Transcripts For CSPAN2 In Depth With KrisAnne Hall 20170826

Against obama or george w. Bush, but to use the constitution as a standard, and sometimes hes good and sometimes not so much. Thats how we view what goes on in washington d. C. Not based on Political Party or personality, but based on the standard by which all americans should hold their federal government, the constitution. When you use that measuring stick, which president , in your view have adhered to the constitution and which havent. Its been a long time. Its been a very long time since weve had a president that was truly constitutional. Look at article two of the constitution which is the delegated authority for the executive branch. When we look at that, we realize how little power the president has, especially constitutionally speaking. I shall my students to look at the constitution, article one, the powers that are dedicated to congress i like this. Then you go to article two and then article three to the judiciary. In america, we have gravitated more toward an allconsuming executive rather than an executive in service to the legislative. What we have now in america is a bit of an aberration of what the president ought to be and we think that the president is a leader of america. He is not the leader of america. He was never intended to be the leader of america. The president was intended to be an ambassador on behalf of the state in Foreign Affairs. You can see that when you look at the powers that are delegated. The president is not the designator of war. He is not the controller of our troops unless constitutionally speaking there has been a forme formal declaration of war by congress. You asked me which president s. When was the last time we had a declaration of war by congress. World war ii. Every military action that has been led by an executive since world war ii has been unconstitutionally done so. So we have a president who is not allowed to make deals, he can only make treaties. Those treaties are only accepted if they are confirmed by two thirds of the senate and are consistent as the constitution demands with the delegated authority of the executive or legislative branches. And so what we have is this expansion of president ial power which is contrary to the intent of the framers. Our framers made the president a very small position relative to the legislative on purpose. Alexander hamilton will recall the federalist papers 69. It was a great deal of discussion about the office of the executive. The designers of our constitution republic were concerned that they had just achieved an independence from a monarchy. They did not want to establish a new government and create a new monarchy. It was an option, i dont know how many people remember from their civics classes but there was a point in time where people were actually begging George Washington to be king. We were this close to be the kingdom of america, but our founder said we dont want to go back to the kingdom system. Lets do the Constitutional Republic but how do we ensure the executive does not transmute over time into it. The federalist papers 69 is a great source and understanding of not only what the power is but why its so limited. How did we get to the point of executive orders and no war declaration since world war ii. Is it congress fault. Ultimately it rests on the people. Samuel adams said no people will tamely surrender their liberties nor be easily subdued but when the people become ignorant, they will sink underneath their own weight without the weight of foreign invaders. What we have seen in america is the decline in the importance of the study of the proper role and placement of the federal government and human nature. Dictates people will gravitate toward a more powerful government to take care of their needs and provide them with more comfort, and government will always accept more and more power. Congress has a great deal of responsibility in the expansion of the power of the executive branch by unlawfully and constitutionally delegating authority to the president through legislative acts. We have the people though, a good example, the last president ial election, if i have a radio show and a television show, and i took six president ial candidates that spanned the green party, independence, republicans, democrat, libertarian and so what i did was i took their published platform and i didnt compare them with each other as is popular. What i did is i compared each of their platforms individually to the constitutional rule of the president. What i found was the promises that the president ial candidates were making were outside the authority of the office of the executive. The president does not have the authority to raise or lower taxes. That is a power reserved to the house of representatives. The president cannot take care of our troops financially. He cannot expand troops, he cannot withdraw all troops, that is a power reserved to the legislative branch. What i realized is all of the promises the president s were making were responses to questions asked by the people. Will you do this for us. Yes we will do this for you. Im making a promise, but i think its the people were better educated, better understanding of the proper roles of the executives, we would ask better questions that are into and with the delegated authoritys. In that vein, i think president s become who the people want them to be. From your most recent book sovereign duty, you write, and if you explain this, the Central Government as a creation of the constitution is not and cannot be a party to the constitution. Let me say that again so that you dont miss it. The Central Government is not a party to the contract, it is a creation of the contract. One thing we need to remember about the formation of the federal government, and in the sovereign duty book and in the class i teach on state sovereignty that you cover here on cspan, we go through the whole timeline. The states are the first creation of the people and that happens on july 2, 1776 with the ratification of the lee resolution. From the creation of the states through the authority of the people, the states came together and said we need to form a confederation of states. We need to form a union for our Mutual Protection from foreign invaders and we must form this union to be a unified voice in Foreign Affairs for treaties and commerce and peace and war, and we need to form an alliance between the state for a more peaceful interaction between the states. The states were formed as independent sovereign governments. When you read the writing of the designers of our constitution of the republic through the federalist paper and the anti federalist paper, the ratification debates, you see the terms state and nation played interchangeably. When we speak of the state of virginia, new hampshire, rhode island, they also refer to germany, france and spain as states as well. So what we have to really understand is we created 13 independent sovereign government with this authority and political assumption as germany, france or spain. They said we need to come together and make this unified voice because weve looked through history, we will tell europe works and we need to fix the things that are not right. Through that we will create a Constitutional Republic bringing a confederation of the states in the constitution itself will create the federal government. The federal government did not exist until the constitution was ratified. Not only that, there was a precarious moment prior to the ratification of our current constitution where we didnt have enough states to ratify. It was a pretty scary moment for those who were designing the constitution to think we might not have a union at all. If that were to happen and the constitution were not ratified, there would be no federal government. So what we also have to realize is that the constitution is a contract. Contract law speaking, when you have a contract you have the parties to the contract. There the people come together to make the terms of the contract, they negotiate the terms, they design the contract, and ultimately sign it into legal being. In our Constitutional Republic, the states are the parties to that contract. There are so who teach that the constitution is an agreement between the people and the federal government. On that is not true. It cant be true. The c we can show that to be false by one simple fact. How was the constitution ratified. Was it ratified by popular vote . No. It was ratified by three quarters of the state. So the states being ratified of the constitution, mean they are the party. Some also try to teach that the constitution is an agreement between the states and the federal government. That is a temporary impossibility. The federal government did not exist until the constitution was ratified. You cannot be the party to a contract when you are the product of the contract because you cannot sign the contract into legal being until the contract is already signed. The only parties that existed that could be the creators of the constitution are the states, the federal government did not exist until the constitution was ratified which makes them the products. The states are the creators of the constitution. The constitution created the federal government, therefore the states of the creator of the federal government. So july 2, 1776 until september 1783. 1787. Thats when the constitution was finally ratified. We have the articles of confederation between their, but they proved to be faulty on several aspects. When you read the notes to the ratification debates and thes correspondence they had, you learn the greatest difficulty, the greatest problem they had was that the federal government was operating outside of its boundaries and it didnt have enough direction. The greatest problem we were having at that time was that the federal government was making inequitable treaties. What they were doing is they were making treaties with Foreign Governments in whichch one state were one set of states had to provide all of the resources and then a separate set of states that all the benefit so the states, having just form this union with this understanding that its supposed to be mutually beneficial, who are having to foot the entire bill, were likely to minute, this is not why we signed up for this to transfer our wealth to another state. We are not going to comply with this treaty which is a really big deal. Not only is a treaty an agreement, is a contract with a Foreign Government. Dea there are states who are refusing to comply and they were righteously resisting because the treaties were in equitable for the members of the state. W were making the Foreign Government mad for breaking the terms of the contract, the states that were supposed toto get the benefit were mad at the states that wouldnt pay. Itl we have a problem now in the articles of confederation. A our confederation is about to split and we just got started because were about to go to war between the states on conflict and Foreign Governments. That is why we brought together the new convention to create a constitution which is why its called the more perfect union. War when we dissolve the articles of confederation, there is nocoi more federal government and the only government that exists are the state. There wouldve never been a new federal government had the current constitution been ratified. From your book, reclaiming our constitution which was published in 2011, you write a common refrain these days is that we fall asleep. That means our ignorance of the history that brought us our american liberty allows tierney to sneak up on us. A however, that was not the case for our founders. We take the big picture,a and i mean the full scope of the history of our american Constitutional Republic, we have to realize that it didnt begin in 1787, that liberty was not invented in 1776 and tierney was not invented by george the third period when i teach a class called the genealogy of the constitution, what we do is we take the 700 years of history that give us our declaration of independence and our constitution and our bill of rights. It is this is that proves to us that our constitution is built upon timetested principles. They are not inventions. Nd when you read, you know there are five documents that are written. They are called the british liberty charter. Within those five documents, you find every single aspect of our declaration, our constitution and our bill of rights. Not just in principle. Sometimes in the very language themselves, taken from those documents. We didnt invent anything in our foundational documents, we inherited everything. It is that history that proves to us that our founders actually command this is so people which surprises everybody who attends a class or read the book is that there is nothing new in america. This is not a brave new world, theres a popular belief that the constitution is irrelevantor because our founders didnt know what we are possibly seen today, but when you study that history you see that we are just repeating the samebly scenarios over and over again throughout time, even today. Tor, the same stories. Its the same people with the same interaction of government e , just different faces and better technology. History always repeats. I think the theme of the not a living breathing document is those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. Youve mentioned these classes you teach. Is where do you teach. I teach all over the country. Cu this is your number seven for us. Who is us. My husband and our son colton who has been traveling with us and teaching for sevensb years. He is 11. He is quite the traveled young man. He has been to almost every state in the union to include alaska, but i hawaii. He has been to four countries. Nt what i do as i travel around and we teach on average over 260 classes every year in over 22 states. We dont solicit for classes. People email us and contact us and say, teach us. Over i Teach High School middle school students, college students, we teach civics groups, business groups, bar associations, Law Enforcement, i taught the legislators of ten states from the sovereignty class, we will teach anybody. What people find when we teach these classes is that some preconceived fallacies have to follow way. Teaching the constitution doesnt label me in any certain group. What people find is that it doesnt matter on what political side you stand. The constitution is relevantio to everyone. I taught a National Conference of physicians and surgeons, and it was very exciting hearing their comments after words. These are not people that you would think are generally carrying around the pocket constitution but they were so excited about what they learned. I think thats what we find as we travel around and teach. Weres this is an empowering message for all people, and inspirational message that overcomes a feeling of powerlessness that americans have today in view of how the government operates. Do you charge for these classes. We have no speaking fees. How do you pay for it. Its a lot of travel. We have airplane tickets, rental cars, food, hotel, we have never had a speaking fee, weve never required anyone to compensate us for our travel or our expenses, we do this as a mission of our heart. El we are not independently wealthy, we have never received a grant from anyone, but we work solely off private donations, 20 or 30 here and there and the sale of the books and were not out to get rich. Our family is a family of missionaries. When we are not teaching the constitution of the United States, we are missionaries. The best way ive heard somebody describe what we do here is we are missionaries to the people of the United States in defense of the constitution and thats how we operate. We work solely by fate, andrd for seven years, it works. The from your website, and from your bio, i was raised to democrat, the only thing more evil than satan was a republican in my home. I was an environmentalist, some of my best friends were members of greenpeace and i supported the World Wildlife fund and peta and i was a vegetarian by ideology, not for Health Reasons for almost 15 years. A i believed in Global Warming and defended it vigorously. I believed in the big bang and openly criticized those who believed in creationism as ignorant and misled. Rs i supported abortion and often condemned others for being prolife. I have argued with abortion protesters on street corners and called them names that im not proud of. I was not only not a christian, but i practiced many other religions including many cult versions. I was bitter against god and felt only ignorant week people needed faith. F, long white. What happened. I didnt have an epiphany moment. In my household there is nothing more evil than a republican than satan himself. Cess it was a very politically active household. My parents, my father and his father are union people so our political ideology came from the union born, union fed and when word dead were union dead. There really was no other choic choice. In that paradigm, there is also a very strong work ethic. So, if you want to be the right person you need to be, you need to be someone whos willing to work hard and put in the time and effort. My dad is one of the hardest working people that i know. He was able to instill that worwork ethic and me. When it was time for me to go to college, i put myself through school, Student Loans and jobs and i worked really hard. Ethic i graduated with a degree in biochemistry and i didnt have w , i didnt graduate with any delusions of grandeur. I realize i had to start at the bottom and work up. In doing so, i started noticing the paycheck, that there are these taxes coming out of my paycheck. Being raised, i was taught paying taxes is your fair share to take care of the elderly, the orphans, the disabled, the people can take care of themselves, but as i am looking around and im noticing my Community Around me, im noticing that the same people who werent working when i went to college are still not working. Not because they cant, butng because they choose and they make choices not to. I didnt think that was the definition of fair because of taxes were about fairness and the people who work hard, who have sacrificed and put themselves in a better placein would have to pay less taxes. And so, i started thinking about that. I dont have any problem, i have a problem with government telling me i have to be charitable and to whom i have to be charitable too. So socially speaking, i dont have a problem taking care of the orphans and the widows and the disabled. I think its on the community to do that. I dont believe its the role of government to take from me and give to whomever they choose, and thats not fair. Then, when i had a family, i began to realize that its not the government wiping noses and cleaning up sick and the late nights, its not the government who is administering the discipline, and its not the government thats ultimately concerned on what kind of person my child would become. Thats a responsibility that falls on me and my husband. It doesnt take a village to raise a child, it takes ain famil family. When i looked around, in the evidence in my community, the children that were being raised by the government in these systems were not children who were respectful of their surroundings and respectful of what they had ind and of the community. You have the individuals, but for the most part, they didnt have the values that my family wanted to have. I realize its our responsibility. Then, when i gave my life to christ, you see, my whole life was, im a seeker of knowledge. Thats why a. M. How is felt an emptiness inside of me and so i tried to fill it with lots of stuff. Ive practiced all kinds of religions to fill that emptiness in me, and it wasnt until i had a spiritual meeting with christ that i realized that only he could fill the emptiness i finally realized the proper role ofo government in the lives of the people. It has been a long process for me, and in that process ive come to understand a lot of things i held to be truth and wisdom were just as much faith as the faith that i have and maybe even less faith or more faith to believe in those things that i do to believe in god now. Bl biochemistry, undergrad which is where. How did those to connect. A it was a long time in theh middle actually. I joined the military in between there and you are a russian linguist in the u. S. Army. When i was in the army i broke my hip. I was medically discharged from injury and i had to have a total hip replacement. I have a hip that 16 years old this may, and when i got out of the military where i met my husband, we moved back to his hometown, and the opportunities to be a biochemist in the rule area that we were living in, i had to commute over an hour. It just became very, very hard to keep that up. Thats not what i wanted to do anymore. I dont sit well. I have to go out and find a job. I couldnt sit at home. I started working for a local attorney as a receptionist, secretary, just for something to do. O. I noticed i was doing a lot of his legal writing. Hes collecting paycheck. This is something i could probably do. I discussed it with my husband, i was 31 at the time and i was really sort of intimidated to go back to school at that time. E. I said my husband, is this, this will be a huge sacrificee for the family. Well have college debt, i will be able to work fulltime, i will have to be m away from home and my husband has always been so supportive. Tryin his favorite thing is will do it or we will die trying. Now. I talked to my mom about it and i said mom, i dont know, im so old now, why would i goai back to school. She said how long does it take to go to law schools. She said three years. She said in three years youll be three years old anyway. Why not fill it with law school, and so i did. It was through the encouragement of a friend of ours who is actually a childhood mentor for my son. Ty, he was assistant attorney in our community. He also taught my husband karate in his teenage years and i sat down and talk to him about this and it was his encouragement finally gave me the confidence to go. When i went to law school, i knew what i wanted to do right then and there. I was going to be a prosecutor and work for tom, be the guy who wears the white hat and fights the bad guys, and i never had a Job Interview i was in college. I never had any ambition to go work for the big law firm, i knew where i was going and what i needed to do so we got it done. I was actually given special permission by the Florida Bar Association to become aur certified legal intern to work for our state Attorneys Office for any my classmates because we are a small Rural Community and our state attorney, his name is jerry blair and he wrote a letter saying we could really use your help. I had actually tried over ten jury trials before i even had my bar license, and it was such an amazing experience for me, and i think much to the chagrin of my husband, when my brain started changing. I had a very influentialal professor, his name was joseph lytle. He was my constitutional law teacher. You do that in your first semester and he said for not here to teach you the law. Thats impossible. Were here to try to teach you to think as lawyers. Then it snapped for me. I didnt have to memorize all these laws, i had to think about how to make this happen. It was the skills of being a linguist and learning document translation and learning to think like a lawyer that made understanding the documents, and learning how to apply them to the constitution as it supposed to operate. Before we go any further, lets get our viewers involved. Book tv on cspan2, this is our monthly indepth program where we invite one author to come on and talk about his or her books and their lives. This month is author, activist , constitutional activist chris and paul. She began publishing books in so 2011 about a living breathing document claiming our institution. At that time the stories also. Came out, liberty first, the path to restoring america came out the next year, essentialal stories for junior patriots m came out in 2013, her most recent book is sovereign duty which came out in 2014 and there is a new Childrens Book out as well and ive got too much going on here at thenv table but will get to those in a minute. We want to invite you to participate in our program this afternoon. If you would like to dial in and talk to the author, the lines are open. Gh on for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zone. If you cant get through on the phone line but youd like to make, we have social media ways of getting a hold of us and that includes twitter booktv, you can leave a comment there or you can join our Facebook Page at facebook. Com book tv. You will see her at the top and you to make a comment underneath that. You can email us as well booktv at cspan. Org. We will begin taking your calls in just a few minutes. How did you get into the publishing world. Thats a really great question. I cant even remember actually sitting down and thinking while, lets write a book. When i look back over the past seven years, it all seems a bit surreal to me because this is not the past, this is not the path i chose. T it feels like a path that was chosen for me, that we simply said yes we will do this and so, its funny, i asked my husband if he remembers but i saw a nee need. Ever i think one of the things that i do, i think every individual has a unique gift and what they do. One of the things i do is i connect dots. I am a dock connector. I am able to look at a picture and see how it comes together and im able to explain that in a way that people can understand. In studying the constitution, not just what i learned in law school, because i learned thatat we dont teach the constitution. What we teach is constitutional law which has become very different than the constitution. Our constitutional law classes teach that our judges and lawyers know more about the constitution and the men who wrote it and that after all it was written over 200 years ago so it can possibly be relevant. When i started reading what the designers of ourn constitution wrote in the history that built it, i realized that errant understanding of our constitution stems from an ignorance of that history and a lack of vision of all these dock connectors. It is where we get this idea that the constitution is a living breathing document. There are different meanings of that. When i say that, i mean there are the people who believe that the constitution isis amendable by Supreme Court opinion or by legislative act or by the need of the modern time. Obviously the constitution can be amended through article five under very strict terms, but there is a group of people in america who believe that the constitution is not a contract and its not a set ofor standards but sort of a guideline for the government that we try to follow. I realize, bad understanding only comes when you extract the history and the Foundation Upon which our constitution is built, and when i started connecting these dots and seeing how obvious all of this is, the truths in the timetested principles upon which our constitution is based in the ramification of setting those aside and not enforcing consequences, theyre actually foretold warnings. I thought we need to put thiss in writing in a way that other people can understand this as well. Are you in favor of an article five . A lot of people asked that question and its very interesting because i think its oversimplified. There is no yes or no answer to that question. Again, when i teach, and i dont mean to throw your question back at you, but when i teach, you asked me are you in favor of it. I dont teach my opinion. I dont think my opinions are necessarily relevant in the history and application of the constitution. What im more concerned about is how an Article Five Convention is intended to operate. T how did the designers of the contract envision this term in the contract to operate, and how will that operate in light of todays vision of how the constitution is post operate. Whe so the sovereign duty but has a whole chapter on that. I also did a weeklong series on my radio show where i highlighted that as well, where we talk about the Article Five Convention and ive written several articless on my website as well. You write our framers anticipated the need to amend the constitution as ourr awareness of liberty expandedim. And perhaps our need for government diminished. Cons listen to Thomas Jeffersons view on amending the constitution. Ightly its clear he felt it was needed but not be taken lightly read this is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Im certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be born with because when once known we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects,il but i know also that law and institutions must go handinhand with the progress of human life. Absolutely. That quote continues to make an analogy that forced a man to wear the same coat as he wore as a child would be the same as forcing a society to wear the same constitution it wore at its inception. Thats not living, breathing. No what it is not. There is a contractual manner and a specific term under which the modification is to take place. It it is not based on a whim,ds its not based on modern trends, its not based on whos in political power. H article five says this is how we do this and this is the only way it can be done. You cannot modify the constitutions terms by interpretation. The constitution doesnt need to be interpreted. Its not written in chinese. It needs application as a contract to be applied so article five leaves out those terms. If we are going to have a convention in this modern day, James Madison was concerned about the future convention because he thought, he actually says the only reason we are able to have thisvo convention work is because weve just come from a buddy revolution and the horrors that weve seen are keeping the delegates minds focused on liberty, and keeping them from diverting from personal gain and political gain but im concerned about a future without such motivation, how would we keep those delegates on focus, and how would we keep those delegates from being the people whom made theob problem being tasked with solving the problem. Should we have an Article Five Convention, the answer must be, based on the application of article five as its intended, why are we going to do this. What is our purpose . Are we going to have a convention so we can expand the liberty of the people and limit the government even more . Because that was why. When you study the chief reasons for the incorporation of article five and you knowow the history, every single time e that our founders, before they became american, they were british and they were in the kingdom, every time they wanted to limit government and expand liberty, they had to pick up the sword and fight the king. They gave us article five so that we can expand the libertyhi of people and limit the government without picking up a civil war sword. Of art its what we have to understand is the purpose of article five is for an enlightened people who need less government, not atr mechanism to control an outofcontrol government. Chris is our guest and before we go any further, lets take calls and hear your voices. Lets begin with joan in newport news virginia. Youre on the tv. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. E excuse me. This is my favorite show that you have and its an honor to talk to your author. I wanted to ask her to pleasehe clarify the difference with the Supreme Court. For instance, obamacare, immigration, theres so many of us but just see common sense. T in the books that ive read about the constitution, theyre not supposed to make the law, theyre supposed to interpret the law. So, youre very smart so please tell me the difference between them not interpretingng the constitution and making the law themselves, and thank you for your time and im enjoying you very much. Thank you very much. That is a great question. When we are talking about the role of the federal government and the acts that they create, there are certain lines of questioning that must be answered. First, is the authority delegated to the federal government to exercise that power. And then second, are they exercising that power within the limitations of their delegated authority . With healthcare, there is no authorization, no delegation of authority to the federal government to exercise authority over healthcare. That is the power that is to be reserved to the state. James madison who has obtained the nickname the father of the constitution, who is also theat fourth president of the United States wrote a document called federalist 45 and he explains the delegation of power and the separation of power tween t the states and the federal government. He said the power of delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. S those that remain in the states are numerous and indefinite. The powers delegated to the federal government will be exercised on external objects, and he names them. War peace and foreign commerce. He continues and says the powers that are reserved to the state will include all of the palace, the lives, liberties, the property of theso people and improvement and prosperity of the state. Ernment what we need to understand is if its not been delegated toen the federal government it has been reserved for the state. Healthcare is the lives of the people, the internal order of the state, the property of the people which means its very d distinctly a power reserved for the state. The Supreme Court does notut have a delegated authority to expand the power the husband delegated to the federal government. It they themselves are limited by the terms of the constitution because the Supreme Court is a product of the constitution itself. Our modern Supreme Court has jumped outside its constitutional boundaries. It has created a power to determine the power of the federal government. Whats interesting is our founders actually anticipated a court system to do that and made comments on why thats not appropriate. Healthcare is not a power thats been delegated to the federal government therefore its not a power that the Supreme Court can grant or sanction for the government either. P we have three branches within the federal government. Legislative, executive and judiciary. The judiciary is part of thee federal government. If we continue to allow part of the federal government to define the power of the whole of the federal government, the more we are actually saying his we have an arbitrary government whose only limit of power is what it designed for itself. If that is the case then we must admit we no longer operate as constitutionalub republic but as a Banana Republic or a totalitarian kingdom. She writes in the path to restoring america that many times a constitutional lawaw distort and destroy proper understanding of constitutionn or shift its authority. Thats right. Thats part of ignoring the constitution. Whats interesting is when you study the history thats built up, were talking 700 years ofon government and a limited monarchy that was created by the anglosaxon community all the way back in 1014, there is a trend of government in consuming more power and limiting the liberty of the people. One of those, i had mentionediv earlier in our history class, there is five documents that create the constitution, the bill of rights declaration of independence. The fourth document is a document from 1641 and the preamble says the root of all this mischief we find to subvert the fundamental laws of liberty of our kingdom. What theyre really saying is we have been watching government for about 600 yearss and were beginning to notice a pattern. This pattern of activity byrturn government, whose only purpose is to overturn an undermined our liberty can be identified. That pattern was the first set of government in taking the liberty from the people was always corruption of the court system. When you have a court system that is not bound by the terms of the law, but only bound byy the ideology of those in power, you can change the law without rewriting it. Theres something about human nature, the way were hardwired, we trust judges to be fair and impartial. If there superhuman, theyre not influenced by political influence or personal gain or sp greed. Sometimes you put on a park rope and now your superhero and your shielded from all that. History said, thats not true at all. Its the court system that becomes tied to the government first and starts doing the bidding of the government contrary to liberty of people. After next call comes from mark in santa clara utah. Good afternoon. Pporter im a big supporter of the constitution. Reveal have a twopart question that somewhat relates to what you just talked about. Multiple study revealed that all the federal activity are unconstitutional and arguably criminal. Nd par [inaudible] the second part of the question, would you talk about to us about the unconstitutional nature. The court claimed the constitution, any act. [inaudible]ress that is a fantastic question. Theres so much that will be hard to address it all, but i would like to simply say, this is the whole reason, the answer to that question is a whole reason we wrote the book sovereign duty and its why i teach might state sovereignty class. He James Madison wrote in the document that there are two distinct fears in government,er the sphere of the state and the local and the sphere of the federal. In understanding those two spheres, there is a separation of power. He explained that separation of power in federalist paper 45. What we have lost attachment to in america is the greatest check and balance on federal power. Thomas jefferson explains in many of his writings that the greatest check and balance on federal power is that the federal government checking itself but the check of the state on the federal government. Jefferson even says that the states were gone with apathys on the golf which is to swallow al all. Its a euphemism for washington d. C. He said we will become colonies in a kingdom rather than independent sovereign governments in a Constitutional Republic. Is that blatant check and balances the authority of the state through the governor and the attorney general and the local representatives, through the authority of the shares, in their promise, their oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. To say to the federal governmen government, this power that you are exercising is outside the power we delegated to you through the constitution, remember, the federal government is the creation of the state. A the states are the master of the federal government by the nature of the creation. N hamilton, madison, jefferson, mason, all of these understood that it was the role and duty of the state to control its creation. Theyre saying we want to remind you, you have been delegated. This power and this power alone. What youre trying to do is not a delegation of power. Therefore it is usurped from the states and the people. Since you are stealing this power from the state and the people, it is an unlawful exercise of power which makes it null and void. Uite a hamilton sentences in federal severe, jefferson says is quite a bit, madison says even the power of the judiciary, and in that, the proper response by those who designed the Constitutional Republic and design the check and balance, the proper response is for the state as individuals to say this is an unlawful exercise of power being stolen from us. A therefore it is known void to us and we will not comply. On James Madison called it in her position. It is the role and the duty of the state step in between an unlawful exercise of power by the federal government to the defense and security of the liberties of people. Jefferson explains how interposition works. Nullification says that power exercised by the federal government that is not authorized by the constitution is an unlawful power therefore it is null and void. Hamilton expressed it this way. He said no law contrary to the constitution can be valid. It is simply listed stepping up and saying as your creator we have a responsibility to people to secure the rights of the liberty and we have to limit your power so you dont become a kingdom again and in limiting your power, we are going to reserve our power and limit your power within our state. Your unconstitutional authority is null and void within our state. We see that happening today in america. The state that have legalized marijuana within their state are nullifying federal law. Righteously nullifying federal law. What we need to realize is there is no authority within the constitution the delegates, there is no delegated authority to allow the federal government to regulate plants or anything that we consume, ingest, or inhale. Ns that is a power that was created by the Supreme Court in a Supreme Court case about wheat. Supreme court said that because wheat could possibly be a matter of commerce, and we have this Commerce Clause therefore it is a power of the federal government to regulate the control of wheat. Through the, they have thisnm slippery slope of including everything in there. Now marijuana is included in the. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to expand the power of the federal government by opinion. Thats what makes us a Banana Republic. Constitutional republic says even part whether its executive legislative or judicial, no part of the federal government can expand the power the federal government beyond the constitution. This is the ultimate check and s balance, the state saying youre not authorized to regulate our plants so as sovereign states, we will operate based on the principles of the people of our state and we will legalize this and thats how notification works. Are you still practicing law. I do not practice law. I have an inactive status which means i still have my bar numbe number, but i dont take cases. When you are teaching 260 times every year end 22 states, i cant take a case in the courtroom. It would not be fair to my client. I cannot dedicate that, and as much as i miss the courtroom because they really do miss, as a prosecutor, i had more trials than most lawyers will happen their entire career. I had more trials before my bar number than most law professors will ever see in their career. I do miss that courtroom, the dates and the advocacy but i really feel passionate need to do what were doing now. From your book, the path to restoring america, an attorney and former prosecutor firedut after teaching the constitution to tea party groups. What happened. Well, when i started learning about the constitution and realizing different between how the the court operates and how the constitution dictates they operate and how the people see their government as opposed to how the government is supposed to operate, i felt something stir in me. That in a fire that says hey, this is not right. So, i started talking about it, we have a Supreme Court justice in florida his name is fred lewis. At the time he was the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and hes the reason i wrote that book, the path to restoring america. He took a poll of floridiansin and asked this question, without using any resources, without looking up on the computer, just off the top of your head, i want you to name all five liberties of the a First Amendment. There are five liberties in the First Amendment alone and he found out through that poll that only 2 of the people polled could name all five and that really disturbed me and y heres the thing. If you dont know what your rights are, how d how do you know theyre not already goneand and how will you defend your liberty if you cannot even define it. So he started this program in florida called justice teaching were lawyers and judges volunteered to go into the classroom and teach on aspects of the First Amendment and thats how i got started. I started teaching in the middle schools and high schools about this First Amendment because it bothered me. Were not talking about kids were tough and adults cannot tell you the five liberties of the First Amendment. And so i started teaching in the classroom and news traveled. When i was working as a prosecutors, we had a unique opportunity that came into play all at the same time. I had the opportunity to adopt our son colton. Im not able to have children that i wanted children and we had the chance to adopt colton. I was excited about being a mom. I wanted to be able to stay home and be with my son, and the second unique opportunity came to work for a law firmirstd that specifically focused onaw First Amendment law, and i could be a digital employee which means if im out of tampa, i was able to stay home and be with my son for the first two years of his life, and still do what i do. , thats for my passion for the constitution really started to develop. The study of constitutional law in its application was just the glaring alarm, in that position with the private law firm was also doing a bit of traveling, representing people who had been arrested for handing out flyers andrn pamphlets, public protesting, holding rallies and stuff that the local governments didnt know because they didnt understand the constitution either. To i also instructed schools and School Boards how to maintain the right of the students because our students have a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of expression within the Public Schools, even the u. S. Department of education recognizes that a student in the Public School and have bible studies, they can write about their faith if its relevant to the subject, they can hand out religious materials to their classmates, if this will allow them to wear superman on their tshirts, they can wear jesus and religious things on their tshirts as well so we were busy advising the schools are not. Ack t when my term with the constitutional law firm, i went back to work at the state Attorneys Office in mind in my small Rural Community, the word got around what i was doing professionally. Al our local school board asked me to come and speak to them. They wanted to hold an invocation before school board meeting, but they wanted to make sure they were compliant with the florida constitution and the rights of the people and their freedom of expression. So we advise them on how to include all religious invocations in a rotation schedule and to include everybody in the community because if youre a Public School, you collect taxes from everyone. Your views have to reflect everyone in the community, otherwise its theft, its tierney. So what we did in doing that, i started getting invitations from private civic groups, come teach us about this, we want to know more. There is sort of an awakening of constitutional understanding. I was working for a state attorney at that time who didnt agree with how i was teaching the constitution nor who i was teaching it to so he told me i had to quit teaching, and i was doing this all on my own time, i didnt do anything to interfere with my job. He simply said you can work for me or you can do this. After practicing law, i realized that was not the right decision i had to make. Long story short, here i am. In our faith, we have a saying dance has valuable role i felt i had in the Prosecutors Office because i never wanted to do anything else. I wanted to retire there and everyone i worked with you that. Even my loss at the times that i was a topnotch prosecutor i check my job very seriously. Was the same kind of passion i do here. I really believe what we are doing here reaches so many more people and will have a greater impact on the future. Next call comes from hugh. O thanks for holding on. Thank you so much. God bless you. Thank you cspan for having this form. I want to also say thank you to chris and for her military service and her Ongoing Service to this country to keep our freedoms. Im a vietnam veteran. I would like to send to, onam two things briefly. Broke treaties keeping broken. How can it help native americans. And how did she get her ministry started in haiti. I would like to help with something in that regard. Service thank you very much for your service as well. What we have to recognize is that these are the results of blurred lines in our government. It generally does not constrain the federal government to its power, and in that its doing a lot of things that shouldnt be doing and not precisely what should be doing. What we have perhaps forgotten in america is that the native American Communities are sovereign government. They are not part of the United States. T we created the United States, we allowed the Indian Nations to be sovereign nations within our borders and we did so by treaty. Thats how the federal government can make a treaty with an Indian Nation because its like making a treaty with france, spain or germany. The problem, as you alluded to is that america is not keeping their treaty. We are violating the contract with the native american community. A proper understanding of the constitution and how the federal government is supposed to work is essential to making sure the federal government is doing what it promises. When i say federal government, its your congressman that is failing to uphold the treaty designed with these four nations that we call the Indian Nations. O it is your congressman who is not keeping the promise. It is our president s were not keeping his promises, and we as a people must understand that our federal government doesnt have the authority to invade the borders of an Indian Nation any more than we have the authority through the federal government to invade canada or mexico or france or germany. It is the dissolve it dissolving of these lines of jurisdiction and sovereignty that has become some of the greatest problems weve had in controlling the federal government. Am thankful you asked about our mission to haiti. If you want to know more about that, my husbands website is jc hall, and we are a unique mission team. We take sailboats from florida to haiti, delivering humanitarian aid, helping in the independent development of the community, supporting the economy locally rather than just bringing in stuff. A lot of problems they havent haiti is we have people dumping things into the community. The u. S. Government especially dumping rice and things into the Haitian Community and haiti used to be one of the largest rice supporters in its region, and now because we dont so much rice into haiti, the local rice farmers cant compete with free. Th what we try to do is educate and keep teach the people to be selfsufficient, to be economically and business minded and we help them build themselves independence from the ground up. We are also Christian Missionary so we bring the gospel, we help build a church, we recently built a huge church and a little fishing village on an island off the coast of haiti. It was such a blessing. This is a very large building, cinderblock structure with a tin roof and was completed right before Hurricane Matthew hit. When the hurricane came, these are little villages who have no water, the women have to walk 2 miles with a 5gallon bucket for their water for the day. Theres no electricity, only the electricity provided by the generator that simply dont exist in many places. In Hurricane Matthew, we had over 500 people from four g separate villages and even a couple fishing islands take refuge in that building that we helped build. We are not governmentfunded, we are faith funded and we just love what we are doing for the haitian people. If you want to be a part of that, go to jc hall that work. I hope you will be as blessed by the haitian people as we are. If someone were interested in having you come teach a class at their group, whats the best way to get in contact with you . My website and like i said, we teach a lot and we want you, if you think you want me to come and teach, you need to contact us now. S my friend janet who is also my assistant and does all our scheduling, she will get you on the schedule as soon as possible. We also started today. We launched a new form becauseha for six years weve had to turn down invitations to come and teach because its just me. Im already maxed out. The last six years, weve spent more time in hotels and airplanes than we do in our own car and home. Its just a very heavy burden on the family to travel like that. Weve actually had to turn down teaching opportunities because we cant handle the schedule. Or for six years, Liberty First University has been a dream and that dream has been reinforced by people who have said to me, put somethingg online so that we can learn from you without being here. At liberty firstt university. Com, this is not just somebody with a camcorder or cell phone. Es these are classes worthy of the highest institutions of learning teaching the constitution, American History, world history, government, civic, philosophy, the bill of rights all in a manner that is historically accurate as if those who are writing our constitution were teaching it themselves. Com. We have that available at Liberty First University. Com. This is a big day for me. Write from your book liberty first, you write i for ones will not send my young son to Government Schools. It is a sacrifice that our family has decided to make. I prefer my child mind to be protected more than i need to have cable or the fanciest car or the latest gadget. Protect but, if your child does attend Government School, you must protect them from brainwashing. It is your duty. This is very hard to say and it breaks my heart as an educator. We have an education in america that is now more politically influenced than ever, more ideologically t influenced than ever and we have less behind history and fact, and we teach opinion, we teach Political Correctness and we teach what we want our students to think instead ofi teaching them how to think. That is a very disturbing thing for me. America because of what i teach, i have people sending me textbooks saying read this section on American History and tell us what you think. It is absolutely mindboggling what we are teaching our he daughte students about the foundation of america. Irve irvelevant portions of society and kept in a lower part of society. That is so disturbing to me these women were respected. Mercy otis warren, my favorite pounding mother was the First American woman playwright ever. She wrote plays that were published and performed in the american colony with the purpose of poking fun at the British Government and encouraging the Liberty Movement. She is also the First American woman historian. She wrote a three volume set called the rise, progress and determination of the american revolution. She said i have to write this history because i lived it. She didnt write it in a way that deified those who fought for independence, she wrote it for truth and honesty in history. So much so that after reading her book, john adams wrote her a scathing letter because he didnt appreciate how she portrayed certain events and she was still so important. She was an important confidence and advisor to many of the men, to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and, you have mary ludwigericans hayes who some americans might know as Molly Pitcher who was given a noncommissioned officer status by George Washington for her fight in the revolution. You have people like prudence, these women whose husbands created their own local militia to guard their family from the british troops that were invading their homes and violating their families andg. Burning and stealing and looting, and it was her Militia Group that actually t captured two infiltrators coming into their communityassid and got some very important classified documents for our battle for liberty. These women were so involved in so respected, and we deny them their honor so that we can, i dont know, propagated history thats an accurate or support some ideology. That is wicked. I just think its wicked. America today, if i can say, we have a newfound love for the power of women. We are wanting to champion women with what they do and who they are. With a society like that, why s wouldnt we be championing mercy otis warren. Mary ludwig case, nella p barker, elizabeth king, prudence right coming, elizabeth adams, abaco why are we recognizing these women who believed so much in the equality of all people that liberty is for all. Theyre willing to sever sacrifice everything they had so we could achieve that. Fi i think its terrible and our history books are purposely ignoring them. Our history books are teaching that the constitution was written by a bunch of elite rich slaveowners whose only purpose and independence was so they could consolidateo power to themselves. Its ignoring the men and women, the black men and women, the freed slaves who became a part of our Liberty Movement so they could ensure that their children became free. America is not unique because of our houses and our cars and our economic opportunities. America is unique because we were founded upon thebe principle that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain malleable rights and thats what they believed in. Our history denies the memory of the freed slave, the first man to give his life in our battle for independence n through the boston massacre. Its not like these people are not written about. Im not pulling this out of thin air. There is a whole pull written about this and a whole stanza written. It says honor to him who was leader and voice that day, the first to die. Call it riots a revolution, his hand first clinched at the crown. His feet were the first to pool the king down. His breath was the first one ripped apart that liberty stream might flow. His head was first. Ion call it as you may, but this had been the seat of nations and such live should be honored. How many people in america know the name of these men. These people who sacrifice their own personal comfort, a newfound freedom so their children to be free. How Many Americans know there was a provision among the states fighting for independence that if you were a slave, which by the way, the slaves then were white, black, irish, chinese, not just black. The majority of the slaves population in the founding colony for english white people that the British Government didnt want anymore. They sold their own people into slavery to come to america. How many know that the states had a provision that said if youre a slave and you want to fight for independence your free man now forever. Our 14th amendment did not make black people citizens. They were citizens long before the 14th amendment. And they were free before the emancipation proclamation. We had a cultural change that had happened. That doesnt come through violence and wars. Iolence that comes through teaching liberty and seeing liberty and wanting it for yourself. Who better to fight for liberty than a person with a slave, but when we deny them our history, we deny the fact that there are some men who gave their only free breath so you and i could sit here today and talk about it. You are listening to chris ann hall, author an attorney, she is our indepth guest on book tv on cspan2. The next call is from imperial misery. Anita . Hello. I live in northern Jefferson County which is a suburb of the st. Louis region. My congressional representative in the u. S. House, i vote along with people halfway across the state in lake of the ozarks. The entire United States has then so gerrymandered by thehe Republican Party that there is no way that the house will ever be anything but republican, as it stands. Im really worried about our democracy from the standpoint of gerrymandering and wondering your thoughts and what you think we can do about it. E throughout history, you will see you cant really point one finger you point a finger at one party or another. I am very washingtonian as far as Political Parties are concerneded which puts me at opposition with the republican and democratic party. George washington under the Constitutional Republic gave a farewell address and actually warned against Political Parties. He said it would be the destruction of liberty in america. I think what we have now is the jerry handering that described is being done as history dictates. But i think that is the symptom of the problem and not the problem itself because washington would tell you we have become a twoparty system and the American People have lost that proper identity of Political Parties, the americans understand the democrats and republicans are not Government Agencies they are private Corporate Clubs. That is why you have controversy over the preliminary elections. Their primary elections before the general elections. Their primary elections are not civic functions. Primary elections is were each private Corporate Club with port to choose who will represent that private Corporate Club and a general election. Fortunately we have modeled we the private Corporate Club with tax dollars would is a quasi government functionment fn when the taxpayers actuallyy pay for the election and because we live better souls to the two private corporatesp clubs as they dictate u. S. Elections that is part of the reason why we think the president is the leader of america becoming less of a representative more of a leader in the Political Party because they believe is now the leader of their Political Party getting back to their proper role and application of the constitution may vividly can operate where we could elect candidates based on their qualifications. On of their character who theyived are or live their life to be. Rather than based on affiliation. We believe live in liberty and principal at truth over personality. Th if we could stick to those three principles is a cage of a Political Party bute major principles come first goer personalities. If we could gain a proper perspective. Thank you for that sacrifice. We as we have heard you speak everyone did to bring you back we had to wait two years on your calendar before you could come back to speak to us. So the right to religious freedom they talked about in the First Amendment so how did they feel religious freedom was to our country and how is that separation of church and state . That is a wonderful question. The First Amendment is for some purpose. Not by accident for religious liberty is first with of the list of purpose. Because it isnt a religious right to practice your religion because the founders knew of any government could dictate who you were shipped then you he wno liberties at all. But John Witherspoon was the president of university. College in throughout history you will never see a nation that has sacrificed the liberty of religions retain any liberty. If we could be dictated to in the thought process if that is our belief into mass the dictates of government. Is the way that slippery labour is in force because itll teach the history of the constitution we believe that separation of church and state is something thatly historically has never been. Since the year of 300 in three out our live with the charters separation of church and state First Certified codified was a promise the government would stay out of the church. Henry the first is the key in keying say he is giving credit says if the government is influencing your church to have an evil in an oppressive government and his promises we will not be that anymore. Separation of church and state is the protection of the church and the freedom of the conscience of the people. That the government has no business in your church. But with a recent misunderstanding that has a lot to do with the way the Supreme Court operates outside of past three but that god has no business in public discussion. A radical form of belief to say the government stays out of your religion and out of your church and that was necessary in because we dont understand this separation of church and state we have Public Schoolsadmt and administrators unlawfully limit speech and conscience in the Public Schools. There our students do not check their righteous because they attend a Government School there is a student bill of rights in billions defending freedom with another organization that has created a know your rights in the classroom pamphlet that i use them pass out quite a bit. There are several groups on those aspects and all of these people who are fighting for the proper understanding. Out wha because och i am not here to be the defender of all rights. I have and educators you can fry a and would ever you need then go to work. One of the things we like to do is ask them to send in with their reading and their influences after we looked at the list of Krisanne Hall host Krisanne Hall, what about the constitution . Guest it is the primary sour source. It is because he was delicate. He takes in the discussion and our founders relied on a man named black stone and his understanding of english and apply it to this new form of the Constitutional Republican. It is unfortunate wedont teach that. We traded that for a treaty written by joseph story which is a federal centric and often missed application of the constitutions intent on the power of government. From our Facebook Page, joe eldrid, you seem to be suggesting a continuitey between the declaration of independence and the constitution. But many argue the constitution of 1787 was a betrayal of the revolution of 1776. Do your curses include the work of 19th century and the social constrain constraints. It is specifically designed for this. I limit myself to original source documents which mean when i look, i look for both documents written by the people who lived them. Not the interpretations of what is going on. The caller has valid points but and the foundings founders wrote this. It was important to determine well maybe i agree with this and maybe i dont. Email here. What is your opinion of 2014 standoff in oregon . Do you agree with the idea it was a federal Government Land grab . I think the fact she is asking for my opinion and i appreciate that but when you see moi most important is how would the designers of the constitution republic see what our federal government is doing with land in the west. That is the part that i teach. We have a group of citizens who are exercise their right to petition the government for readdress of their grievancgrie. They have a right to protest as long as no one is hurt and no property is damaged. But we also have to understand the federal government once again has a limited and defined authority in landownership. And National Parks is not a delegated authority in the constitution. T the federal government to form land, and that is article one, section seven the federal government owns property. Magazines and needing this. Section clause 32 further defines the article one clause and says of that property that the federal government owns this is the authority they have over their property. The constitution says it it is not a magazine or people building to run those three. There is no territory held in tru trust. They were saying the property and authority exercises by the federal government. It is specifically very clear and it is very clear. It is only when we leave and extract to wrote those dockms how much they wrote it. It is guaranteeed guaranteed the federal government can write this. He played with the writing on the land government but he was clear it was the government. We said the federal government has no authority over that land. It can never return to the federal government. Host jeff holly, facebook comment. On a hundred years of expansion of the federal government, have we passed the Tipping Point of return without a revolution . Guest that is probably my most asked question every where i go. Are we too far done . Here is the interesting thing, if we had the constitution in history, we would know exactly what we need to do. We would also know that we are not too far done. To be totally honest, we havent even begun to correct the wrongs. Our framers gave us a plan, a course of action to take when the federal government comes outside its limits and defined box. When we teach the constitution there is a history it repeats. They relied on that history as wisdom to create a security in the government. Patrick henry said i have one lamp in which my feet are guideded and that is by experience. Alexander hamilton said experience is the oracle of truth and where its responses are not equivalent they are held to be conclusive. Einstein said if you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results that is the definition of insanity. You know they anticipated maybe with this liberty because with liberty always comes prosperry but with the prosperity stemming from liberty the people might become pacified. In that moment, government will take more power with the permission of the people quite oft often. That is what we do in the book and couldnt put all the steps in place right now. As samuel adams said, the knowledge and virtual of the peop people. The control of the state and local government, and the use of state and local government do is control the federal government. One of the greatest gifts the designers of the Constitutional Republic gave us is the refusal to govern. We have become so federal centric that we now look to the federal government to solve all of our problems. They are the source of the problem and the solving of the problem must occur state and local. I dont teach my opinions but if someone were to ask me in my ideal world people would be just generally concerned about federal election. All of our political influence, support and time would go into the election of state and local governments because that is where all the power exists in the hands of the people. If people just understood how powerful the office of the sheriff is in the defense of our libbert liberty, we could change americas course back to a liberty centric place instead of a federal centric place in just a matter of years. Host and from her book not a living document, krisanne writes a common refrain is we fell asleep meaning our ignorance all allowed tyranny to sneak up on us. Next call comes from peter in renton, washington. Caller hello, my name is peterson. I just want to ask a question. Judges have the authority to determine whether an executive order issued by the president can take affect or not. Guest i think the best way to understand that is determining the position of the Supreme Court. I think we should start off by saying what the Supreme Court does not do. The Supreme Court does not make law. Supreme Court Opinions are not the law of the land. For us to give Supreme Court opinion, the authority of law, we are actually violating one of the most fundamental principles of our constitution republic of separation of power. Law making is reserved to the legislative branch so the laws reflect the people through equal representation. We did not elect anybody on the Supreme Court nor can you unelect anybody on the Supreme Court. What we need to understand is how Supreme Court opinions work. Not how we view them or interpret them to work but how law really works. A Supreme Court Court Opinion is only binding on the people in the courtroom. The parties of that case. And it is only binding on the parties of that case as long as it is consistent with the constitution itself under article six, section two, even the Supreme Court of the United States jurisdiction is limited by the constitution itself. The question is can the Supreme Court determine whether an executive order is lawful or not . The answer is yes, but the questions is what is the Supreme Courts opinion on whether an executive order is lawful or not consistent with the powers delegated within the constitution . So you would ask yourself as the Supreme Court is sitting a judgment over the executive authority. First and foremost, if the executive authority consistent with the constitution . Is the Supreme Court making its opinion based upon the constitution or their own political ideology. The Supreme Court doesnt nullify an executive order. It determines that its activity is inconsistent with the law. It is then up to congress to come and be the check and balance on that. If the Supreme Courts opinion is outside the jurisdiction, it has no authority at all. I wish there was one thing we could change about the way we speak about the Supreme Court. You quite often hear people say the Supreme Court ruled today. Courts dont issue rulings. Kings do. Courts issue opinions. If we understood them in their proper application as opinions that are only binding on the people in the courtroom, and only binding if consistent with the constitution, then we would have a better person of the role in place. Host 7488200 for the east and central time zone. 7488201 in the mountain and pacific time zone. Well also scroll through our social media addresses so you can contact us via social media. Next call from sean in hawaii. Go ahead. Host i hope you make it here some day. I. Caller i just have one dilemma. We were illegally overthrown in 1898 but the resolution passing congress on june 7th, signed by mckinley. We became a territory of the United States, finally becoming a state, the last state in the union. Now hawaiions are still seeing were illegally overthrown from the prior. How do we regain back hawaiian property, rights, land, from the state we are in now a part of . Host sean, are native hawaiians, hawaiian descended people, do they have any extra state rights at all . Hawaii . Caller um, yes and. No its based on blood quantum, but up in the air now because of the interbreeding. Theres only one islandwest live pure hawaiian and the island is privately owned bay family. So we dont have any outside of clinton saying, sorry, when he was president , a formal apology, we have not had any restitution given back to us. Host thank you, sir. Krisan hal, any response for that cal center sunny think one of most valuable things that hawaiians right now can recognize is that hawaii is a sovereign government within the union of the Constitutional Republic. Theyre no longer a territory of the federal government. They exist now within themselves as a sovereign government. The constitution was created the union was created through consent. From its ven inception the only way you became a part of the union was that the state itself consented to be part of the union. In the history of our Constitutional Republic, we invited parts of canada what we now noes canada to become part of the United States, part of our union, and they declined. The only way you legally become a part of the union is through consent. The argument now that i hear is that those hawaiians did not consent but were conquered. But heres the good news. Because you are a sovereign government, because our union exists, in a consensual nature of sovereign government, not a mandate, not a conquer, but you choose to be here, as a sovereign government, you can choose to go longer be a part of us if you dont want to. A lot of people would refer that to secession, and that is an issue that becomes controversial. How can a state secede . No state has the trying secede. Of course extra tate can secede because we did not form this union based on mandate. It was formed on consent. If we would just simply look on a global perspective, the United States of america is quite like the European Union. A union of sovereign governments coming together for their mutual benefit. Great britain, being a sovereign government, a former member of the European Union, decided they no longer wanted to be part of the European Union, and that it no longer saw the benefit of it so they left the European Union. They had the right to do that because they were 0a sovereign government. The union of our states is not created differently than that. Matter of fact the European Union is a picture of the union that we created in the union of our states in our Constitutional Republic. So it has to be a matter of consent, because if you deny a state its liberty to remove its consent, then your state is no longer a state. It is now a colony in a federal kingdom and we are not a republic but a kingdom itself. Host krisan hall, lets Say Something is watching this today and goes to your web site and wants to invite you to speak to a group. School group, civic group, whatever. When is the first available date . Guest oh, i dont know. Youll have to talk to i encourage them to actually fill out the speaking request form because janet host wouldnt be tomorrow or next month. Guest no. No. Probably be 2018. Were coming towards the end of the year, and remember, in november, our Haiti Mission begins. So november and december and the first part of january we are in country in haiti. So you dont have to rush and put something together. We, work in 2018 and build it up and get a good crowd or get what we need to satisfy the School District to be in there, or i have a class that i teach that is specifically geared towards Law Enforcement. A threehour course on the constitution. This is actually one of the a unique course. My course i teach Law Enforcement actually does deal with Supreme Court case law in the realms of first, second, and Fourth Amendment issues. And so if you have somebody that wants know teach that course, you can call me sign up through the form. Janet knows where im going to be. And she has all always tries to block at least a week in a certain location so we can get many, many meetings, and as she is blocking them, there are always open days. So it will be 2018 but it may not be may. It could be april because were already slotted to be in your area for a week. Host next call for kris zap hall from james. Thank you to booktv and cspan. Miss hall, aim a fellow colleague in tampa, florida, i work in real estate law and we appreciate what youre doing for us, ands i said to call screener, which i kind of evolved a little bit during your course of action here, i just want to get your feedback on the overall control of the healthcare issues that we have witnessed over the past week, and also to get your take on being that your mother what you think about vaccinations and it was just on msn today about government is cracking down on parents that refuse vaccination, and thank you for taking my call, and p. S. , jana and i have been in church and if you ever come to tamp passion florida, you have a host ready to host you. Host james, two questions. What is your take on the vaccination issue and the healthcare issue . Caller well, i run several radio shows as well, bank versus utv, big pharma versus utv, and frankly, its like Everything Else that is good, i feel its been usurped. Feel its a Big Pharmaceutical Companies have really taken advantage of money over health. I dont have a problem with someone that is in a profitable business, say, horse and buggy whips, but when youre going to be in the business of Human Health Care or even Animal Health care, i think you need to put the profitability side aside and i will interject to you that we noticed that congress and the house voted last week on the fd as im going to use the air quote extortion on the fda taking kickbacks off or higherend medical equipment, being manufactured and sold, and then taking a tariff off each time a patient is, say, given a cat scan. I dont want to get all nasty here, but at the end of the day, we have been usurped. We have been extorted and its time to give control back to at the people, the local municipalities. I have a lot of people that are encouraging me to run Public Office and some night is say my prayers and ask god to give me strength, and i did do air your shows on my internet tv. Ive been the touch with janet, and in closing on that, im on the fence. If i wore to be elected to office, i would not sway but i think we need to get rid of the good old boy network. Host james, thank you. Guest when were talking about the federal government we must first ask the question, what is the article, section and clause that delegates that authority to the federal government to exercise that power. There is no delegation of authority within the constitution for the federal government to have a food and drug administrationment they have no authority to regulate our food, our drugs, or anything that we consume or grow. This is clearly a power reserved to the states. The interesting thing is, when you study the ratification debates and the chief discussion that was happening, pro and con, of the constitution, the greatest objection to forming the union through the constitution was that the states would lose their sovereignty; that the federal government would become a kingdom and the states would be reduced to tributeary colonies. Is was through the discussion between what we call the federalist and antifederalist papers we understand, especially in the 40s section of the federalist papers, firstist 45, james mad disson is assuring the states, your sovereignty will not be usurped. You will retainure reserved power. Those reserved powers were all the affairs of the lives, liberties, properties of the people, the internal order and improvement and prosperity of the state. Madison was ensuring us assuring these states that the federal government has a very limited and fine power but will never, ever intrude on the Domestic Affairs the states in this way. We know that this must have been accepted to be fact because had this one point, in particular, not be accepted as fact as the driving fact of our Constitutional Republic, those states opposed to the Constitutional Republic would have never ratified. If they had not the assurance theyre powers would be reserved. So the federal government not having policy through the constitution to regulate food and drugs makes the fda an unconstitutional, unlawful exercise of power within the jurisdiction of the state. The federal knowing that, the federal government cannot possess a lawful power to mandate vaccinations, cannot possess a lawful power to mandate health care, cannot possess a lawful power to insert attacks on the people to pay for health care, and i think what you mentioned about the pharmaceutical companies, is another symptom of our federal government out of control. Theres a big argument today against capitalism. Capitalism is not the problem. What we have is corporateism today. We have the federal government picking winners and losers through political lobbying and kickbacks and Fund Offering certain products and certain corporations, but what is really happening in america. So our corporations for most part are not ruled by the Free Market Society because of this unlawful exercise of authority by the federal government. So, that is what we need to do. Youre right, we need to return this power back to the states so the people of the state can make sure that their state reflects their principles and their beliefs. Host facebook comment, dylan the comment im hearing most often from miss hall is we dont teach, et cetera, et cetera. Perhaps the problem is that students or citizens are not interested in learning about the constitution as much as miss hall. These are abstract concepts and sometimes difficult to teach and motivate students to learn. Guest the thing the first thing would agree with is these are not abstract concepts. These are axiomatic truths, and you can only believe theyre abstract concepts because were not teaching the history that proves they are truth. Theyre unavoidable truths. Theyre things that happened throughout history, over and over and over again. Heres not unseen consequence. Theyre exactly walt we note. Like Patrick Henry said, lamp lights or future and our path. Our path and our history is our greatest teacher. Would challenge him to say its not the duty of the student to want to learn. Its the duty of the teacher to make him hungry to learn. We have been dumbing down our students in classrooms filled with mandates and boredom and remember these dates and names, without teaching that these people will lie. Were talking real live tv drama in the 1600s who got brothers killing brothers to become king. We have kings putting people in high towers because they wont pay their taxes. Weve got freedom of speech being interrupted, kings outlawing plays and stuff like that. I think the deficiency is not in the heart of the student but in the pacific of at the passion of the teacher. I teach students from 6 to 96, is my old e student so far, and i teach a firehour work fivehour workshop on saturdays that goes through the history of the constitution, through the bill of rights, i show you where the came from, that the mean, how how our offenders intended them to be applied, where we have gone off track and the solutions to making them right. In those fivehour workshop, five hours of teaching, six hours in a day, i have students of all ages, six, seven, eight years old, who sit and listen and learn in that workshop the whole day. The dont take notes. But they draw pictures about what im talking about. Pictures of me speaking and little pictures of what they learned sparks they get excited about that. One of my favorite i have two favorite stories that it wrote about on my web site. One is about a middle school girl named whitney. I dont remember where i was teaching but was brought into the Public School to teach the history of the constitution, and whitney came up to me with her friend, you know, she is Just Middle School so all intimidated and said i wanted to thank you for coming and teaching us today. We have had other people come in and teach us, but they dont teach like you do. She said its just the way you teach that made me excited about what you were teaching. What we need is passion back in our classrooms. I had a High School Boy which i think is probably my toughest audience, High School Boys. And after teaching the history of the constitution, he came up to me and he shook my hand and said, miss hall, thank you for taking you time to come and teach us. He said want to be in government. I might even want to be president one day. But after what you taught me today, i want you to know that i will never let anybody take my liberty again. Its the teachers job to make the student hungry. This is not just a paycheck. These are not just numbers. These are not just statistics and standardized testifieses. This is the future of america, the minds that will lead america, and they deserve our jut most passion. Host in liberty first you take on john dewey. Guest john dewey my goodness. What the education departments laugh as the founder of the American Education system but he was a signer of the marckist manifesto, the humanist manifesto, and when you read the statements of dewey, and the plan that he had for more than education you have to question why our teaching system would even uphold him as an authoritiment he believed that literacy was overrated, and that illiterate actually led a more happy life and that is was more important to teach children to socialize than it was to teach them how to read and write, science, arithematic and theres an aural on my web site, called stolen education, stolen children, stolen future, which where i have captured an outline of the creation of our modern School System that begins in 1885. And if we are not familiar with the names of thorne dyke, dewey, stanley hall and what their philosophies were and how the drive still today our American Education system, then we cannot know why our students are failing in literacy today. Host again from liberty first, you write, our educational system has become concentration camps of brainwashing and marxist programming. Our students are not only not taught the constitution in and the principles of liberty, theyre constantly indoctrinated that america is the source of all that is evil in the world. Americas founding documents are flawed, its Founding Fathers were big gotted oppressor, the values antiquated. The free market system destructive. Next call for our guest comes from vernon in newport news, virginia. Go ahead. Caller hello. How are you doing, miss hall, thank you for cspan, all three networks. Miss hall, recognize about the state sovereignty and what i was thinking is that if we recognize state sovereignty, state sovereignty justified the segregation laws, state sovereignty justified the secession from the union and state sovereignty justifiesed to the with heavy mel anyone content to be property and not human beings, and therefore, none of that would have been corrected if there had not been the use of or the recognition by a higher level, the other part of government, being the federal government. Thats why i think state sovereignty when i hear states rights, it scares me because ive never seen states rights work for those who are in the minority. I do agree with you that local and State Government is important, and just as important as federal and if not more important. I like to hear your opinion on that. Guest i bet if we talk about the history of that rather than my opinion because what you described is a common misconception about history in and of itself. If you want to know how the constitution was a mechanism to end slavery, theres an article on my web site, titled how the constitution ended slavery. And what we need to understand is that state sovereignty did not condone any of those things. State sovereignty did not condone segue agree gracious, and state sovereignty is not what declared men to be property. That was the Supreme Court who declared men to be property in the dred scott case. The Supreme Court using their errant interpretation of the constitution and misapplication of history, determined in their opinion, that men were property and people picked that up as law. State sovereignty does not enslave. State sovereignty makes free. One aspect of history we dont teach is that during the civil war, free states were nullifying federal law to free slaves. Most people dont recognize that the federal fugitive slave act was a federal law that was being enforced even up into the civil war, and the free states were telling the federal government, we are a sovereign state, you dont have the authority to dictate to us the classification and identification of our citizens. This person is in our state and this person is free. And since this person is in our state, were a sovereign state and is free, we will not recognize your federal law to enslave him. So it is actually the sovereignty of the states that was winning the freedom for all people. Our history likes to teach that specifically black men were not free before the emancipation proclamation, that is not true, denial of history of people like james fortman, and George Middleton, George Middleton formed the African Benevolent society of 1786. He was another only a free man. He was a citizen who owned a not for Profit Corporation to benefit the families, the widows and oar fan orphans of the black soldiers who fought in our revolution. The idea that the civil war ended slavery is also errant because if you look at the law s within the states, the institution of slavery was practically nonexistent throughout the union and only existed in small parts within the individual states. It did not end civil war did not end discrimination either, did not end abuse of the people, as you call it, for people with higher content of mel anyone. If the civil war did that why did king king have to march in a. M. . What we need to recognize today, something that the designers of our Constitutional Republic, black, white, yellow, red, male, female, all recognized is that the concept of liberty is not something that is won by conquer and mar. You do not free through constitution. You cannot plow other field overnight. In order to incorporate liberty into a society it must be a societal change and thats what was happening in america. This societal change that actually said, we the people. We, the people, will make change. It this Constitutional Republic that makes America Great because only in a Constitutional Republic can a Minority Group have a society changing voice. And this is just scratching the surface. Fear in those short period of time ive not gone a really good justice to this but i would encourage you, encourage everybody, to learn the truth about the end of slavery in america, to learn the truth about how liberty is spread and what our founders did to make sure that we were a place built on the principle that all men are created equal. All men are created equal and today by the crater with certain inalienable rights. Host tim from massachusetts go ahead, tim. Good afternoon, guys, folks. Sorry. Cspan, thank you for this opportunity to speak with miss hall. Its really great. I think you scoured a real coup here so to speak. Have tried to educate myself and read and i have a small understanding of what you have of the problems. Thick one of the biggest problem is it voicer apathy or apathy of the public in general and how to get people to understand that their vote does mean something. Think people feel like it the government has no doesnt have a hook into their lives and they dont care about voting. Thought about Different Things and to great to a hear you today. One thing ive wondered about is why since 1908 we have not changed the number of representatives in the house of representatives, and how that is affected the proportion of people whom they represent, and made it difficult for us to have the mechanism to reach people through the state and if we just return to what we had back then, which got changed every 12 years prior or so before that, we would have four time as many people in the house of representatives, and i think we could do that by cutting everybodys salary a quarter, and thats what we would pay people to go in, and i think we would produce a lot of changes, help us fix the problem not having enough parties, and we would need to make other changes to have this happen, and again, think maybe Constitutional Convention might be possible. Might be necessary. So, thank you very much. Id like to hear your dish want to ask one question. What did corporations overcome to become people as so many other minorities have . Thank you very much for your time. Host okay, the size of the house of representatives guest the them and all that stuff. Believe the apathy of the people is a symptom of a great are problem, and the greater problem is the lack of education which results in the people feeling overwhelmed. I dont know about you but what when sigh a project or task that is very big in front of me i have a terrible habit of proapparatus proapparatus nateing the beginning of the probable lamp because it feels overwhelming. If dont try i wont fail. That is what voting has become. We have become so overwhelmed with the out of control nature of the federal government but the fact our congressmen dont follow the constitution. If they even know what the constitution means, and they rarely ever listen to the people and were convinced that lobbyists and their dollars have more control than the people who actually elect our representatives to office. So the real problem, once again, as samuel adams say, the universal ignorance and the debeaked manners of the people. He said well sink underneath our own weight without the aid of foreign invaders and part of the thinkingses is that physical feeling of being overwhelmed because you dont have control. I we can teach the people the power and control they have, well be able to break freeway of the prison of feeling overwhelmed and actually make a difference. Its something you mentioned about the its interesting you mentioned the size of the number of representatives because in my book, sovereign duty, in the chapter on article 5 conventions, we actually in a sort of tangent, address that. For the last 50 Years Congress has been researching how an article 5 convention should work if it should ever be called. And in this research they called together their experts people they claim to be experts, and they gather reports and the Congressional Research survey issues reports. One of the point brought forward was the fact that were supposed to be reapportioning the number of house members. There was even a fight in the 1920s to make that happen. Some states brought forward, hey, this is what you have to do. We havent done it for a long time. We must do that. And i cant recall the name off the top of my head if you rat that chapter you can see it. But one of the special counsel for the for congress at that time used that precedent as a mechanism to say that even if the states want to call a convention, congress does not need to call a convention. He said after all, when the states brought forward the necessary tonight the ford the rea portionment of congress, and congress refused, nothing was ever done. His point was that the states in the power that Congress Holds now through perceived authority, the states have no way to actually force congress to do anything they dont want to do. And because they cant force congress to even follow the constitution, they cant force congress to amend it either. So the point was, who cares if states get together to form a convention . Because congress, if they dont want to they dont have to because the precedent has already been set. This series and assumption of power by congress can only exist because the people have lost touch with the power and the placement of the sovereignty of the states. Host walter, form solisster general, advised congressin 1979 that if the states want to trespass any original limitations on the convention, then they have the fewer do so. Guest uhhuh. Host what is the cover of sovereign duty, the big x . Guest its the roman numeral 10, the 10th amendment was the codification, the reassertion of the sovereignty of the states. It reads see if i can do this by memorythe powers not delegated to the United States nor i always forget that middle clause nor specifically prohibitinged to it by the state are reserved to the states. So, basically what that means is if the power is not specifically delegated within the articles of the constitution, that power is reserved to the states. So the power is the federal government possesses are specifically enumerate, and Everything Else is reserved to the states. One problem is we have lost attachment with the definition of word. The word reserved is a very powerful word. Ill actually implies property ownership, dominion over something to the exclusion of everybody else. And so by reserving power to the states, what were saying is the states have property dominion over this power to the exclusion of all government, foreign or domestic. Host you also talk about the word shall, and shall not. What does shall mean legally. Guest in my 11yearold knows what that it mean. Dont know what is wrong with judges and politicians. It is means what it means. It is a specific and ultimate prohibition. What we have, though, is another human nature aspect that comes in. Throughout time the meanings of words become del lewdded or redefine diluted and redefined. Were actually seeing in legal documents and in legal dictionaries the idea that the word shall and may are synonymous, which is dish dont know linguistically ridiculous to assert that. Always had very distinct meanings. Thats how society goes and comes from the lack of proper teaching. I like to give this example when im teaching. I want to tell people, am here to encourage you, right . Well, when we say encourage, you might get the sort of vision of a cheerleader in your mind. Look at the definition of the word, encourage. It means to infuse with courage. As a former biochemist to infuse means to saturate to the sell you already level. Im veer to infuse you with the courage to do something. A little more than a cheerleaderring are right . Thats why we have to hold tight to standards instead of del luting things into meaningless boxes. Host have you been asked anything by our viewers today that you have never been asked before . Guest no, sir. After six years, you know like i said, we dont just we dont just preach to the choir, all the to the choir does niece education. Were teaching lots of different people and social media brings a real varying set of ideals into the public forum. I think the thing that is attractive about what we teach and the we we teach is were so libertyfocused, we are not politically tied, were not party tied, we are so liberty focused its attractive to all people and inviting. Its not intimidating because im not not going to stream and yell at you because you dont like my political candidate. Were going to have a logical, historical, and factual discussion, and im pretty tolerant of my Facebook Page with discussion because i like to have that public forum but i dont tolerate people would want to come and throw around political epithets and that sort of thing. So, we do try to make our forums very, very inviting for all people because liberty no Political Party owns liberty. As a matter of fact its unfortunate, as washington said, that the institution of Political Parties is usually antiliberty. Thats why Liberty First University is important because its going to be able to reach people in the privacy of their own homes. Dont have to be embarrassed to comb to a meeting where were talking about the constitution, and they can see the universal nature and applicableity of the constitution and liberty. Host in your view or research, what have the Founding Fathers get wrong . Guest if there there is one thing i can point to they missed the mark it was their faith in people to learn lessons of history. They really believed in that quote you gave from jefferson about the amending of the constitution they really believed that with prosperity we would have less war, we would have less conflict. The union would ensure the way the constitution was designed, limiting the authority of the executive, would limit the number of wars were in, that would the union itself would create a peace and prosperity among the states, which would allow the people to spend more time in the development of their understanding of natural law and philosophies and liberties to give them a greater attachment to liberty and to need less government. And i think it was their faith in that progression that missed the mark most. I think that although they hoped that, they also knew that there were certain aspects of human nature that will always play the same way, which i why they always had a plan b. In place, like e the plan to control the federal government when it gets out of control. One of my other favorite found issues, named Richard Henry lee, and i agree with many of the historians he is the writer of a series of antifederalist papers called the letters from a federal farmer, and in that he says that history proves that people will suffer an unavoidable what how did he unavoidable period of inattentiveness. As we become pacified by pros apart, lazy in luxury, come place sent and quiet, history dictates the people women surveil an unavoidable interval of inattentiveness and thats where the Education Needs to come in. Guy has been waiting patiently in fall city, washington. Youre on with kris ann hall. You allude today history as the facts. Im talking get preamble of the constitution. The history of america, the robber barons and the history of labor the country. The preamble says to promote to ensure, domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. Now, being 80 years old myself, i am familiar with my fathers days and for the 150 years before i was with the democrats took over and the new deal was the only time that was promoted the general welfare, and its been taken back by the robber barons today, and the latest legislation that ive watched go through congress in the last six months has given it back to robber barons and the promote the general welfare is a thing of the past. Guest well. Host response. Guest i think what we need again understand is the meaning of those terms ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare as they were written to mean, not as we interpret them today. To promote to the domestic tranquility was something that was addressed in the first ten sections of the federalist and the antifederalist papers. What they meant by to ensure domestic tran quit by the formation of the union, they believed it would connect the states, these independent sovereign governments together, would connect the states in a relationship that would keep them from warring with each oomph their whole experience is europe, and these neighboring states constantly warring each other because they didnt have a relationship with each other that encouraged domestic relationships, and so to ensure domestic tranquility, the purpose of the union in doing that was to create a relationship between the states where they could not only cooperate but also rely on each other. So, ensuring domestic tranquility was not a power of the government to impose regulation on the state. It was to be a naturally occurring thing that happened through the relationship of the confederation of the states. The general welfare is also a very, very misapplied and misinterpreted phrase in the constitution itself. General welfare has absolutely nothing to do with handing out money to people from a National Level to a from a federal level to a local level. General welfare is not what we describe today as welfare programs. The general welfare clause was Incorporated Interest the preamble as a reminder of the purpose of the powers delegated to the federal government, and it stems from the problem that we had in the articles of confederation where the federal government was making inequitable treaties that benefited one state and the other states had to foot the bill. They said when the federal government exercises its powers as author thyroid the articles in the constitution authored through the articles in the storks it must remember that whenever it makes a treaty, it must take the general welfare of the union of the states in mind. You cannot make a treaty that benefits one of another. You cannot go to work because of one state over another. You cannot declare peace because of the views of one state, ignoring all the others. That general welfare clause was to refer to the general welfare of the states as members of the union, not as a handout to the people on the individual level. Any welfare that was to take place had to take place on the local level, not from the federal to the local. Host liberty first, heres a todo list. Keep the proper perspective. Educate beyond the election. Id and educate candidates, sure and hold halls of power, purge recapture g. O. P. , expand new media, recapture education of children, pray for pastor awakening. Guest i would say that the purge the g. O. P. Would have to apply to all Political Parties as well. I think the reason that we focused on the g. O. P. Because of the g. O. P. s platform is dedicated to the constitution. I wonder how many members of the g. O. P. Have actually read the g. O. P. Party platform, especially 2016, which says we are the party of the constitution, we are the party of state rights, we are the party that will believe in limited government. Problem is, with so many people who call themselves r republiccages who will operate contrary to the constitution, operate contrary to sovereignty of the states, expand federal power and federal realm and theyre not following the platform. Suggest that the governans of political system if were walk with this party paradigm, the people have to be willing to hold people to standards of their party and get rid of. The if they dont. Any republican that votes to have federal health care is operating contrary to the Political Party platform, because federal health care is contrary to the power delegated to the federal government. And in so its the standards that we must uphold but its not pop floor say that. I think pop floor say that and because were so districtly liberty, that puts me at odds sometimes with both parties. But what we need to see is that all liberty itself this most valuable possession we have as human beings. John adams said liberty must at all hazard be supported. Host in essential stories for junior patriots, you have study questions. I thought about making viewers answer one of these ahead of time but i couldnt answer half of them so i didnt want to look like a fool. Guest can you name the five liberties. Host ive one trying, speech, religion, gathering. Guest assembly. Host right to petition. Guest uhhuh. Host and guest guest press. Host that one. Guest the fun thing about petition its not just the right to petition. Its the right to petition for a readdress of grievances and thats something we inherited from the magna carta, clause 61 says that not only do you have the right to petition but you have the right to be made whole based on your petition. Host heres a study question for the viewers to concentrate on. What do you think the antifederal yeas were worried about when the federalist wanted to give the Central Government more power . Theres one for you to noodle on. As we hear from melinda in jersey shore, pennsylvania. Caller hello. I wanted to ask you two questions. The first one is that James Madison says the state power extends to the live, liberty and property of the people and the internal order and prosperity of the state. And the word of founder ands the states compact, what says that theres a limitation to our state and local governments or do we have to comply with rules that directly conflict with our rights . Guest what a beautiful question. Heres the thing. The states were reserved this power because that is the home of the people. Remember, it is not up to government to limit itself, ever. It is the responsibility of the people, as our framers said over and over again, its the jealousy and the vigilant of the people in the defense of their own rights to limit government itself. Every single government must be limited by natural law. Theres a great book that you can read that helps you understand how that is supposed to work. Its called the law. Additionally, Thomas Paynes book, the right man and thomas im sorry James Madisons essay on property and samuel adams essay on the rights of northwestern colonists, all address the aspect of natural law, and to really just sort of answer your question in a nutshell, i want to redirect you to the declaration of independence, because remember the declaration of independence was written to announce and declare the formation of the states by the people. The declaration of independence says, we hold these truths to be selfevident that all many are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and says that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their justice power from the consent of the governed. So the single purpose for creating our states, the only reason they exist, is not to create economic improvements, not for national security, not for business regulations. It is to secure our rights. That is their primary and sole rope for existence. Sole reason for existence. Remember our declaration of independence continues and says that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these means the securing the rights of the people it is the right of the people to alter, abolish, jefferson with right they have a duty to do so. So the reason that the states were reserved this power is because that is where the people had the most control. You have more control over your state legislator or your federal congressman . The answer is obvious, more control of the governor or more control of the president of the United States. Obviously you have more control over your local government so they can be have access to more powers because you have more power to limit their exercise of the power. Its when we forget the natural rights we possess by the nature of our creation, and that we trade our liberty for security and comfort, that we find ourselves in a place where your states become gist as tyrannical as a larger government, and so the states do not have the right to be tyrannical. Their only purpose is to secure the rights of the people. Host email knut reynolds from arizona. Im glad i discovered you on booktv. You messengered at one point in you life you had a spiritual conversation with christ would you mind giving more detail how this happened, what form it took, et cetera. Guest my goodness. Wow. Thats very personal. Like i said in the beginning, i was im a truth seeker, and i always felt an emptiness, so i kept trying to fill that emptiness with something. And a series of events happened in my life that made me very miserable. When i broke my hip in the military, the va medical system was very, very bad to me. So bad that we had congress get involved and force them to actually help me and treat me. I was living with chronic pay. Couldnt do laundry, couldnt do anything in the house without being in bed for two days because i had a broken hip but nobody would help me with it. And i think because of my struggles, because of the chronic pain, because of things going on, we were also struggling in our marriage, the family was having trouble we were in church and remember i said that i used to believe that christians were weak, stupid people. And i was too smart for this. Im struggling internally with this faith thing because i thought it was impossible for me to have faith in something i cant see, feel and touch. So we had gotten involved we started attending a church and were listening and i was doing my studying, im a very diligent researchers. And the more i read, the more it started to affect me, and i think we hit that point where i realized, i cant pull myself up by my boot straps anymore. I cant fix what is wrong anymore. And i remember being in church that day and just being so absolutely broken. I just said, look, god, if you who are they say you are, then be real to me that way. And i will let you do whatever you need to do to fix this and i will live my life for you because i believe that you did that for me. And i would love to tell you that everything miraculously angels and choirs and all that kind of thing made everything better immediately but thats not the walk of a christian. But it was through our faith and our understanding of the promises of christ that anything that we go through is for the glory of god for the betterment of ourselves and we can go through this by faith, knowing that theres a bigger plan and a birth picture and that all of the suffering we have today is accompanied by a great amount of joy and peace and happiness, and i never felt that in any other religion. Never felt that peace, never felt that settlement. I never felt that hope. Black detroit a peoples history of selfdetermination. Host author herb boyd with us on this Independence Day weekend. Professor boyd, what is july 4 me deal