Impeachment Of Judges and Officials For Unconstitutional Actions: It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday, a special day of the week where we get to answer questions from you, the listeners! Always answering your questions from constitutional principles! Tune in today as we answer your questions such as what are the protocols for the impeachment of judges and officials whose actions are unconstitutional? What constitutes treason in this regard? And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 03/08/2018

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton


Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith And The Culture:

Intro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “€œI know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”€

Rick:

Welcome to WallBuilders Live. It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday today. So, we’re diving into those foundational principles. We’re always talking about the policies that are affecting the nation, but we’re always looking at it from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective.

On these Thursday programs we dive specifically into those principles that you’re curious about. So, you send in the questions – [email protected] is the e-mail – radio at WallBuilders.comcom. Send in your questions – we’ll get to as many as we can.

We’re here with David Barton. He’s America’s premier historian and the founder of WallBuilders. Tim Barton’s a national speaker and pastor and he’s the president of WallBuilders. My name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator.

You can find out more about us at WallBuildersLive.com and also WallBuilders.com. A lot of great tools at both websites. Go check them out today.

But right now we’re going to dive into your particular questions. David, Tim, you guys ready for me to fire questions at you from the audience?

David and Tim:

You bet.

David:

Let’s go.

Protocols for Impeachment?

Rick:

All right first what’s it from Jim. He said, “€œFor several months now I’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live on Bott Radio during my daily commute home. I’ve heard numerous times how court justices, in particular, and other entities are seriously and often maliciously reversing, overruling, or ridiculously misrepresenting, or perverting, the Constitution. Of course this is of great concern to me especially more as you have thankfully continued to educate me. By the way, thanks for your program and resources. You’re having a great impact.

“€œSo, here’s my questions, what are the protocols and procedures for impeachment of these blatantly unconstitutional judges and officials? How can the people take this action. And second, what constitutes treason in this regard? What can be done? Could you please address these issues.

“€œThanks – I appreciate you and how you’re educated inactivating we the people, including me, who have never been “€˜political”€™. Keep up the great mission and the messages.”€

Alright, guys, so big question here. I think a lot of our listeners have the exact same questions that he’s asking and they’ve had the same experience. They start listening to our program and others, they start paying attention to what’s happening out at Washington D.C., and especially in federal courts across the country, and these things happen and it”€™s, “€œWait, how are these judges getting away with this?”€

So, his first question is, “€œHow do you impeach these blatantly unconstitutional judges and officials?”€ And I would tweak that a little bit if you don’t mind, Jim, it’s not the judge or the official that’s unconstitutional. In other words, they weren’t put into office in an unconstitutional way. Their actions are unconstitutional and for that, how do you impeach them? So I’ll toss it to you guys that way David, Tim?

Defining Treason

David:

Well, first thing let”€™s define treason. Treason is the act of taking up arms or helping others take arms to overthrow the government. Sedition, we talked about sedition last week, that’s a level below treason. Sedition often leads to treason, but treason is a lot more serious than just advocating.

Tim:

And let me let me ask a clarifying question, “€œDo you have to use a gun to commit treason?”€

David:

No, you don’t. You can actively help some other foreign power attempt to overthrow the government. Which, in the way of spying, for example, you can be an American spy who’s feeding information to Russia or something else – that can be an act of treason. It’s assisting an enemy to overthrow the government or taking up arms against the government.

Tim:

Right. I was thinking about that a lot of intel stuff we’re hearing right now, right? Whether it”€™s Russia, or North Korea, and China, there’s a lot of things – cyber security kind of stuff. And so it doesn’t have to be– with your initial explanation you’d mentioned guns to overthrow. It doesn’t have to be guns to be treason.

David:

That’s right.

Tim:

It’s really about overthrowing that power structure.

David:

Overthrowing or helping to assist or overthrow and in some way. Taking arms is probably too narrow a term, but doing things to assist the overthrow of the government. And it’s interesting that while the Constitution talks about capital punishment and capital crimes in two places, only once does specifically list a capital crime and that capital crime is treason.

What is Unconstitutional When You Have a Living Constitution?

David:

And to be put to death for treason the Constitution actually quotes from Deuteronomy were that you cannot be put to death on a capital crime unless there’s two eyewitnesses to the crime. And that’s what the Bible says – you can’t be put to death unless there”€™s two eyewitnesses.

So, in the Constitution when it talks about capital crimes it does specifically enumerate treason and it does give the Biblical standard for executing someone for treason. You have to have two eyewitnesses or open confession in court. You have to admit that you did it or two people have to affirm that you did it. It can’t just be circumstantial evidence. So, within that framework that’s treason.

Now coming back, Rick, you said it is not an unconstitutional official, but an official acting unconstitutionally. And this is where, today, the use of impeachment is so difficult. What is unconstitutional when you have a living Constitution? We no longer have a good definition of what the Constitution is.

Now, as strict constructionists, we think it”€™s the black and white document. But if you’ve gone through law school in the last 20 years you have been told that the Constitution is what the judges say that it is. And by the way, that’s a quote from a former Chief Justice, Charles Evans Hughes, who said, “€œWe are under a constitution–“€ Now, we should stop there, but he continued, “€œ–and the Constitution is whatever the judges say that it is.”€

So, at this point Obergefell, which is a decision overturning the definition marriage, for a living Constitution person the Supreme Court said so, so that’s the Constitution. But I would argue if that’s the case then why isn’t Dred Scott part of the Constitution? Because it’s never been overturned by any subsequent court, so why don’t we just go back to saying that race is not equal because that’s what the court said? Why don’t we go back to what the court did in Plessy v. Ferguson and the case before that where it said segregation is fine, that’s what the court said.

Is Modern Interpretation More Authoritative?

David:

So, a living Constitution puts modern interpretation by some governing authority higher than anything else. And that’s why it’s so difficult to impeach someone today. Because while we think if you violate– and here’s a great example. A few years ago– now let me just give the preface – the Constitution says that it is Congress alone that has exclusive authority over regulations for land and sea forces. Only Congress can say how land and sea forces are to operate. Now the commander in chief can make military decisions, but not policy decisions.

And so a few years ago Congress, back under President Bush, said, “€œWe do not want enemy combatants here on American soil. We’re going to hold them in Gitmo over in Cuba. And here’s the deal – we’ve always done this with military tribunals, that’s exactly what we’re going to do there. We’re going to have military tribunals that will not come to America. They do not get due process because they are not American citizens and only American citizens get constitutional rights.”€

And then they quoted from Article 3 where it says that Congress has the Constitution– and they quoted the Constitution exactly– where the Congress has the absolute constitutional authority to tell the courts what it can and cannot look at outside the original jurisdiction. And so they said, “€œAlright, we’ve decided we’re going to have these military tribunals and no court can overturn that because the Constitution gives us that authority.”€ The U.S. Supreme Court overturned their policy and said, “€œDon’t ever tell us what we can and can’t do.”€ Now by the written Constitution that, clearly, is a violation of the express written constitution.

Rick:

Yeah, I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to be defenders of the Constitution yet they’re saying to the Congress, “€œYou can’t use that part of the Constitution because we don’t want you to.”€ Even though it hasn’t been amended, we haven”€™t overturned it– people haven”€™t overturned. We just don’t want to use it anymore.

David:

But, Rick, they are defenders of the Constitution – as they write it.

Rick:

That”€™s true.

David:

See, when we say “€œConstitution”€, we see “€œblack”€, they see white. We see “€œred”€ they see green. We’re talking the same words with exactly opposite meanings. So, that’s the first difficulty we have with how to impeach someone.

The “€œCourtstitution”€

Rick:

Yeah, their version is what we call in our Constitution Alive program, the “€œcourtstitution”€ because it’s basically their little witch’s brew they’ve put together and it’s very difficult to understand as it is. I like the written Constitution we’re supposed to be following.

Quick break. Dave, we’ll come back and let you finish your answer on this one. Stay with us, folks. You’re listening to WallBuilders live.

Outro:

Abraham Lincoln said, “€œWe the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”€

Moment From American History

This is David Barton with another moment from America’s history. What is the purpose of government? Founding Father Oliver Ellsworth believed he knew. Oliver Ellsworth was a delegate at the convention which formed the Constitution and later he became the chief justice of the US Supreme Court.

Concerning the purpose of government, Oliver Ellsworth declared, “€œThe primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society.”€ Yet, how are these goals to be achieved?

Ellsworth explained, “€œTo the promotion of these objects, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support. And among these religious institutions are eminently useful and important.”€

Founding Father Oliver Ellsworth believed government could never reach its goals apart from the help of religious institutions. For more information on God’s hand in American history contact WallBuilders at 1-800-8-REBUILD.

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œThe Constitution of most of our states and of the United States asserts that all power is inherent in the people that they may exercise it by themselves that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. That they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”€

Rick:

Welcome back, thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. We’re taking your questions and our first question had to do with what do you do about these judges that are handing down on constitutional decisions, how do you impeach them, how do you change this?

David, you were just getting into the fact that the judges claim they’re following the Constitution. The example you gave of Congress actually doing its job, in this case actually doing something that the Constitution gives them the authority to do, even then they say, “€œWe’re just going to ignore you because we get to decide which parts of the constitution we’re going to pay attention to.”€

2 Out of 3 Americans Believe There is No Absolute Moral Truth

David:

Yes, that’s the difficulty we have today. We live in a culture where that two out of three Americans believe there’s no absolute moral truth. When you don’t believe there are absolute rights and wrongs then you can define the rights and wrongs as you want them. And so how do you remove someone from the court when everybody gets to decide what’s right and wrong? There’s no longer a uniform recognized standard.

So, when you get to the impeachment of judges, this is something the Founders were very concerned about. Started back in 1765 with Sam Adams who looked at the British system and said, “€œThis is atrocious. Their judges have lifetime appointments and their judges are accountable to the people. Man, if we ever get a chance to do our own system we won’t do that.”€ And so when we did break away from the British in the Declaration of Independence for the 27 grievances talked about judicial usurpations where the judges who are doing things wrong.

When Sam Adams helped write the Constitution of 1780 for Massachusetts he made sure that the judges were accountable to the people. It said, “€œAll three branches of government are at all times accountable to the people”€, judges aren’t unaccountable. And then when we did the U.S. Constitution we specifically put in the Constitution that judges do not have lifetime appointments, they are elected for the duration of good behavior, and that judges have to be accountable to the people.

So, in the Constitution, the single subject that is covered most often in the Constitution is impeachment. The Founding Fathers intended that that be used. Today it has become a very rare process, but it was never designed to be that. So, that’s a topic covered most often and we have the example of history to show us how the Founding Fathers considered impeachment, what they thought.

The Process is Laid Out Pretty Clear

David:

Now the process is laid out pretty clear in the Constitution. It takes a majority vote of the House to impeach an official. There was an impeachment attempt in 1797 of a U.S. senator. And the U.S. Senator was William Blount and he was a signer of the Constitution. It appeared that he was working with Aaron Burr to take the nation of Mexico and create his own foreign nation.

And so this U.S. senator tried to impeach and they said, “€œNo, no, no, impeachments not supposed to be for elected officials like that, it’s not for House and Senate. It’s for people that are appointed, it’s for judges and people in the Executive Branch etc.

Tim:

But the Executive Branch still gets elected.

David:

I know, it’s a strange thing where that you had the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1870 and then you had the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the 1990s. And so that’s a strange kind of thing.

Tim:

So, it”€™s a tool for the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch, but not the Legislative Branch.

David:

Not the legislative branch. So, it’s been used on the other two branches, but they dropped the impeachment in 1797 said, “€œNo, no, no, not the Legislative Branch because the people choose that.”€ So, what you have is you look at impeachment, it only takes a majority of the house. So, what is an impeachable offense? Well, the Constitution says, “€œhigh crimes and misdemeanors.”€

And people think that means, “€œOh, felonies and misdemeanors.”€ Wrong. At the time of the Constitution, there weren’t misdemeanors like we have today, and like five classes of felonies, and three classes of misdemeanors – it wasn’t a crime. Misdemeanor was defined in the dictionaries as anything that was considered bad behavior. Which is why Article 3 talks about judges can be in the office for the duration of good behavior – as long as they behave right.

High and Low Crimes

David:

So, bad behavior was a misdemeanor. It’s not a crime, it’s just bad behavior. So, at the time there, were only three federal felonies and so they weren”€™t talking about felonies and misdemeanors. They were talking about high crimes and what that meant was bad behavior by someone in a high office – that was a high crime. A low crime is a crime committed by the dogcatcher. A high crime is the same crime committed by the president.

Rick:

So, it didn’t mean high as in a big crime.

David:

That’s right.

Rick:

It meant a crime committed at a big level, meaning, a high office.

David:

That’s right. And so that was the way they understood it, so it starts by that. So, what is an impeachable offense? Well, it’s whatever 51 percent of the House says is an impeachable offense.

In the case of Andrew Johnson, they impeached President Andrew Johnson because he removed a cabinet official. And for removing that cabinet official they said, “€œThat’s really bad behavior because you removed this guy for this reason, he shouldn”€™t have been removed.”€ And so that’s why he came within one vote of losing the presidency – the House impeached him, but the Senate did not confirm that impeachment, they missed it by one vote. But that was over a Cabinet appointment. There’s no crime involved there, but there is conduct.

And so an impeachable offense is whatever– and right now you’ve got the Democrats talking about how that if they get the house in 2018 they’re going to impeach President Trump. For what crime? Well, it doesn’t matter. If 51 percent of the House can come up with a reason that they want to, or no reason at all, if they can get 51 percent of the votes they can do it.

Defining It Themselves?

Rick:

Man. And when you say it doesn’t matter, it will matter if they do it for sure, for sure, it’s whatever– what you’re saying is they get to essentially define it themselves at this point.

David:

Well, and that’s the way every House has been. Every house gets to define for itself. But the difference is that in previous generations we had pretty clear standards of right and wrong. Today we don’t – it’s all opinion based.

Rick:

Yeah, yeah. Alright, quick break, guys. We’ll be back with more questions. Stay with us. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live. It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Intro:

Calvin Coolidge said, “€œThe more I study the Constitution, the more I realize that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity. To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”€

Share a veteran’s story

We Want To Hear Your Vet Story

Rick:

Hey friends! If you have been listening to WallBuilders Live for very long at all,   how much we respect our veterans and how appreciative we are of the sacrifice they make to make our freedoms possible. One of the ways that we love to honor those veterans is to tell their stories here on WallBuilders Live.  Once in awhile, we get an opportunity to interview veterans that have served on those front lines that have made incredible sacrifices have amazing stories that we want to share with the American people.

One of the very special things we get to do is interview World War II veterans. You’ve heard those interviews here on WallBuilders Live, from folks that were in the Band of Brothers, to folks like Edgar Harrell that survived the Indianapolis to so many other great stories you heard on WallBuilders Live.

You have friends and family that also served.  If you have World War II veterans in your family that you would like to have their story shared here on WallBuilders Live, please e-mail us at [email protected]  Give us a brief summary of the story and we’ll set up an interview. Thanks so much for sharing here on WallBuilders Live!

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œIn questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”€

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday. We’re diving into your questions and the question we’re on right now is what do you do about these judges that are handing down unconstitutional decisions? How do you hold them accountable? And, David, you were just giving the definition of what you can impeach for, how that’s covered in the Constitution, what high crimes and misdemeanors are. And essentially saying, “€œLook, the House gets to decide if it’s a big enough deal.”€

Impeachments Through History

David:

And so the house does that. Now, if you look back into previous impeachments of judges, the House impeached a judge– and these are all founding era impeachments. I think there’s been 15 or 16 convictions of impeachments. More than 90 or actually close to 100 impeachment investigations of some type. So, when it comes to actually the House doing something, one of the early ones was a judge, two judges they said were high handed – which is arrogant and they were just acting like judges act today.

They were doing what they wanted to do rather than what the Constitution said. And so the House impeached two judges for that. They impeached one judge for cussing in the courtroom which they thought was inappropriate behavior for a judge. They impeached one judge for getting drunk in private life which they thought was inappropriate behavior for a judge. None of these are crimes, but they’re all high crimes in the sense of they”€™re bad behavior by a high official.

And so they thought that’s a bad representative of the nation, that’s a bad precedent to set. There was one judge they impeached for being rude to witnesses. You’re supposed to be a servant of the people not the boss of the people. And so those are what they considered impeachable offenses.

Now the Constitution then says that after 51 percent of the House votes impeachment against some official, it then goes to the Senate who sits as a jury. So, the Senate has to take a special oath of impeachment. They take an oath for that impeachment proceeding and then they sit and listen to the evidence. And so the House comes in and they present as a prosecutor would, and the judge or whoever, his attorneys, present as the defense would and then the Senate sits there as a jury and it takes two thirds of the jury to convict.

Tim:

And I think at this point, too, doesn”€™t the Chief Justice the Supreme Court come and preside over the Senate as this is going on?

David:

That”€™s right. You had the Chief Justice–

Rick:

I think only if it’s the president that’s being impeached, right? If he’s not– if it”€™s not the president then it doesn’t have to be the Chief Justice.

Tim:

No, that’s correct. I think it’s just the president. Yeah.

Political Offenses

David:

Yep. And so the Senate sits as a jury and if you get two thirds of the senators to vote guilty then that judge– all he does is lose office, he does not go to jail, he is not fined in any way, shape, fashion, form. As the founders pointed out, this is merely a political remedy this is not criminal. If a judge has been convicted as a recent judge was, he was removed for criminal offences including tax evasion and other things. Well, for that you’re going to spend jail time – the courts take you off for that, you go to court. But impeachment is merely a political offense.

And as Justice Joseph Story pointed out, it”€™s for political usurpation, or for gross disregard of public interest, or whatever.

Rick:

It doesn’t give you a free pass with the local D.A. So, the Senate may impeach you and remove you from the bench and then the local D.A. can go after you on the criminal offense.

David:

That’s right. But in the case of the early impeachments, the D.A. can’t go after you for being rude to a witness in a courtroom–

Rick:

That”€™s right.

David:

–or being arrogant as a judge. Those were political offenses that were not considered good behavior.

So, there is some subjectivity in the definition of good behavior and what is considered an impeachable offense. But it was at a time where we all kind of understood Ten Commandments, and basic rights and wrongs, and we knew what was moral, and what was not moral. Whether you were atheist or Christian you had pretty much the same set of values, pretty close set of values. We’re not there today and so that’s what makes this difficult.

Rick:

Alright, let”€™s take one more break, guys. We”€™ll be right back with the final comments on this question. Stay with us. You’re listening to Foundations of Freedom Thursday on WallBuilders live.

Outro:

Samuel Adams said, “€œThe liberties of our Country and the freedom of our civil Constitution are worth defending against hazards. And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”€

Biographical Sketches

Hi friends! This is Tim Barton of WallBuilders.This is a time when most Americans don’t know much about American history or even heroes of the faith. I know, oftentimes as parents, we”€™re trying to find good content for our kids to read.

If you remember back in the Bible, the Book of Hebrews it has the Faith Hall of Fame, where they outlined the leaders of faith that had gone before them. Well,, this is something that as Americans we really want to go back and outline some of these heroes not just of American history, but heroes of Christianity and our faith as well.

I wanted to let   about some biographical sketches we have available on our website. One is called, “€œThe Courageous Leaders Collection“€ and this collection includes people like Abigail Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Francis Scott Key, George Washington Carver, Susanna Wesley, even the Wright brothers.

There’s a second collection called, “€œHeroes of History“€ in this collection you read about people like Benjamin Franklin, Christopher Columbus, Daniel Boone, George Washington, Harriet Tubman, the list goes on and on.

This is a great collection for your young person to have and read. And it’s a providential view of American and Christian history. This is available at WallBuilders.com.

Intro:

Intro:

Calvin Coolidge said, “€œThe more I study the Constitution, the more I realize that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity. To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”€

Rick:

We’re back for our final segment today on WallBuilders Live, Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Today we’ve been dealing with a question on judges and impeachment. And, David, you were talking about how that process works.

David:

Yeah, so let’s say that the Democrats win the 2018 House and that they impeach President Trump. There will be no conviction in the Senate because you will not get two thirds of the senators to vote to impeach President Trump.

And we’re now at a point in time where that the love of party is greater than the love of rights and wrongs. And so what will happen– as in the case of Sam Brownback. Sam Brownback who was named the religious liberty ambassador, there is no Democrat that will say that Sam Brownback is not the right guy for that post. Yet every single one of them in the Senate voted against him because he was President Trump”€™s nominee. So, you’re loving your party more than your loving the country or the people involved.

Tim:

Let me back up to President Clinton – is that something that we could say probably happened with President Clinton? Where he was impeached in the house and nothing happened in the Senate, didn’t get the votes needed even though it was very clear, right? He lied under oath, he hindered the investigation, the things that he was accused of that was confirmed in the House. Then it goes to the Senate and the Senate says, “€œWell, we’re not really going to do anything. It”€™s a 25,000 dollar fine.”€

He lost his law license in Arkansas for a little bit because Arkansas pursued that matter. But is that a similar scenario?

Anybody But the Clintons

David:

It is. And what happened with President Clinton is where you really saw the partisanship pop up in a very clear way. I remember William Byrd, the senator from West Virginia, who had done many many good things. He was associated with the Klan and other things as background, but as a senator he did many good things. I remember seeing his press conference where he”€™s saying, “€œThere’s no doubt in my mind that what he has done he is guilty of it, he is guilty of a felony, he is guilty of this and I’m going to vote to acquit.”€ Oh really.

TIm:

So, that’s like when the FBI says had anybody but Hillary Clinton done these things with e-mail–

David:

Exactly.

Tim:

–and with all this, they would be in jail, but not Hillary Clinton. So, it does seem like then in these situations that you have people that are not motivated by what’s constitutional–

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

–not motivated by what’s right. And this is when we go back even to the beginning, right, where truth becomes subjective and how these judges think, “€œWell, the Constitution means this to me and this is what I think and how I feel.”€ Well, if truth is relative than it”€™s going to be hard to carry through with some of these things.

David:

The other thing is they now know that they cannot be impeached unless they rape their daughter and murder their wife. So, what is there to stop them from giving any decision they want on the court?

It”€™s Almost That Bad

Tim:

Sure. And the argument is something so egregious–

David:

Yeah.

Tim:

–right, that it”€™s so obvious nobody can vote against it.

David:

Yeah, if you get thrown on death row you might get impeached today. It’s almost that bad because we have this moral divide that we no longer know what is right and wrong. We don’t think the Constitution is a real document anymore – it”€™s a living document.

And with that you’re not going to get two thirds of the Senate to agree on hardly anything. Except the last two impeachments we got of judges were because they were sitting in jail drawing federal pensions while they were sitting in jail for crimes. And we did get Democrats to agree that they ought be off the court at that point.

Impeachment Of Judges and Officials For Unconstitutional Actions

Rick:

Folks, we dive into this a lot more at Constitution Alive. You can get that at WallBuilders.com today and you ought to get your Sunday school to go through that as well and your family. It’s a great education for you and it’s just basically a citizen”€™s guide. So, it”€™s a crash course in the Constitution and we specifically cover this issue quite a bit.

Thanks for listening today. Be sure and send in your questions – [email protected] is the e-mail address to send it to – [email protected] – And we’ll try to get to it on a future Foundations of Freedom Thursday program. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders live.

Outro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œThe Constitutions of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people that they may exercise it by themselves. That it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. That they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”€