at times. So it does do an accurate representation in some areas. Um, obviously, they make it fun. It's a musical, they have some comedy tone in there. But I think if you know the story in details, it actually does a fun and fair representation of some of the characteristics of some of the personality. Um it certainly takes some uh liberties in places. Um, but that's why we have books like The American Story, the beginnings, uh to highlight and cover some of them. It's also why we wrote Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor. So you could have a little bit of a deeper dive on each one of the signers of the declaration and get to know them a little bit better. But as far as the musical, a little bit like the Patriot, it's it's fun, it's entertaining, it's really good in some tone areas, but it's not the most historically accurate uh about every individual involved.

SPEAKER_01 24:44

You know, what I liked about it was it actually brought out a whole lot of founding fathers that most people have never heard of before. And it brought some of those guys out and you learned something about them. And it was, you know, Tim, as you said, it was fairly accurate on some of their characters and the tones and and the traits and the quirks that some of those characters had. And it would take some of the quirks and kind of blow them up, and that became the characteristic of that particular founder. So it's fun in the sense that you you really get exposed to a whole lot more founding fathers than most people know, and names that they probably haven't heard, second, third tier kind of founding fathers today, although they were first tier back then. So I think it's fun from that standpoint, and it is an overall fun tone movie. It's an enjoyable movie. If you're trying to look for quotes for it and make that a footnote in a research paper, that's not going to work. But if you're looking, even like the young Washington, we talked about how good the tone was on that, you can't go through and footnote everything that they did and said that's exactly what he said and how they said it. But I think it's a great tone piece, and it is a fun piece. It's a lighthearted kind of humor piece, and they do have some good music in it, no question.

SPEAKER_00 25:51

Okay, then you guys have 30 seconds each to apply the same question to Hamilton. Go for it.

SPEAKER_01 25:57

Oh my, I I I confess I have not seen Hamilton. I did not see the play. I was in New York when they were doing it, but I never saw it.

SPEAKER_02 26:04

Well, I'm less positive about Hamilton. Um, you definitely can tell there's different writers uh because the tone of 1776 is far different than the tone of Hamilton. So I am more of a 1776 and Hamilton guy, even though the modern gym would tell me the music is way better in Hamilton. Uh that's that's not where my support goes.

SPEAKER_00 26:25

Well, we took all the scholars to see it just a few weeks ago. They enjoyed it. Of course, we laughed about a lot of it not being historically accurate, but it was still fun to watch. And just like you said, David, it got people thinking about some of the founding fathers they had never heard of before. So that was really cool. All right, out of time for

Quick Take On Hamilton Closing

SPEAKER_00 26:40

Foundations of Freedom Thursday today. Thanks for listening to the Wall Boulder Show.