Political Parties and Court Packing – on Foundations of Freedom Thursday: Today on Foundations of Freedom Thursday, we answer listener questions- What was George Washington’s view of the bipartisan system? How can we prevent court packing? How did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists get their names? After this, we look at what summer programs are available and recommended by the WallBuilders Team. All of this and more, on Foundations of Freedom Thursday

Air Date: 3/9/2023

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

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription:

Rick Green
This is the intersection of faith and the culture. It’s WallBuilders. We’re taking on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical and constitutional perspective and today’s foundations of freedom Thursday, which means we’re specifically diving into your questions, you can send those into [email protected] That’s [email protected] . Foundational questions about the Constitution, about the jurisdictions of government and the church and the family and how we do this. How do we do this well? We are Caesar in America, we the people, so if we’re going to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God, what is God’s? How do we do that well? A lot of the questions we get on foundations of freedom Thursday are specifically about that. How can I be a good citizen? How do I get my church to turn out good citizens? What do we do in education? How do we do this in government? Well, whatever your question is, send it into today at [email protected] . I’m Rick Green, America’s constitution coach here with David and Tim Barton. Tim’s a national speaker and pastor and president of WallBuilders. David is, of course, America’s premier historian, and you can learn more about us at our website, WallBuilders.com today. Alright, guys, let’s jump into those questions from the audience. First one is about George Washington: hey, WallBuilders. Is it true that George Washington hated the bipartisan system? Is it the best? Is there something better that we could implement now? And I’m guessing guys, he’s referring to the comments from the farewell address. But I do hear this a lot. And I’ve never really known other than that, those comments in the farewell address where people got this from. So David, you know, his writings better than anybody alive. What did George Washington think about? And I don’t know if this guy’s saying a two party system, just partisanship in general, which… or what the particular angle is for the questioner, but I know our listeners have questions all around this subject.

David Barton
Well, first off, let’s deal with the principle that it’s good to have debate and good to have discussion. And we go back to Proverbs 18:17. One side sounds good until you hear the other side. That’s why you have a defense and a prosecution and a trial, both sides bring out information, a jury is to listen that information and make their decision. So having a contest, having some type of competition, that’s not a bad thing at all.

Tim Barton
Well and Dad you just mentioned, I was going to point out that competition is what we often advocate for. Competition makes things better. And if you don’t have competition, then it’s easy for somebody to get complacent, it’s easy for them to do things that would not be right. And sometimes competition helps expose some of the weakness of the other side. And George Washington certainly was not against competition. However, I don’t have a feeling that’s where you were going, or would be to suggest that Washington did not want competition.

David Barton
Yeah, what he talks about in the farewell address is not political parties. But he talks about having a love of a political party, more than a love for your country or for the Constitution or for the right principles. And so the difference is not that he opposed a two party system are that he opposed parties because he did not. He had parties within his own administration. His Secretary of the Treasury was a leader of the Federalist party, and the Secretary of State was a leader of the anti Federalist party. And it was good to have those discussions in the cabinet to be able to push back and forth and have different viewpoints. But when you get to the point where you love the anti Federalist party of the Federalist Party more than you love, the principle being discussed, when winning and losing becomes more important than the principle. That’s where the problem comes. So over the course of American history, I do not know of a single time when we did not have parties of some kind. Now, I will point out that in James Monroe, at that point, the other major political parties had fallen apart, they had coalesced into one party, the Federalists really had put themselves out of business, the anti Federalists, the only party left, nationally, but even that, there were differences among the anti Federalists, they had factions within their own party. So there’s always going to be factions in Christianity, there’s always going to be denominations, we may agree on 99% of the stuff, but we’re going to have some disagreement somewhere. And that always goes. But what Washington talked about is not having a love of party, above a love of principle. And by the way, it’s really good to know the principles and then debate the principles rather than the beliefs of the parties. So going back to constitutional principles is what Washington was pushing for.

Tim Barton
And really what he was arguing is, one of the challenges we’ve seen in the culture today where, for example, in some of the major inner cities, everybody’s a Democrat, or at least all of the leadership, right, all the political leaders in these major cities are Democrats, and how are the cities faring? There’s an increase in violent crime. Right? Murder is like unprecedented rates right now. There are so many major issues in these cities, but people continue to vote Democrat. Why do you love the party more than the principal? This is one of the challenges that Washington was referring to, that we need to make sure that we don’t just think well, they’re Democrats so we want to vote for them. Well, they’re Republicans we’re voting for them, well… right? They’re constitutional party. They’re libertarian. They’re… whatever it is. You should not vote for someone Just because of the label, just because of how they identify or just because of what team they are on, you should be more concerned about the principles. And you know, guys, we’ve talked about this in previous programs. But genuinely, if it came down to a Republican or Democrat running for office, and one of them is pro life, one of them is pro marriage. One of them is pro religious liberty, one of them is pro Israel, right? One of them is pro capitalism, free market, enterprise. And the other ones not. Well, I don’t care who’s the Republican or Democrat. I care who is correct on these issues and these principles, and if it happened to be the Democrat, I would vote for the Democrat because the principle is more important than the political party. We don’t vote for someone just because of what party they are affiliated with, although… And i’m saying that. This is like the big picture issue we understand right now. And there is such a big chasm between the political parties right now. And if you look at the parties, there is only one party that does believe in traditional marriage, although that’s even a little questionable with some Republican leaders. There’s only one party that believes in the value of life and wanting to protect unborn life. There’s only one party that seems to believe in religious liberty and biblical values, only one party that seems to want to be the friend of Israel. This is something that is pretty clear politically now. But with that being said, if Republicans changed position or Democrats changed position, I’m not going to stay with the party that no longer is supporting any of the right positions. We support principles more than party. That’s what Washington was talking about.

David Barton
And let me literally read you that part of his farewell address. And this is where people sometimes read it and say, Oh, he’s against political parties. Listen for two phrases, two words here. One is the baneful effect. So baneful is horrific, terrible. And the other thing he talks about the quote, spirit of party, not party, but the spirit of party, this is what he says. He says, let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed. But in those of the elective form, it is seen in his greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. Now, imagine that a guy who’s fought enemies for his whole life, says the worst enemy I’ve ever faced is the spirit of party. He said, this is the worst enemy. He says it’s truly their worst enemy. He says that alternate domination of one faction over another sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetuated the most horrible enormities is itself a frightful despotism. So what happens is, oh, you beat us, so now we’re going to beat you. We’re not talking about the issues anymore. We’re not talking about what’s right or wrong. Democrats have to beat Republicans, Republicans have to beat Democrats, no, no, the ideas are the most important. It’s not who wins and who loses. And so he goes on, and it’s all about the spirit of party and the baneful effects of the spirit of party. I am an active Republican, because I think every citizen needs to be involved in some party, because that’s where you have an influence on the rules and who the candidates are and etc. But I am not a lover of Republicans more than I’m a lover of the Constitution or love with principles. And so whether you’re libertarian, or Green, or whether you’re Democrat or anything else, use that party as a vehicle to get the best people in office, and don’t get into party revenge, that you guys won the election of 2020. So we’re gonna win 2024. No, you go for the right people and the right principles. That’s what Washington’s talking about.

Rick Green
You know, as you guys are describing that and talking about it, I couldn’t help but think, you know, from a theological or even just a sectarian perspective, it’s similar, right? Like, we shouldn’t say, well, if I’m a Pentecostal, or I’m a Baptist, or I’m a Presbyterian or whatever, I’m not going to have discussions about the Bible with anybody from any other faith. We must have civil discourse and be willing to have those discussions. It’s the same thing with party. It’s the same thing with our communities, being able to have that iron sharpening iron, that civil discourse is absolutely necessary to keep us from going to civil war. But that civil discourse does not mean that we aren’t partisan in some way, meaning in terms of we have a particular party that we are working within, because it best espouses our values in a party is nothing but a car folks is nothing but a vehicle. It depends on who’s driving it. It’s one reason that we are so involved in a particular party is because we know that it can be a force for good if the right people are running it. And our next question is about the Supreme Court. How can we prevent the Supreme Court from being packed? Recently the left has been entertaining the idea of packing courts, what can we do and of course, guys are referring to Joe Biden has talked about that a lot that he would love to pack the court and add more to the court even though he said I don’t know 150 years ago, okay, when that long ago, it was about 40 years ago, when he… and literally I think it was 40 years ago, when he was in the Senate. He said that FDR… what did he call it? Was boneheaded. That was his word- was boneheaded for trying to pack the court, but a lot changes in the decades and a packed court helps the Democrats so I could see why he would want to do it. But how do you stop it from happening?

David Barton
The Constitution gives the authority to Congress to determine how many justices are on the Supreme Court and how many judges we have in the entire federal system. So it’s Congress who decides whether there is a federal judicial system beyond the Supreme Court. All the Constitution requires is a Supreme Court. And it does not tell us how many justices, it doesn’t tell us that there have to be Court of Appeals or federal district courts. That’s all up to Congress. So everything on this comes back to Congress, the judiciary was deliberately designed so that it could not create itself, could not operate itself, that it could not control itself. It’s a legislature that does that. So the best way to keep from packing the court is to elect people to the House and the Senate and the presidency, that will not pass a bill to pack the court or sign a bill to pack the court. This literally comes back to We The People, if we don’t want the court packed, that’s in our hands, because we’ll be the ones who choose the senators and the representatives and the president who would pack the court. If we don’t want that to happen, then get involved in elections. And this goes back to the previous question to get involved in the process as well. Because the process is where you can start choosing the candidates you will vote on. If you don’t get involved in the process at the party level. All you’re going to get in November’s a choice, sometimes between the bad and the worst. Sometimes it’s between good and bad, but sometimes it’s between the bad and the worst, but if you wanted to definitely have a good choice there, you get involved in the party system and the primary system, move that forward. That’s the best way to stop court packing.

Rick Green
And, guys, just if I could, a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, you know, I’m okay with having more Supreme Court justices, I actually think it would be healthier to have not so much power, you know… only divided between nine people. So I would love to see us over time, add more seats to the court. The problem with packing is when one president is able to add a bunch of seats to the court and shift the, you know, the philosophy or the direction of the court just through pure raw political power. And so right now in this environment, it’s very dangerous time to be doing something like that. But man, I over time I would love to spread that power out because man, you know, we just… we lose our minds in America over one supreme court justice, because it’s outside its jurisdiction. It’s doing things that shouldn’t have ever done. It wasn’t designed to make law and it’s been making law. And right now we’ve got, you know, some days four some days five some day six judges that don’t want to make law and are giving constitutional decisions. We don’t know how long that will last. But anyway, just that thought for people so that they know it’s not… We’re not against adding people necessarily to the court. It’s all about whether or not you’re doing it for that terminology that our listener wrote about, packing the court for the same reasons FDR wanted to do it. But David exactly right. I mean, it’s the legislatures where that’s got to stop and we’re the ones that get to decide who’s in that Congress. Let’s take a quick break, we got a lot more questions coming from the audience, you can send yours into [email protected] . Stay with us, folks, you’re listening to WallBuilders.

Tim Barton
Hey, this is Tim Barton with WallBuilders. And as you’ve had the opportunity to listen to WallBuilders Live, you’ve probably heard the wealth of information about our nation, about our spiritual heritage, about the religious liberties about all the things that makes America exceptional. And you might be thinking as incredible as this information is, I wish there was a way that I could get one of the WallBuilders guys to come to my area, and share with my group, whether it be a church, whether it be a Christian school, or public school, or some political event or activity. If you’re interested in having a WallBuilders speaker come to your area, you can get on our website at www.wallbuilders.com. And there’s a tab for scheduling. And if you don’t click on that tab, you’ll notice there’s a list of information from speakers bios to events that are already going on. And there’s a section where you can request an event. To bring this information about who we are, where we came from, our religious liberties and freedoms go to the WallBuilders website and bring a speaker to your area.

Rick Green
We’re back here on WallBuilders. Thanks for staying with us on this foundations of freedom Thursday. Next question we’re going to dive into comes from get this, White House, Tennessee, not the White House in Washington, DC. This is a town called White House, Tennessee. Joseph sends this in. He says, recent…

David Barton
Rick, what would you do if we got one from the White House?

Rick Green
The White House? I would wonder who in the White House?

Tim Barton
Yes, which whistleblower just reached out to us?

Rick Green
Yes, yes, that would have, that would have definitely… that’s why the city itself caught my eye on the email. Okay, recently I’ve heard David mentioned that recent polling shows the term quote federalism is not looked upon favorably. He further mentioned that this is likely because most people don’t understand federalism means decreasing the power of the federal government and increasing the power of the states. My question is about the early political parties in our country, the Federalists and the anti Federalists. I’ve read that the anti Federalist warned that the Constitution didn’t do enough to reduce the power of the federal government. Did the names of the parties reflect the correct definition of federalism. Can you please give a brief history of how the party’s got their names? I enjoy the show. And thank you for all you do at WallBuilders. Joseph, thanks so much for the question, David and Tim?

Tim Barton
Yeah, well, I would start off by saying that they were both correct. The Federalists, when they argued what the Constitution did and did not do, they were correct. But the anti Federalists were also correct because where we are today is what they were afraid America would become, that they… the federal government being creating their own powers because there wasn’t enough limitation. It’s why, if you go back to the constitutional convention, there were several founding fathers who were there who participated in the convention, but ultimately would not sign the Constitution. And actually, there were even many founding fathers who were adamant against ratifying the constitution, because it didn’t give enough limitations to the federal government. Now, the Federalists said, that there’s plenty of limitations because the Constitution clearly explains the federal government can only do what’s explicitly stated in the constitution. So they… the Federalists argued, they can’t arbitrarily create their own powers, they can only do what we’ve told them here. And the anti Federalists, by and large, said, nope, we don’t trust it. We know when you have a government that’s unchecked, that it can absorb more and more power, it will get out of control, it will create new things and new bureaucracies and agencies and do things that shouldn’t do. Well, that’s what we have seen it become. And this was also something that even George Washington’s Farewell Address, the reason he cautioned the American people the way he did, was to make sure that there was accountability. And it’s why when John Adams says that our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people totally inadequate to the government of any other. It’s because if we ever lost that foundation, our Constitution would not survive. And that, nonetheless, this is where in the ratification debates, it’s where some states finally said they would ratify it only if a bill of rights could be added. And this is where you see the task for the first Congress adding the Bill of Rights. This was a concession to get enough of the anti Federalist people from kind of that political philosophy to side in what they kind of viewed as a necessary evil to understand that we needed a constitution that they’re going to support the Constitution only if we can make sure we place more limitations on the federal government. So the Federalists believed we need a big strong enough government to do things that could not be done at that point. Part of the reason also for their understanding is once we separated from Great Britain, in 1777 the founding fathers drafted the Articles of Confederation. Now wasn’t ratified until the early 1780s. But it was drafted in 1777 and it became the the mock constitution they followed. And under the Articles Confederation, it gave the Congress the power to declare things, but they had no enforcement mechanism. So they could say we are going to pay people X amount of dollars, we’re going to import X amount of things, or these A B and C goods. And yet they had no money to pay for the importation, to pay for the salaries, to pay for the raises, which is also why you see the frustration from so many in the military, from even founding fathers taking out loans in their own personal name to be able to pay for their own state militias and their own military because the Congress didn’t have the power to do that. It was because of the lack of the power in articles Confederation, that led founding fathers to go more of the Federalist position and say, we have to… the government has to have some powers. If they don’t have power, then they can’t do anything. And then that’s not an effective government. But this is where the debate between the Federalists and anti Federalists ultimately both of them, were right, to some extent and some capacity, although where we are today certainly vies more for the accuracy of the anti Federalists position of a unrestrained out of control federal government that is abusing the rights of the people.

David Barton
One of the things you’ll find back then, and we talked about this earlier in the program that George Washington put Federalists and anti Federalists in the same cabinet. And you’ll find that they had a whole lot of agreement, you will not find disagreement over the fact that the Constitution gave 17 enumerated powers to the federal government. So only in 17 areas, can the federal government operate. Nobody disagreed with, that Federalist or anti Federalists. Now, today, there would be a massive disagreement between the two primary parties over what the federal government can and can’t do. If you told Democrats the federal government is not allowed to get involved in education, they would say, yeah, it is. And Republicans will say no, here it is in the Constitution. That is a state issue. It is not a federal issue. So in Washington’s day, both parties agreed that there were only 17 things the federal government could do. Now, within that is where you started having the debates of the Federalist versus anti Federalist, for example, you have the Constitution talks about how the federal government can coin currency and money. And so Alexander Hamilton says, well, we need a federal bank, a national bank, to be able to handle the money of the federal government and to be able to handle the currency distribution, etc. And that’s where Thomas Jefferson said, No, we don’t need a national bank. We have state banks, we don’t need that. Wait a minute, currency and banking, currency and creation money and handling money. That is a federal responsibility. You can still have state banks, but it’s the federals that have to do the standard. And so as a result, you had state banks that got into creating their own currency, their own money. By the time of Andrew Jackson, there were thousands of different kinds of currency in America done by local banks. That’s a problem. That’s supposed to be a federal issue. So that’s where they got in disagreements over things like that. And then when, literally when Thomas Jefferson wanted to do the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson said, man, Louisiana purchase is not in the Constitution, I don’t think I can do that. And James Madison, who’s an anti Federalist said, Yeah, but having federal territories is in the Constitution. This is just another federal territory. So the debate wasn’t over what we’re having today on how big the federal government should be. It was what can you do within those 17 powers. And that’s it was. It’s interesting that when you get to Thomas Jefferson, late in life, some two years before he died in 1824. At that point, we had become a very partisan nation, where we loved our parties. And as, came out in the election he had with John Adams, the people that backed them both love their parties more than they love the principles. And that was one of the most unscrupulous elections in American history. And so it didn’t take people long to ignore [what] Washington said, they came back to it later. But for a while they forgot. And in that point of having that intense partisanship, Jefferson had come to the conclusion by 1824, that look, there’s always going to be one party that thinks that people are not smart, and that the government is smart. And therefore they’re going to give all the power to the bureaucrats and all the agencies etc. and they just don’t trust the people. And that’s really what it’s become since about 1824, is you have a party that doesn’t trust the people and that party that says no, we trust the people, we want them doing more. And the other says, no, the government is filled with the experts, and the experts need to do it. So Jefferson, really pretty much called the party stuff back in that day. Federalists and anti Federalists did not disagree on what the Constitution said they could do. So the concept of federalism was different to them, then tying it to Federalists and anti Federalists. Federalism meant the line of jurisdiction between the states and the federal government, not the way over which you viewed the Constitution, but what can the states do, what can the feds do. And so federalism, because both parties back then agreed on what the federal government could do, federalism meant 17 Things belong to the federal government, everything else belongs to the people. And so that’s the discussion they had then. Our problem today is we don’t understand those 17 things. And so when we hear Federalist, anti Federalist, we think it means a greater growth of federal government. It doesn’t. It means the discussion over 17 areas that are limited to the federal government’s domain and everything else to the state’s domain. People agree with that they just don’t know what it means.

Rick Green
Stay with us Folks, you’re listening to WallBuilders.

Tim Barton
This is Tim Burton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. The second amendment to the Constitution which guarantees to every individual the right to keep and bear arms has been targeted for years now by those who are determined to dismantle the individual right to self protection. Opponents argue that only the militia, the military and law enforcement are to have and use firearms. But those who wrote the Second Amendment strenuously disagreed, including founding father Richard Henry Lee, a signer of the Declaration, a president of the Continental Congress, and one of those who actually framed the Second Amendment, he declared, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. For more information about Richard Henry Lee, and the history of the Second Amendment, go to WallBuilders.com .

Rick Green
We’re back here on WallBuilders. Thanks for staying with us on this foundations of freedom Thursday, speaking of foundations and getting some good strong foundations and some key leaders out there such as teachers, young people, pastors, legislators, WallBuilders, has all kinds of programs coming up this summer. Tim, you got a full summer with the teachers with the Student Leadership Program. I mean, all the different things. Give us a quick preview on what’s coming up and what folks still can get into.

Tim Barton
Yeah, also including Patriot Academy in that mix as well. So certainly, as we look for the quickly approaching conferences and sessions we have going on, we have pastors conferences in April and September and this is where we’re again, finally, thank the Lord, going back to Washington, DC. On Tuesday night we do a special private tour of the US Capitol Building, showing some of the spiritual heritage that is there. On Wednesday, we have the opportunity to have private and unique conversations with several members of Congress and senators and just hear what’s going on, here from their heart. During the summer, we have our leadership training program, which is our summer institute, is what we’re calling it, for 18 to 25 year olds. So for students really who have finished high school who are kind of maybe in that college area, maybe just out of college and are young adults and we want to give them a foundation of Truth. Truth from both a biblical, Christian perspective but also the truth of American history. How do you engage in culture that is blatantly lying about the history of our nation. We also do things in this very similar regard for teachers, as so many history teachers now are having to deal with books and curriculum that is completely historically incorrect. We take them back and show them original documents, we walk them through the history of America, even the history of education, show them our education shifted, and how to get back to, kind of the earlier version, that one room schoolhouse version of American history when we are producing such different results. So there’s so many opportunities for people to be engaged. And maybe if you’re not a teacher, if you’re not a student, you’re not a pastor, you can help sponsor a teacher or student or pastor to come be a part of this life changing opportunity that will lay a foundation of freedom of biblical truth and morality and historical accuracy for future generations. And those are the programs that I am directly hosting and leading, but I actually get to speak at some of the Patriot Academies, and so, Rick, I know they’re happening all over the summer as well.

Rick Green
Yeah, you can get all the dates, folks, at PatriotAcademy.com . Just click on that button that says Leadership Congress. That’s what we call those summer programs, young people all across the nation, state capitals across the nation. And then first week of August, that’s our big one, at the State Capitol in Texas, and that one’s for everybody. So if you’re a constitution coach, you can come to a leadership Congress. If you’re a military veteran, you can do a leadership Congress, and then young people 16 to 25, which means if you’re over 25 and not military, sign up for becoming a coach, and that means that you can come to Leadership Congress as well. So check it out today, PatriotAcademy.com and WallBuilders.com . Thanks so much for listening to WallBuilders.