Louisiana Purchase Outside Constitutional Authority? 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 was the Louisiana Purchase outside the constitutional authority of  Jefferson? Was Andrew Jackson a hero of faith? And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 06/14/2018

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:

You”€™ve found your way to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! Where we”€™re talking about the day”€™s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture. And it’s Thursday, so it”€™s Foundations of Freedom Thursday which means you get to pick the topics. You can send in your questions to [email protected], that’s [email protected]

We’re here with David Barton, America’s premier historian and our founder here at WallBuilders. Also, Tim Barton”€™s with us, national speaker and pastor, and president of WallBuilders. And my name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator.

Check us out at WallBuildersLive.com especially if you’d like more Foundations of Freedom Thursdays. We’ve got some of the archives up there on the website. You can go into past weeks and also get some Good News Friday programs and some of the interviews we do with special guests from across the country and around the world. So, check all that out WallBuildersLive.com.

And then also WallBuilders.com, our main website, where you can get all kinds of great tools for yourself and your family, maybe for your Sunday school class. We’ve got great DVD programs with workbooks. You can go through Sunday school class or bring people into your home. Study the Constitution, study the foundations of America. In fact, Foundations of Freedom is a great TV show as well where you can learn a lot of great stuff from WallBuilders.

But today we’re going to take your questions. David, Tim, you guys ready to dive into some of these questions from the listeners?

Tim:

You bet.

Was the Louisiana Purchase Unconstitutional?

Rick:

Alright, the first one”€™s coming from Gabriel Brink, he’s got a question on Thomas Jefferson. He said, “€œIn a recent conversation I was informed that Jefferson was not a good president because he acted outside his constitutional right when purchasing the Louisiana Purchase. Having a hard time believing Jefferson would do something unconstitutional I’d like to hear the truth on this matter.”€ Interesting question, guys.  I don’t know that I’ve ever pondered this one – was the Louisiana Purchase outside the constitutional authority of the president?

David:

If you’re going to use that argument on why he’s not a good president I would like to know who the critic thinks is a good president. If you can only do what is physically written in the Constitution of the United States, other than George Washington. I’m not sure we’ve got anyone that fits that bill. In the case of Thomas Jefferson what is said is correct that Jefferson thought we needed a constitutional amendment, but there’s a lot more to the story. And the rest of their story goes to the fact that Jefferson really was a good president because he was concerned about doing nothing that was outside the bounds of the Constitution.

So, when you look at Jefferson, what happened was because of all the war going in Europe and with France, and England, everybody else, Napoleon needed a lot of money and he needed it fast. And so all of the interior parts of America was claimed by France from– the Louisiana purchase is what we now call it– back in October 1803 and Napoleon need that infusion of cash, so we had the opportunity to be able to do that. So, there’s a treaty that’s negotiated over in Europe with James Monroe.

For example, Thomas Jefferson sent James Monroe and other diplomats over to talk to Napoleon about it. And so they reached this treaty and for fifteen million dollars America can buy eight hundred and thirty thousand square miles of property that”€™s claimed by France. So, that doubled the size the United States.

It’s Not in the Constitution You Can”€™t Do It?

David:

Jefferson, in looking at that, says, “€œI don’t see in the Constitution where we’re allowed to purchase this kind of property, this size of property.”€ And actually Jefferson proposed a constitutional amendment to be able to do this. This is what Jefferson told John Dickinson. He says, “€œThe general government, that is the federal government, has no power, but such as the Constitution gives it. It has not been given the power of holding foreign territory and still less of incorporating it into the union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this day.”€

Here’s another quote by Jefferson talking about this idea of it’s not in the Constitution you can”€™t do it. Jefferson says, “€œWhen an instrument admits two constructions – the once safe the other dangerous, the one precise the other indefinite.”€ In other words when you can read a clause of the Constitution two ways one is really clear and one’s kind of shadowy, he says, “€œI prefer that which is safe and precise.”€ If it’s not physically written in there I don’t want to go there, is what he’s saying.

He continues, “€œI’d rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation by constitutional amendment when it”€™s found necessary then to assume it by construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”€ So, he’s really concerned that he does not have the power.

Now, interestingly, his cabinet has a guy named James Madison who is the secretary of state. And James Madison, the secretary of state, says, “€œNo, this is within the scope of the powers of the Constitution.”€ And John Marshall, who was chief justice Supreme Court, said, “€œLook, the Constitution says that you have the power to make war and you have the power to negotiate treaties. Both of those are in the Constitution. And by making war and defeating an enemy you can get property that way or by negotiating treaties you can get property that way. And so since this is not making war, but it’s negotiating a treaty and the Constitution says you can do that, you can go ahead and get this land, this 830000 square miles, by treaty powers.

Stay Away From Loose Construction

David:

And so they ended up not passing the constitutional amendment because so many within Jefferson’s administration, and folks who we say are really good on the Constitution just like Jefferson was, they agreed that you can do this through the treaty making power which is actually how we got the Louisiana Territory. It was by a treaty that was negotiated and signed with Napoleon in France. And so that does not make Jefferson a bad president. On the other side, I would say makes him a really good president because he’s not using loose construction to try to add powers that weren’t specifically there.

And he was so cognisant of the Constitution that he really worked to make sure that he stayed within it. And when convinced by other constitutional experts, Madison and others, that it could be done and when he saw the power of making treaties, then he goes ahead and does it. But I would say that makes Jefferson a really good president, not the other way.

Rick:

So, he’s basically being not overly cautious, he’s just being super cautious. He’s just basically saying if there’s any doubt, or it’s not crystal clear, then do an amendment just to make sure. But in this case he thought about doing the amendment and then obviously some really good experts on the Constitution that had helped frame the Constitution reassured him, “€œNo, look, this is within the bounds of these clauses that give you the authority to do something like this.”€ I think you’re right. I think that’s the kind of attitude you ought to have in cautious steps before you take an action.

David:

And it wasn’t that he just thought about doing an amendment, he actually proposed a constitutional amendment. They just decided it was unnecessary. So, he actually went to that extra step.

Rick:

Wow.

One of the Master Builders

Tim:

But I would point out that in today’s perspective, with James Madison today being viewed as the father of the Constitution, if the father of the Constitution is saying, “€œNo, you’re allowed to do this.”€ Then, in theory, there’s really not a lot much else to discuss for most of the modern skeptics or critics of what Jefferson did. Because again, Madison being recognized as that chief guy of the Constitution, which of course, we would argue he”€™s only one of the master builders. He was not the master builder, he was not the guy that did everything. Nonetheless, that’s the way he’s perceived today. And if the guy that”€™s perceived today to be the father of it all says it’s okay, it’s probably okay.

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

I would point to this as just one of those additional gigs that so many in academia put out today in trying to make the early founders look bad. And so you say, “€œOh, look at this, he did something unconstitutional.”€ Well no, when you know the rest of the story it was exactly the opposite of what you were told. And so I would think that the critic who said this, “€œOh, Jefferson wasn’t a good president”€, doesn’t know the rest of the story, hasn”€™t been told the rest of the story, has no clue what he’s talking about, and can’t name another president that went to this kind of extent to make sure that he stayed within the Constitution.

Rick:

I’m encouraged actually, David.

David:

Yeah, that’s right.

If We Could Just Have a Few Members of Congress Like That

Rick:

Because I didn’t know that story at all and we do this every day talking about this stuff. So, it is fun to dig into this. I love getting these kind of questions and then to hear that he was that methodical. If we could just have a few members of Congress that would be that methodical we would constantly be asking these questions, “€œIs that authority in here? Do we have jurisdiction?”€ And that’s really what he was doing. He was saying, “€œDo I have authority? Do we have the jurisdiction to do this?”€ Those are the things we’re trying to get people at every level of government to do.

David:

Well, the other thing I would say is it also means that he knew the written Constitution. Because he says, wait a minute, there is nothing in the Constitution for me to be able to add double the size United States, add 830,000 acres. And so that does mean that he knew the Constitution well enough to recognize an absence of something there.

Rick:

That”€™s right.

David:

Although James Madison, and Marshall, and others, pointed out, “€œNo, it’s in the treaty making powers because that’s how we’re acquiring this land.”€

Rick:

Great stuff, guys. Hey, quick break. We’ll come back and we’ve got some more questions. Loads of them actually. Folks, if you want to send yours in, send them to [email protected] We’ll be right back. It”€™s Foundations of Freedom Thursday right here on 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.”€
Constitution Alive Use promo code WBL17 to receive 10% off your entire order!

Constitution Alive

Have you ever wanted to learn more about the United States Constitution but just felt like, man, the classes are boring or it’s just that old language from 200 years ago or I don’t know where to start? People want to know. But it gets frustrating because you don’t know where to look for truth about the Constitution either.

Well, we’ve got a special program for you available now called Constitution Alive with David Barton and Rick Green. It’s actually a teaching done on the Constitution at Independence Hall in the very room where the Constitution was framed. We take you both to Philadelphia, the Cradle of Liberty and Independence Hall and to the WallBuilders”€™ library where David Barton brings the history to life to teach the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

We call it the QuickStart guide to the Constitution because in just a few hours through these videos you will learn the Citizen’s Guide to America’s Constitution.  You’ll learn what you need to do to help save our Constitutional Republic. It’s fun! It’s entertaining! And it’s going to inspire you to do your part to preserve freedom for future generations. It’s called Constitution Alive with David Barton and Rick Green. You can find out more information on our website now at WallBuilders.com.

Intro:

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.”€

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us today on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Send in your questions to [email protected], that’s [email protected] Next one comes from Jennie in Omaha. Hey, I took my kids up to a baseball tournament in Omaha once, it was pretty cool until the tornado came. But other than that it was great.

Okay, her question is about Andrew Jackson. Our last question was about Thomas Jefferson. This one”€™s about Andrew Jackson, “€œI know that Jackson was a populist president and Democrat, but I don’t know much else. I’ve always believed that he was not someone to look up to because of his treatment of native peoples. My question is if he is someone we should look up to as a hero of the faith.”€ Wow. Okay, good question. David, Tim, I guess if you want to be somebody that duels a lot, like your answer to everything is, “€œNo, let’s go out have a duel.”€ Maybe…

How Many Duels Was Andrew Jackson Involved In?

David:

Are you saying Andrew Jackson had a lot of duels? Andrew Jackson is known for duling. By the way, duling is when two guys walk out with pistols, or guns, or sabers, or knives, or whatever, and they defend their honor on the field is what it amounts to. So, Andrew Jackson was involved. Now, do you have any clue how many duels Andrew Jackson was involved in?

Rick:

Man, I would think maybe five or six? I heard a lot, at least that’s my recollection that he was in a lot. And I think if you can survive five or six that’s a lot.

Tim:

Well, yeah. So, I would actually– my guess would be more like 10 or 12. Because if– a lot to me would indicate more than– a young kid, right, bold, prideful, might be involved in two, or three, or four. So, to me, that’s not a lot yet. But if you get 10 or 12, that’s a lot of duels. So, I would guess probably over 10.

David:

You guys are not even in the right ballpark. You’re not even close. Over 100 is the right answer.

Rick:

100 duels?!

Tim:

Wow.

David:

Over 100. We don”€™t know for sure how many.

Tim:

Now, do we know– is this, generally, like with swords and sabers? With pistols? Because I can’t imagine that 100 duels with pistols you don’t get shot.

About Honor

David:

Well, that’s the thing with the duling back then and a lot of it really was over honor. There’s a perfect example. It’s fake news. Somebody reports that so-and-so does something really bad and you go challenge a reporter and say, “€œHey, that’s a lie. I challenge you to a duel.”€ If you really believe what you said is true and you have the conviction that you are true, you will walk out on the field with a gun and face somebody. You’re willing to face death because you told the truth and you’re not going to back down.

So, at that point, if you really show the courage and you’re convinced what you said was true, oftentimes they would fire their guns with a deliberate miss, or they might shoot them in the air. But you’ve proven that you had courage and you had the convictions to back up. If you’re a coward and you know that you lied, you’re going to look for a way out of that. You’re to apologize and say, “€œOkay, I shouldn’t have written that”€, or whatever.”€

So, a lot of duels come from matters of honor where you accuse him of doing something that he knows he is not guilty of. But if you have the truth of your convictions that, yes, I really believe that is true, then he might walk away and let you live. But you had to show the truth of your convictions. He did get shot at times. There were times in duels he got shot, but they weren’t always lethal shots. You can get wounded, shot in the shoulder or arm–

Tim:

Probably they were never lethal shots or he–

David:

He wouldn”€™t be alive.

Tim:

So, he got shot–

Men and Duels

Rick:

Right. There were other guys, too, right? Like the– what”€™s the signer from Georgia that got in a duel just less than a year after?

David:

Button Gwinnett.

Rick:

Yeah, Button Gwinnett. And the guy he was in the duel with, he shot him in the leg and the guy shot Button Gwinnett in the leg. Button Gwinnett died from it, the other guy didn’t. So, I guess a lot of people got shot in those duels and didn’t necessarily die.

David:

There was a lot of times you got shot and did not die. Now, in the case of Alexander Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton said, “€œWhen I walk out on the field against Aaron Burr I’m going to shoot my pistol into the air and he will take that opportunity to kill me.”€ And he did. That’s exactly what happened. And so Hamilton knew that was coming.

But there were other times when you faced your opponent on the field, you looked at each other and said, “€œYou know what? You”€™ve got more courage than I thought you did.”€ and you’d both fire your pistols into the air. So, it really depended on whether it was an honor thing, or whether it was an anger thing, or what issues *–

Tim:

So, how personal it was, right?

David:

How personal.

Tim:

Am I trying to kill you? And then, in theory, maybe not every duel was also with guns. Because as you mentioned, it could have been sabers, or knives, or who knows what else. And Andrew Jackson probably had some ability and skill with multiple weapons.

David:

He was a skilled soldier. No question about it. But the big thing that really got him where he did not show much mercy was when you came after his wife Rachel. If you came after his wife Rachel, or said bad things about her– And by the way, in the presidential election of 1828, he became president 1829, there was a ton of bad stuff said about his wife. They brought his wife into the campaign and beat on her mercilessly. And he was just not going to put up with that.

Duels As President?

Rick:

Wait, so you”€™re saying– did he duel after he was president too?

David:

He was dueling all the way through up until.

Rick:

Wow.

David:

And you”€™ve got to understand–

Tim:

So, were there any duels as president?

David:

I don’t recall that there were. There were a whole bunch before. And remember, he’s a military guy. This this guy– Louis L’Amour, he”€™s a western writer, he said he would wear his clothes out from the inside. In other words, he’s rough enough that when he put his clothes on he’s so tough that his clothes wore out from the inside – not the outside. That’s how tough he was.

So, what you have with Andrew Jackson, when he’s 11, 12, 13, years old he’s in the American Revolution. He’s actually a prisoner of war when he’s 13 years old. When you get next into the war of 1812, he’s the big man. He’s the guy really responsible for some of the major victories in the American Revolution. And then what he does in the creek Indian Wars. He’s just a warrior, a fighter, he is a tough guy, he’s out of Tennessee. There is no question but that if you want to look at what patriotism looks like and willingness to stand for your country, Andrew Jackson is the guy.

Andrew Jackson”€™s Marriage

David:

I don’t know that you can say anybody loved his country more than Andrew Jackson did. George Washington would be up there close, but Andrew Jackson– But he’s kind of a blue collar guy, whereas Washington is little more blue collar/white collar kind of guy. Andrew Jackson is definitely a backwoodsman. He’s kind of crude and rough out of the woods of Tennessee. He didn’t grow up in the sophisticated societies where George Washington did. So, he’s just got a whole lot more of an edge to him. No question he loved his country.

But what happened was, back in 1791 he made a trip to Tennessee where he met Rachel. And Rachel had been in a very unhappy marriage. She was married when she was 18, a guy named Lewis Rowbards, and it did not turn out well, so separated and divorced. And so Andrew Jackson married her. Except, it turns out that the other divorce had not become official. And the guy really hadn’t become divorced after all, just kind of suggested that he had. So, Rachel gets married to Andrew still being married to the first guy. Which, by the way, is illegal. That’s called bigamy. You can’t do that.

Now, she thought she was divorced, and he thought she was divorced, but it turns out the paperwork had not been done, etc.. So, Rachel then pursues the divorce, actually gets the official divorce, and then three years later she and Andrew have another wedding ceremony. So, they actually have two wedding ceremonies. Only one of which was legal – they thought the other one was, but it wasn’t.

So, when it comes time for the presidential election in 1828, they’re digging up all the dirt they can and they start accusing him of bigamy and that he shacked up with his wife, shacked up with Rachel for years before they were legally married. And that’s the stuff he would not tolerate. He would absolutely not put up with those kind of charges being made against Rachel, impugning her purity, her integrity. He wouldn’t put up with it. So, if you had impugned Rachel, impugned her purity, that’s probably not a duel where he’s going to just point the gun in the air and shoot and say, “€œOkay, you had courage, you had strength of your convictions.”€ He is probably going to aim and do some type of damage at that point because you just you didn’t mess with Rachel.

Andrew Jackson”€™s Salvation

David:

So, he loved Rachel. They never had any children together. But Rachel was a Christian woman and Rachel worked on him and on his tough guy stuff throughout their marriage. And it was not until after Andrew Jackson left the White House that he actually made a profession of faith. And he did so largely because of Rachel working on him and just telling him how important it was to be a Christian. So, late in life after he’s out of the White House, he makes that first public profession of faith. He’s baptized in a creek, it’s a big deal.

And Andrew at that point in time seems to show a real change in his life away from being president. It’s not that he was ever hostile to faith because when he was president he would help raise money for religious groups. But he also, like Thomas Jefferson, would not issue any national prayer proclamation. He felt that that was not the right thing for the federal government to do.

So, that kind of played into this thing of he”€™s not a very religious guy, which he really wasn’t at that point in time. There were a lot of charges in the campaign about how that he’s just a man of the people, and he brought all of this nepotism into the White House ,and they had all these wild parties at the White House, and most of that turns out not to be true, but that’s the kind of image that went with Andrew Jackson.

Tim:

Well, and I would point out even if he was someone that converted toward the end of his life, looks back and has a change of heart, realizes a lot of what he did was wrong, it certainly doesn’t excuse the fact that he was this racist guy. He certainly was a slave owner, certainly mistreatment of Indians at a lot of levels. So, it doesn’t excuse the bad behavior. And therefore I would say, no, he’s not somebody we should look to and go, “€œWow, that’s the kind of person you want to be like.”€ Although, certainly there are some some positive qualities–

Rick:

The toughness, and the patriotism, that sort of thing.

Tim:

He loved his country. He loved America. But he’s certainly not one of those presidents that we point to and go, “€œWow, he was a great president in American history, or a great person in general.”€ Even though hopefully that conversion in his life was a very genuine and sincere thing, and hopefully he repented and recanted of much of what he did. But certainly he did a lot of negative things in his life.

Eulogies at His Death

David:

And eulogies at his death. There were eulogies across the nation including by ministers who knew him and they talked about late in life he did become a Christian. But the minister said, “€œBut we cannot at all condone what he did with Indians, what he did with moving them out of Georgia, and the trail of tears.”€ And so even those ministers made the same distinction. Yeah, as a person he is probably in heaven because of this relationship with Jesus, but that doesn’t excuse the behavior he had before.

So, that’s, Tim, you’re exactly right. That’s really the right answer to the question is no, we really don’t look up to him as a hero in that sense. We look up to him as a patriot who loved this country, who fought for his country, who helped preserve America as a nation, but who had a lot of baggage along the way.

Rick:

Well, we”€™ve got– let’s be real frank here, we”€™ve got a lot of guys right now on the frontlines fighting for our freedom, and we honor them, and we thank them for what they’re doing even though they may have very bad things going on in their life that they’re doing that we would not honor. So, it’s the good, the bad, and the ugly thing. And actually, we’re going skip our last break, guys. I want to get you guys to address this because this question raises this.

Sometimes people think that we should not in any way look to the character traits or the actions of a president or a Founding Father because they had something else in their life that was bad. I even had someone this weekend when I was doing a presentation say, “€œWell, you used a quote from a Founding Father that was a slave owner.”€ And so therefore insinuating I shouldn’t have even used that quote or pointed out what they said.

So, address that, if you would. How do we separate that, or how do we reckon that, look, everybody in history is human and they’re all sinners, they’ve all done things that are depraved and some of them did that throughout their life. But we can’t just throw out everybody in history and say we’re not going to learn from any of them because they did something else that was bad or wrong. Does that question makes sense?
The Great Irony

Tim:
It does, Rick. Let me jump in first because I would say the great irony with that position, you can’t talk about them, you can’t hold them up because slavery, or whatever the case was. Well, if that’s the logic we’re using than you can never quote the Apostle Paul, right? You can never look to King David. In fact, don’t even read the Psalms.

David:

I will tell you that if you look at my Bible you will see that in my Bible there is a section about an eighth inch thing that’s been completely torn out. It’s gone. I took all the Psalms out because they were written by David who murdered Uriah and who slept with Bathsheba. And so I will not read any Psalm in the Bible because it was written– no, not true.

Rick:

Well, how about Proverbs? Solomon had what, eight hundred?

David:

Seven hundred wives, 300 concubines.

Tim:

In fact, if you go to Hebrews chapter 11, it”€™s known as kind of the Faith Hall of Fame. And when you look at these faith heroes that are held up, show me one that didn’t have some egregious sin in their life.

Rick:

Right. Right.

David:

At some point. They didn’t all–

Rick:

And this is not to say that we’re excusing those things, right. We’re not saying that slavery was okay, we’re not saying, we’re not making light of the bad things that people did. We”€™re just see that that is like you’re saying that doesn’t mean that you don’t still learn from the other things that they did.

Show Me a Nation…

Tim:

Correct. It’s one of the things even with slavery that is I think largely misunderstood in modern context is. Show me a nation in history in the 1700s that didn’t have slaves.

Rick:

Oh, yeah.

Tim:

Show me a people group in all of history, show me a people group that was never enslaved and never enslaved any other people. Every people–this is the story of humanity.

Rick:

Human nature, yeah.

Tim:

It’s the history of the world. And so obviously Woodrow Wilson is a guy who periodically I will even quote in presentations. Now, I usually kind of put a little caveat around and say, “€œLook, even a guy like Woodrow Wilson, bad as he was, acknowledged this true fact or statement. And so just because someone is really bad doesn’t mean that they cannot acknowledge a truth or there can”€™t be something in their life we can point to and go, “€œThat moment right there, that was really good.”€ We can encourage that.

Winston Churchill would be another great example of that, right?

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

Winston Churchill did, in helping bring an end to Hitler’s reign, and regime, and World War II, was wonderful. Winston Churchill did a lot of other things in his life that were not great and wonderful. And apparently a little bit like Andrew Jackson, late in his life he kind of changes his position and confesses that was wrong. And so seems to have a change of heart in that regard. But you don’t disregard what he did in World War II just because you look at other things he did in his life. Although the other things he did in his life were pretty terrible.

Rick:
That’s a great example, Tim. Because you take a guy like that and you point to some of the things he did in his life and say, “€œThat’s not an example I would want to put in front of my children.”€ Yet then you”€™ve got to say, wait a minute, but for that period of his life in leading England through World War II, he was arguably one of the top leaders of the last century. I would say without question one of the top five leaders of the last century.

Louisiana Purchase Outside Constitutional Authority? 

Rick:

So, a lot of examples out there like that. Thank you guys for letting me be one of the ones to toss a question out today. Other folks that want to send in questions, send them into [email protected] We’ll get to those on the next Foundations of Freedom Thursday. You can get more of these programs at WallBuildersLive.com and you can help us spread the word on these programs. Go to your Facebook, and Twitter, and Snapchat, and all those other apps that I don’t know how to use. But go get those and spread the word. Share this program with other folks.

And go to WallBuilders.com and help us spread the word of this program by coming alongside us as a financial partner. Make a one time contribution or maybe you’ll be one of our monthly donors. But it helps us to spread the word and do the work that we’re doing here at WallBuilders. You can be part of that as well. Help us restore this constitutional republic. We appreciate you listening today to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:
President 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.”€