Historical debates that shaped the Constitution

0:00Good day listeners and welcome to Don't And Bive the Kool-Aid Kim Kennedy here, your host for today's program. And as always, as I say, we're so glad you joined us. And today I am really delighted to welcome Ash Hunter, a local historian, longtime history teacher who's very knowledgeable and why some some people are knowledgeable and are foolish. Aren't you know what I'm talking about? But yeah, he's laughing at agreement. But to with a celebrating Constitution Day, we want to talk about this great document and the uniqueness of it. It's really truly is one of a kind and we want to talk about what the foundation of it is, what the people who wrote it, what were their primary documents that they used the

1:02reason and come up with these ideas throughout human history arch. We see that history was governments were mostly top down, yes? Yes, correct. Yep. And from there, we saw lots of abuses, lots of wars, lots of suffering, lots of, you know, just misery, whereas in our unique form of government, we had our problems for sure and have them, but quite a different result with the constitutional republic. Can you tell us in the background, after the revolution ended and we needed a new form of government, give us some of the background of that. Well, first of all, let me first can say that our revolution was the first revolution in the history of the world that ended up being successful for what it was fought for and that self-government. And when the revolution was over and the peace treaty in Paris was signed in 1783, the

2:08British were absolutely convinced, Kim, that within eight to ten years, we would fail as a nation. And we would beg to come back and be part of the Commonwealth of Great Britain. Fortunately, because of our founding fathers and the wisdom that they had, that prophecy was wrong and it failed. And now our constitution is the longest surviving constitution in the world with all the years. So because of the wisdom of our founding fathers, after the revolution was over, we went through that short period of time where what governed us was the articles of Confederation. And the articles of Confederation was really 13 different governments. We were loosely connected in the Confederation of states.

3:09And it wasn't long that our founding fathers realized that that was not going to be successful as a government. We can't have 13 different constitutions in 13 little countries and be a United States. So because of Shays Rebellion and they are founders realized that something else had to be done. So they called for a constitutional convention. At first of all, there was a convention that was called in Maryland, in Apples. And they realized that probably the articles of Confederation needed to be amended to have a central government that was strong enough to govern. But a government that was weak enough to allowing individuals to have as much freedom that we possibly could and give the majority of the governing to the states.

4:11So that's what really came, that gets us to the constitutional convention of 1787. That was not an event that was all peachy keen, smooth sailing. No, there was actually, it was a hotly debated convention. There was many people who decided to walk out and they were going to have anything to do with it. There was no countdown, dragout arguments. There were several times where the convention almost just abruptly stopped and everybody would go home. And it was hours and days and days and days of the founders getting together who finally created this wonderful document that we now know is the Constitution. And even many of our well-known founding fathers were very suspect that this was a

5:16ruse, that the constitutional convention was a ruse. Patrick Henry did not come. He believed that the articles Confederation was strong enough. So Patrick Henry avoided and protested this constitutional convention and did not come. And a few of our other founders did not come either. And eventually, even George Mason, who was one of our very ardent, adamant believers in the Bill of Rights and rights, did not, did not, was not happy with it and was not signed with it. And actually, when he came, he wrote a son that he was happy to come. When the document was finally written, he wrote to a son again. He said he wish he could cuddle his right arm off because he didn't want to sign this document. So we have a long, hotly debated, long summer of many of our founders who were very suspect

6:22to the constitutional convention did not particularly like the Constitution. And so as time went on, they began to realize that this document was the miracle and filled off in 1787. Truly. I'm aware of some of the differences. I don't know if the differences are regional or if it's a belief system, I know Patrick Henry, been assisted on the Bill of Rights along with some others. And we're thankful that he did. We have to, my understanding are, are just that we have to understand what it was like to be a Christian in Europe in the 14, 15, 16, 17th century. It's kind of like Nigeria and Iran today where there's a serious price to pay. And for many it was your life and torture and other horrific things. So they were very, very, very much aware of wanting to protect religious liberty.

7:22And they wanted the state out of the church, not as it was reversed later the church out of the state. No, no, no, no, they wanted the state out of the church. What other difference do you have to correct me in any area and what other differences contributed to the turmoil? Well, it was the idea of should the large states have the same power as the small states? Should the small states have the right to have the same power as the large states? And so there was that major argument about how can the small states like Rhode Island and Delaware and Connecticut, how could they have a powerful voice in our government, the same as Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia economically. How could some of these states who are well off economically, how could they burden some of the taxing responsibilities of the government where the smaller states were not able to

8:26physically do that? So there was, there was many different ideas of the large states didn't want the small states that had the same amount of power. And the small states didn't want the large states that have the same amount of executive power. But there was that long term ongoing battle between the large states and the small states, the economic advantages of the large states and the small states. And even eventually, even the whole issue of the slave issue with states that held the slavery and states like Pennsylvania who were beginning to abolish the slave trade and slavery altogether. There was many, many different issues that our founders had to come to grips on to come to the point where they could have a government that was strong enough and powerful enough to

9:28protect its citizens, but also small enough to give the states and the citizens as many protective rights as possibly they could have. Okay, that's a great explanation and it helps us understand. I'm thinking as you talked it, is that the reason for or help develop the idea of the electoral college because of those concerns? That was one of the reasons for the electoral college. The other reason was because of the travel issues and the communication issues at the time. You know, back in, in our beginning of our country, an election might have gone on for five or six weeks because of the communication and the lack of travel back and forth. So it was a lot easier for to have an electoral college system put in to for that, but also because of the balance of powers. They keep the balance of power between different states on equal plane.

10:31So it's not like today where elections go on and on and if we're all kinds of crazy reasons, it should have been. legitimate reasons and and even and Kim, one of the debates that was going on then that we still have today is the electoral college is available. Should we still have the electoral college because we still have it, we have a system today where communication is quick, elections and voting tabbies, tallies are mostly fast, some others and some other states others, but because of we have this communication, we have this electronic system now going on, do we should we still have the electoral college and that's one of the debates that continues to make our constitution relevant as we're we hear this at every every four years with the electoral college.

11:37Yeah, from my point of view, I think it's still relevant because that means that if you're in Rhode Island versus California, your vote counts. It's not the majority electing, but there are we need to have this debate because younger generations, I don't think understand the real reason for the electoral college, that's for another conversation. That is absolutely correct Kim, you're absolutely dead spot on with that. Yes, we, you know, but my question is talking about the the Constitution specifically, it's not a huge document parched, it doesn't go on and on and on, it's not a list of do's and don'ts. It's a document that really limits the government and empowers the people, share a little bit more with us about that. Well, you're right. The constitution is only 4,500 words, so it's not a long document.

12:38And one of the reason that's not a long document is because the writers and the founders believe that here are what the federal government should be doing. Everything that's not specifically written in the Constitution, which is the 10th amendment, is given to the states. So therefore, there's really no need to have a long drawn out document where the federal government has certain powers and whatever the Constitution does not state that belongs to the federal government, it's given to the states. So that, it didn't need to be a long document. And with, with, with, also with the electoral college, you are absolutely right. The people in Rhode Island should have the same, same authority to vote as the people in California, Virginia, Pennsylvania. And today, today came without the electoral college, the people, the, the coast, the

13:44west coast and the east coast would, would win every presidency. Whoever, whoever got the east coast and west coast would, that would be the majority without the electoral college. Because we still have it, our candidates need to go to every state. Every state is, is, has the power to have the electoral college, to have the votes. And therefore, it's a combination of all of across the nation, not just the west coast and the east coast that has a majority of citizens, which goes right back to the 1787. That was one of the, that was one of the issues that our founders had. Why should the states on the east coast, Virginia and Pennsylvania, New York? Why should they have all the power to elect the president when it should be given to all the states that have equal power? So that argument that they had in the, when we began our country is still the argument

14:45we have today for the electoral college. And generally speaking, Kim, the people who want to do away with the electoral college, know that if you win the west coast and you win the east coast, you won the election, you won the election. And we cannot allow that to happen. It's all the country together. You're right. You essentially disenfranchise a lot of people. Yes. And we have to put it in there because it's, it's a truth that when you're importing all kinds of illegals who are not citizens and do not have the right to vote here, that compounds the problem. It does. That's a nice way to put it. But we won legitimate elections as much as possible. You know, Arch, in, in, because we limit government, that means there's an absolute need for citizen involvement. What, what did they, how did they see effect that?

15:48Well, which, we have an awful lot of people today, Kim, that are, that are very critical of the document. Then they don't understand it in time when they, when our, all men are created equal and that by our creator creator. And then we have the constitution where there was certain ones that had the, of the right to vote and the reason they had the right to vote. And that was people in time. They were, they were people in time to had an understanding of what was going on in their time period. This time is going on. And I will say that they made it very clear that our constitution is a progressive constitution, not in the sense of we decide whatever it says. But over time, we have the ability to amend it. We have, we have, if you want to change it, you amend it.

16:50You just don't decide what you think a certain amendment says. So that is, that it was critical in our, in our founding document to have that understanding that the majority of people in America should have the power to elect their governmental officials. And because of that, they also then came up with the idea of having a democratic republic, which gave, which gave the idea of we're a nation, we're a united nation, not just a nation of large states and small states. Okay. So that's why arch, we had to have the system of government that we had to try to, you know, you'll say you can't please everybody, but we sure did try based on what you shared with us. We are at the end of our first segment, time flies, but we do have to take a break listeners.

17:52Stay with us. We'll be right back after these messages. You're listening to Don't Invite the Cool Aid on the America Out Loud Network. Are you tired of struggling with low energy? We get it. That's why we created organic energy juice. In just one minute, you'll have clean, natural energy all day and never struggle with low energy again. And it tastes amazing. And there's no toxic chemicals or stimulants that make you crash. You shouldn't have to struggle with low energy and with organic energy juice, you won't. If you're struggling with low energy, then buying organic energy juice is the right decision. With our double your money back guarantee, there is zero risk to try it. Go to chemicalfreebody.com, forward slash out loud for an exclusive discount. That's chemicalfreebody.com, forward slash out loud. Are you struggling with thinning hair or excessive shedding? I know I am. Discover roots from the one that's company. It's a doctor formulated hydrogel with seven powerful peptides that help repair and restore visibly thicker, fuller hair. It also contains methylene blue, which boosts mitochondrial function and nourishes your

18:55scalp without any oily residue. Whether it's stress, hormones, or aging, this formula targets the root cause, literally. Visit TWC.HealthForwardSlashOut Loud. The news code out loud for 20% off your first order. That is TWC.HealthForwardSlashOut Loud. Experience the science of hair or growth with roots. Well, did you see Google quietly updated its AI principles removing its pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance? They promised they agreed to in 2018. When American people have seen Google's track record prompt in question, is Google and on trustworthy player in the AI race? Now, is our time, my fellow Americans, America out loud.News, Liberty and Justice for all. Welcome back listeners to Don't Embive the Clay Kim Kennedy, your host for today's program.

20:04So glad that you're with us for having a great conversation with Arch Hunter. And he hasn't been on the program before. So Arch, our listeners like to know a little bit about those who join us. And I wondered if you could tell them a little bit about your background. I taught public school for 25 years. I retired from full-time teaching seven years ago. I had been the director of graduate programs for it was the Freedom Foundation. The past we merged with another organization three years ago. We are now called Founding Forward. I am one of the directors of graduate programs and I'm now teaching teachers in the summer. I am able to do a lot of tours for Founding Forward throughout the year of different historical places. All over the Thalware Valley. I am now a snow bird. So I'm as far to most of the winter. And I teach courses at, locally, down in Palm Beach, Florida for the winter.

21:08We have now been fortunately, I have a wonderful wife. We have been married now 37 years. We have twin sons that both got married last year and both of them bought houses this year. So I am blessed to have a wonderful wife. I'm blessed to be able to have a career where I could teach American history and continue to teach American history. And I'm also blessed that I have known Kim for many years. And actually, Kim was the one who started me on radio many years ago. And I did a program nine years and Kim was the one who initiated that and got me involved in doing radio. And so it was Kim who did that. So I thank you, Kim, for, first of all, I thank you for your, your stalwartness in wanting to stay true to the Constitution. And having a heart desire to teach the Constitution, you have a heart to see and love our country and want it to go in the right direction.

22:14And a very concerned where we see many of the situations in our country that are very problematic to us. And we're trying to straighten those out and alleviate those. But we're also, you are also trying to educate, educate people in our government. And who we are and what we are. And this wonderful privilege we have to be called Americans. So thank you, Kim. Thank you. And Arche, I am grateful for you for people can come on and share your knowledge. This is an indoctrination folks. This is informing. This is historical fact. We look at the results when Arche and I will talk about Marxism at some point in the future. We'll take a look at the results of these doctrines. What has it wrong? And it's horrible. We're not going to deviate from our conversation. But people ought to know, if you're going to go after the Democrat socials of America, this doctor they put out there has been tried before. We'll look at the results, right Arche? That's absolutely.

23:14Let's see what it's done for people. And Kim, our founders gave us a document where, and it was the first document ever in the history of mankind that actually limits the power of the federal government and gives the majority of power to govern to the individuals and to the states. So when people say to us, well, our founding fathers were a bunch of white rich guys. They were white, but the majority of them were not rich. And they gave, and they gave us this document so that they could not themselves become rich. They gave us and wrote this document so that the power to govern would not be solely, or mostly in a federal government. But that document limits the power of the federal government.

24:17And Kim, our Constitution does not guarantee us rights. Our founders believe that that Constitution protects the rights that we've been given to us by God. Yes, yes, well, well said. Thank you, Arche. I'm going to jump in. There's lots of things left to talk about. But let's take a look at some of the criticism or threats to our Constitution. We've heard some talk recently. I don't know if it's been mentioned before in history. You can tell us that, but about the Constitution being a living Constitution. And what do they mean by that? Arche, what does that phrase mean? Well, the people that, and that's particularly we see that philosophy very prevalent today that ends up allowing the court systems to dictate the laws to us. And because they will say, well, the Constitution means this.

25:23The Constitution could mean that. And so they say that our Constitution is a breathing living document. They can be changed over time. The originalists, and I am personally an originalist, are the Constitution is clear and it's stated and it says what it means to say. And if it needs to be clarified, you just don't read into the Constitution. You amend it. You amend it or you change it for the example, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment. You just don't say, well, we think that our founders meant this. So therefore we're going to make this ruling. Well that is the people that believe that it's a living breathing document. I believe as an originalist, our Constitution means what it says and says what it means. And if the Constitution is not specific in stating something, that's the 10th Amendment.

26:29And that was given dictated back to the States. And so we have the privilege of amending the Constitution, not just believing in what we think it might say and then make a ruling on it. And we have several examples of that in the last 30 years of how that has transpired in our country. Yeah, that's a great point that you made. And I appreciate you bringing that to our attention to explaining that clearer. Also fairly recently. And once again, this could have happened in the past. And we just don't know it. But well actually, I do know the term court packing was coined in 1937. Correct? Yes. Frank Roosevelt wanted to move quickly to add new federal judges. What would be the point of wanting to do that? What do you want to happen when you want to pack the court? The background came with several of Franklin Roosevelt's new deal programs were thrown

27:33out because the Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional. So and there was nine judges. So Franklin Roosevelt came up with this idea of, well, let's add one justice for every just that's over 70 years old, which were five that would take it up to 13 judges. And the reason was because he did not want his other or more of his new deal programs overturned because they were unconstitutional. So he threw this idea out there, came called the court packing and it was a scheme. And Roosevelt was a good politician who floated this idea out there to see how it would go over with the American public. Well, it bombed Kim. It bombed with the American public. It absolutely bombed the American public was absolutely outraged that with the idea of adding more

28:39Supreme Court's justice to the Supreme Court. So that was the, when we people say, well, let's pack the court, well, Franklin Roosevelt threw that idea out there and it was overwhelmingly shot down by the American public. And then Franklin Roosevelt did not pursue it any longer. Interesting. That's the background on where the first court packing scheme that we've got to and can we see that today? Oh, yes. We see that today because the Supreme Court, this is a whole different term that we need to get rid of. It's a court, a liberal court or a conservative court. And Steve, that's how far we've gotten in our country. The Supreme Court should never be labeled as liberal or conservative. They're judges. Do they adhere to the Constitution and do they make decision according to the Constitution,

29:42not whether they're politically liberal or conservative? And that's unfortunately how far we've come away from really the responsibility of the Supreme Court. But that's probably a whole other conversation we can do. I do believe that. And you know, why arch? I have to share this with the listeners. The growth of the federal government, folks listen to this. Another threat to the Constitution involves all three branches of government. The framers separate a government powers into three branches, allowing the president to appoint officers of the United States to say, to say, for areas, executive departments, Congress initially created only three departments, State Department of State, Department of War, Department of Treasury. As recently as 1900, there were only eight departments. And two thirds of the federal workforce was employed by the post office or general land office today, approximately 120 executive agencies at another 60 independent entities employ

30:46more than one million federal workers. You can't have that arch. And you cut your taxes right there. That's absolutely. You know, that's a major problem. And how many of them trample over the Constitution? How many of them strictly adhere to the Constitution? How many of them basically make it null and void by what they do? And we see this throughout our history. Something that it's very concerning to me is there's a lot of people in our country today. Who believe the Constitution needs or needs to be rewritten or it needs to be changed because it doesn't fit their political needs. And that is a major threat that we see going on in our country today. If my political needs do not adhere to the Constitution, well, my political needs and

31:52desires, it's not the law of the land. It's not the canon. It's the Constitution. And if I want particularly certain things to change in America, I do not go after the judges to make a judge a law or block a law. I go and get support for what I believe should be changed and work through it that way. Because the Constitution is not mendable. It's amendable. And that's the major difference between what we see going on on our nation today. If someone, and we see Kim throughout our history, where there has been situations where our Constitution needed to be amended. Yes. And the reason it needed to be amended, because something wasn't clear enough or something needed to be changed. You know, Kim, from the Bill of Rights, we don't have any amendments to the Constitution until

32:561865. So we went a tremendous amount of years without adding any amendments to the Constitution. And since then, we've had very few. We've had the 17th through the 27th Amendment place in the Constitution, not to decide what we want, but because of what the Constitution possibly was not clear enough in addressing. So that is the way the Constitution needs to be changed. Not what people think. Not what they believe that possibly that our founders are thinking about what possibly could have been. That's the living Constitution. And though it's an original document that we need to adhere to. And if we want something changed, then we have to amend the Constitution, not bend it. There's a process we need to follow it. And the next things I want to share with the listeners, and have you comment on, and by

34:00the way, folks, what I'm sharing is from heritage.org slash the essential Constitution slash threats the Constitution. I suggest you go to heritage.org and look to suck yourself. But they say that they write both the Supreme Court and Congress have cemented this arrangement, rearrangement of government powers. The court, for example, says that an agency's own interpretation of an ambiguous or uncertain statue, even if it's wrong, must be followed so long as it is, quote, unquote, reasonable. Congress has also created new agencies, but limited the president's ability to change their leadership. And thereby hold those officials accountable. And courts have upheld this arrangement. These actions by the court and Congress have helped to create what Justice Robert Jackson described as a variable fourth branch of government. Do you agree with that, Arch? Absolutely. Yes, it's so true that now we have a whole segment of our politicians who have created in their own little minds and in their own little ideas, a fourth branch of government

35:05to have something legally blocked or through the courts blocked or through the courts, agreeing with what they want rather than just looking at the Constitution, say, where does the Constitution state that? Where does the Constitution address that? And so they, rather than going through the process, they would rather go through the legal system so they could have this continual political power that they hold on to. Well, said. And then last, and I think you'll really appreciate this, Arch, and have a equally strong response forth by interpreting statues, writing substantive regulations based on those interpretations and forcing those regulations and in essence, acting as judges, injuries in lawsuits or enforcement actions involving those regulations, administrative agencies often wield all three powers to make law, to enforce law and to interpret law with little, if any, oversight.

36:09This is precisely the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands that Jay Madison's called the very definition of tyranny. Your response? And again, this is what our founding fathers were so concerned about that not one specific branch or one night group of people would have the power to dictate to the rest of the country, to the rest of the citizens what they want, what they believe. So this whole process that we've seen now go on for probably 50 years of our politicians dictating policy through the courts, which gives them that fourth branch of government, which gives them this power that they wield. And unfortunately, we see an awful lot of people in our country going along with that.

37:11Because they don't know better arch, they don't know better. You know, Anthony Anton Scalia, who was a brilliant, brilliant jurist, I believe his statement, he made this statement over and over again, if we can make the Constitution say anything, it says nothing. Well, that is a powerful statement. That's a good place to end our last segment. I should say our second segment folks, we do have more we've got some more objections that we need to discuss with arch because folks, this is where the rubber meets the road. When we understand what we're up against and we can argue back, you know, with wisdom and with knowledge, we're not going to get it into this, into this program arch. We'll have to have that conversation later about equipping people with good comebacks. We must take a break. You're listening to Don't Abibes of Colate say with us, we'll be right back. You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands.

38:14What about washing your nose? I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe. Air loaded with bacteria, viruses and irritants. Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear. No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation. Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacteria and viral adhesion. Available in stores and online at clear.com. That is xylir.com. The smartest food on the planet doesn't come from a lab or in a package. It grows in a class jar. I'm Doug Evans, author of the National Best Seller, The Sprout Book. Sprouts deliver up to 100 times the antioxidants of mature vegetables. They grow in just three to five days for under a dollar serving. Get your spouting kit at thespoutingcompany.com. Slash out loud, use the code out loud for an exclusive offer. Gross smarter. Have you been looking for a healthy snack from the go?

39:16Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary. Bear bars or a crunchy, savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients. Bear bars are plant-based, organic, gluten-free, contained six grams of protein and a low temperature dried for a unique crunch. Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with serps or sweeteners to learn more. Just visit bearbar.com slash out loud. Welcome back listeners to Don't Invite the Collade. We're so glad that you're with us having a superb conversation about the Constitution. Arch started off with giving us background talking about the uniqueness, talking about the incredible fight that went on to make this document happen. But out of intense struggle came, I think, the finest government document that the world

40:16has ever seen. But we are talking now about some of the threats to us and Arch has articulated very clearly what they are and why they're wrong. And one last one we want to talk about is the power of the presidency. Sometimes the president himself assumes power that the Constitution does not give him. These unconstitutional power grabs undermine the principles of limited government that are at the heart of the Constitution. He gives us the example of President Harry Truman's attempt to nationalize several steel mills during the Korean War and the Congress of the Supreme Court rightly disagreed, recalling the framers fear of power and the hope for freedom of palm which they base their decisions. Your comments arch on this. And I'm going to go out and finice Kim with us when my favorite president is Abraham Lincoln. And we see a power grab when he abolished the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland and that

41:19is unconstitutional and eventually that was overturned. We also first see it in Thomas Jefferson when he bought the Louisiana purchase without the approval of Congress and then got it later. So we see throughout our history these very fine presidents who from time to time either try to stretch the Constitution, go outside the Constitution and either wait for the political persuasion to come to their side or through the courts to decide what they have done as constitutional. I think the greatest example Kim is Watergate. Is Watergate when President Nixon refused to turn over all the tapes that Congress wanted to listen to and he refused to give up any of the tapes and the conversations. And so Congress sued the president in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court pretty quickly

42:24unanimously voted that President Nixon had to give over the tapes, had to give over all his recordings so they could listen to them and see if there was evidence on those tapes of the President Nixon abused his power which we know from the tapes that he did. And so that's an example of a president observing as authority but we see the checks and balance system working in our Constitution where we didn't see the military coming down the street. We didn't see a military who as President Ford said our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works. And we have an awful lot of people who don't just simply don't have the patience and a lot of them are politicians who don't have the patience to allow our constitutional system

43:25to play out and work. So they quickly want to address a particular need or a thought through the courts, through a legal system and go outside the confines of what our Constitution is actually saying. And you have too many people on the right who won't uphold the Constitution. I mean, you know, I lost count of how many abuses to the Constitution happened under Obama creating Zaws and you know, I this whole thing of all these NGOs and these extra governmental, you know, what would the founders say? What are their purposes? These are our tax dollars. We should be, there should be an accounting to us of what purposes they serve which a lot of them we find out has been revealed, helped with illegal activity, helped some of them served as fronts for nonprofits that were just basically money laundering scams. So how do we the people, we don't have enough time to get into it into this.

44:29But yeah, I know how do you undo 100 years worth of corruption that's just snowballed? You know, I think what could end up happening literally is that you just run out of other people's money. That's not original with me, right Arch? No, that is, yeah, that is you just run out of other people's money and then it then were, then we're pretty much cooked at that point. Yeah, that might, go ahead. That might not be a bad idea. Well, the, but if the knowledge and understanding and the rightful teaching of exactly what our founders had in mind and what their thinking was with giving us the Constitution, rather than having a tremendous amount of people denigrate them, call them demigods, call them all sorts of delicious names because accusing them of all they wanted was power. Well, they don't understand our founders one weren't rich, most of them weren't rich.

45:29And they were very concerned about what happens when mankind has the power and dictate the power. And we see that. So we have this responsibility to continue to educate our citizens and educate ourselves in exactly what the Constitution is, what it states, how it can be changed, how it can be modified, how it can be amended and what exactly what it means. And if you want, I'll give you a couple examples. If you. Yes, please. Well, look at what we look at the 14th Amendment, you know, that 14th Amendment has been used several times for separate but equal, which is wrong. And then the 14th Amendment with them used again in 1954, having separate but equal overturned,

46:31which is exactly the right thing. 14th Amendment again in the last year or so has come into being with President Trump with the citizenship, the child citizenship coming. And that prompt, I'm still interested in seeing how that fight is going to play out in the courts. Does the 14th Amendment state that anyone born in this country is a citizen or does in state that they're only a citizen if they're on if they continue to be under the jurisdiction of our government? And that's that's the fight going on and that that we're going to be seeing continue to go on with all because of the 14th Amendment. And can't the bottom that the bottom bottom line there is because people want to make an amendment say what they wanted to say.

47:31So they can continue to have their point of view, be the point of view. Yeah, and we need to go back to what the founders meant. Exactly. And exactly what the Constitution states. There is not Kim. I find it very interesting that there is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government and education. No, thank you, Arch. We see the power of education today. Yes, you see this is this is this is exactly you know they might start off with good intentions this and the other, but they're taking power and they're making decisions that the Constitution gives them. I'm thinking if I can go back to the 14th Amendment on reasonable search, right? And see here, you know, I've talked to some J6 people who had their doors batted down by FBI agents who their personal stuff was taken from them. And it turns out later for no reason at all, they didn't commit a crime, but their constitutional

48:33rights were clearly violated. But everybody is afraid, you know, when you're afraid of the government and again, this is an original with me. That's not what the, I forget there's a saying about that, but essentially it's, that's not what the founders intended. They wanted the government to be afraid of the people and it has reversed. It's absolutely been reversed. They look at it again, when what President Nixon threatened to do that he threatened to seek to send the IRS after people. Well, that's not what our Constitution absolutely not. That's not even a constitutional organization in itself. So, so we have gotten, we have gotten so far away from, yes, from this idea of what the Constitution is and what it says. And with the same thought Kim, that this same, we had this large group of people that are saying, well, the Constitution is evil.

49:36It's not evil. Our Constitution protects the rights that our God given to us. And the government is to protect individual rights and limit its power. And therefore, when we look at the Constitution, it should not be a scary document. It's a document that is given so that the states and people can have a majority of power and we have a federal government who protects us from foreign influences, who gives us a military, who passes particular laws to protect citizens, not to threaten us citizens. Yeah, that's well said, well stated arch. And it's up to us, we the people, to remind elected people of their crimes.

50:40Yes. They're wrongdoings. And you know, folks, some people think, oh, civics is so hard, it takes so much time. You know what, if we all engage in consistent letter writing or phone calls or emails, whatever it is that you do, what if 20,000 people across the country, that's a conservative estimate. We're doing that holding these people accountable. They hear from the left all the time, they don't hear from the right, but I think educating people on how to do civics is extremely important as an aside. Just a couple of points though, arch as our time is winding down. Again, I did want to make the point that, you know, we talked about, you know, in today's jargon, rich white men, every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence paid a price, a heavy price. Arch, share with us a little bit about what that looked like. Well we have 56 and again, most of them were not wealthy. We had several of them who lost their lives, whether it was because they were fleeing the

51:42British, several of them ended up in jail. Several others died in poppers, in poppers prisons because they lost all their money. They were willing to pay the price to go out and put their necks on the line to write the Declaration of Independence because they realized and understood that we, the colonists, should have the right to govern ourselves. So most of our founding are the men who've signed the Declaration of Independence paid a high price, paid a high price for exactly what they signed and Kim, we need to realize that the document that they signed, they were actually signing a document that would guarantee the British to kill them, to put them on trial and to eliminate them because they were treasonous to their country.

52:42So their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors were put out there and several of them lost their lives, lost their sacred honor, lost their families, lost their families, lost their fortunes, homes, broken health, broken health, it just goes on and on and on so that with the idea of we should have a government that we govern ourselves. Thank you, Arch for clarifying that. In a few minutes we have left, James Adams stated that our form of government was in particular for Christian kind of people, of course people today. Oh, you know, homophobic races, blah, blah, blah, blah. He's talking about the principle of self-government which is found only in scripture. Would you explain that to our listeners what he meant? Well, particularly James Madison and other ones, and James Madison was particularly concerned

53:52about a government needs to have a moral base. Our citizens need to have a moral base. If we're going to govern ourselves, then we need to be governed by people that had a morality to them and a civility about them. And a lot of our founders were Christian in the fact, in the act as they were con, they were congressionalists, they were quakers, they were, they were, um, Anglican, they were, congregationalists, they were anaboptists. And with the idea of, they were under the guides of Christianity and looking towards the scriptures as the authority of not only had a govern, but Kim had a live, how to live. And therefore, with our, our founders, they believe that we needed to have a government

54:52and it was when we have people running our government that needed to be, have a people that had a morality about them, had a civility about them, had a moral compass to them of right and wrong. And we see that, you know, James Madison in section two article eight, when he talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, he was very adamant of putting misdemeanors in there. Very adamant. And he kept saying we need to have that, we need to have that. And some of our founders said, no, we don't. Madison finally said, if you all think that all of our politicians and all of our presidents after George Washington is going to have the same morality he did, it's not. Therefore we need to have high crimes and misdemeanors in there to make, make sure that number one, our president and number two, all of our politicians have a morality and a civility about them that they see to a higher power and live to a standard of morality

55:58and civility that we oftentimes see in our founders that many of them adhered to the principle, the scriptural principles. And that's a very high standard for us. They were also brilliant men with tremendous foresight with them, which comes from God, and the suburbs one tells us that. And so listeners, we hope that this gave you a greater understanding and more importantly, an appreciation and desire to preserve a constitutional republic that we have where those who make laws are under those same laws and where those who are elected are answerable to those who elect them. It's a great way to be, as opposed to Marxism, or a despot to tell you how things are going to be, and history is replete with the results of that. That's a conversation for another time, Arch. Thank you for being with us, Arch, really appreciate it. That's right, Mr. President Kim, thank you. You're welcome, listeners, make it a great day.