The Ninth Amendment: The Forgotten Right the Supreme Court Barely Cites | Bill Norton

[00:00:14] Welcome to The Jenny Beth Show. I'm Jenny Beth Martin. Welcome to The Jenny Beth Show. This is the last in our series of a conversation with Bill Norton, who is a constitutional scholar and an author. And we are talking about founding principles. Today, we're going to be talking about the Bill of Rights. And Bill, thank you so much for being back on the show with me. It's an honor. It's awesome to be here with you.

[00:00:39] So, this discussion corresponds with the fourth training, the fourth lesson that you've done with us on the founding principles, which everyone can find at tpartypatriots.org forward slash 1776. Now, this one is on the Bill of Rights. And you have a book that is coming out in July, right? Yeah. Behind the Bill of Rights.

[00:01:07] Well, so Behind the Bill of Rights is already done. Oh, that one's done. Yeah. And that one was actually written a couple years ago. Oh, that's right. That's the first one. I know it's getting confusing because there's three of these books that are behind the something, right? Okay. So, yeah, the one that's coming out in July is Behind the Declaration of Independence. Yes. And then as we get close to September, then we'll get Behind the Constitution of the United States. And then, but Behind the Bill of Rights is the first one that we wrote, which actually we should have written that one third because it would have been better to do it in order.

[00:01:36] Yeah. But when people think of these documents, they know what the Declaration of Independence is, but they know the First and Second Amendment. Like they know the contents of those amendments. Yeah. They know there's some articles in the Constitution. So it makes sense that that's where you would start because that's where people are. Exactly. And that's actually the reason why we did it. So I co-authored it with Jeremy Nelson, who's with the National Center for Constitutional Studies.

[00:02:02] And the reason why we decided to write a book on the Bill of Rights is because the number one page on their website that people land on is their Bill of Rights page, like by far. And so, so we thought, well, that's where, that's what people want to know about. And so we decided to write the book on the Bill of Rights. But then as we got closer to this America 250 stuff, I realized we should really have one for the Declaration. And we're going to do that and we may as well have one for the Constitution and just have it be a set of three.

[00:02:31] So, but right now the Behind the Bill of Rights one is there. You can buy it. You can get it through your site for a discount when you take the training or you get it on Amazon or whatever. Okay. And everyone should go get, get this book and all of the books as they continue to come out. When you were writing the Behind the Declaration of Independence, did anything about it surprise you related to the Bill of Rights? So.

[00:03:02] That's a little confusing because we're talking about the Bill of Rights and I'm asking you about the other book, but I'm wondering if there's anything about it that's interesting to you. So actually really what the surprising thing was in as, as we were writing the Bill of Rights book. So by the time I got to the Declaration book, I kind of, I kind of knew where the founders were on a lot of this stuff. But the Bill of Rights, what surprised me there. So I had wanted to write this book for years.

[00:03:30] And what I wanted to do was have this book be about the, the fundamental underlying principles in each of those first 10 amendments. And I thought this is going to be an easy book to write because all I had to do is turn to the founders and they're just going to lay out the principles for me. And I was wrong. They said a lot less about the underlying principles than I thought they would, even about the seven, the second amendment, for example, right to bear arms.

[00:03:58] They didn't really say a whole lot about the principle behind the right to bear arms. They talked about the importance of it and how we should have it, but they never really said why. And, and, and they never really got into what the fundamental natural right is in relation to the second amendment. So I discovered why they, they didn't have any of that information.

[00:04:19] It's because the founders and, and the, the English citizens had been living under the right to bear arms for about six or 700 years already. It was just a no brainer. It was just something that they, as part of their culture. In fact, early on with the right to bear arms in English history, um, not only did you have the right to bear arms, but it was, uh, the law that you had to, it was illegal for you not to bear arms.

[00:04:48] Uh, in fact, long before guns and everything, uh, it was, uh, the law that you had to have a longbow. And the moment your sons were of certain age, you had to make sure that there's a longbow for those sons. And on top of that, uh, the laws required that you were trained in it. So not just own it, you had to be trained. Um, and the reason why is because again, back with feudal law, you had, uh, you know, these farmers that would live on, on the land of a barren and, or an earl or whatever.

[00:05:17] And you had to be ready and prepared, uh, to be called into military service at any given time to, to protect the land or to go gain more land or whatever. And so that's why it was the law. Um, but it was always just a given that you had the right to bear arms. And so because of that, the founders never really, uh, discussed what that fundamental natural law principle is. Uh, if you're interested, do you want to know what the fundamental natural?

[00:05:44] I was going to say, Jim, Bill, that's why we're talking. Exactly. Um, it's not so that we can rise up against a tyrannical government. It's not so that we can, uh, you know, shoot an intruder or whatever. Um, I mean, all those things are, are, you know, results of the right to bear arms, but it's, it's simple. Like most natural law principles, it's very, very simple. It's just simply the right of self-preservation. That's the fundamental underlying principle.

[00:06:13] And then founders never say that that's why we have the right to bear arms, but that's really what, why we have it. And they allude to it, certainly. So it's no different than your right to plant a garden. It's no different than your right to, um, put a roof over your head and to go to the grocery store and buy food. Because you have one of your most fundamental rights is the right to life. You have therefore then the right to preserve that life.

[00:06:39] And if that means the right to bear arms, then that's what it means. And it's the right of self-preservation from anything that, or anyone who would take that right away from you, which may be an intruder. It may be a thief. It may be, uh, it may be the government. None of that really matters. What matters is that you have the right of self-preservation. So that was the biggest surprising thing was I'm like, the founders are just going to just give me all this information that I need.

[00:07:07] And no, I had to dig a lot deeper and I had to actually, um, uh, ponder and think through a lot more of these things myself in order to discover those underlying principles. In an episode earlier, you said you have a huge library. You've got like 4,000 books. How many books do you think you had to read in reference to write these three books?

[00:07:29] Um, so with the, uh, well, with the, behind the bill of rights, um, I probably used, um, a lot. I probably use, um, probably at least a dozen books, uh, that I really dove into. There's a couple of really good resources. There's a book that's the complete bill of rights. And really all it is, is just every piece of documentation that that author could find about, um, the bill of rights.

[00:07:57] So letters from the founders, um, all of the, all of the, uh, the notes in Congress as they were passing them and arguing them and all that. Um, it's all there in one volume, which is, which was really valuable. It's, it's really confusing sometimes because, because the order of the rights changed. So right now we have them clean, uh, you know, one through 10. And, and one thing that's very confusing is the 12 amendments that were pushed out to the states.

[00:08:25] The first two were not, uh, even ratified. And so our first amendment, when it was sent out to the states was actually the third amendment. And, and so you have to shift all of the numbers down by two. And, and, and so anyway, so that, that was confusing. Um, but the, but the other books that I used quite a bit were actually, uh, interestingly enough, I used, um, a lot of books like, like there's a section on slavery in the book, even though slavery is not covered in the bill of rights.

[00:08:55] We did a, a general principles section to just kind of lay the groundwork on some things. And so we do talk about slavery. And so I actually used, um, some books that were the records of, of, uh, like the, the London, um, the London tea company. And, uh, and, and, and, and some of those records from Jamestown and things to really go right back to some fundamental concepts in Jamestown.

[00:09:19] Uh, and then also even going back to the Magna Carta and, and some of those initial listings of rights. It's because the Magna Carta was kind of a bill of rights sort of, and then you have the, the English bill of rights in 1689. Um, so anyway, so all those books just came together, but it took a lot of research, but with the other books, um, actually the constitution book and the, and the declaration of independence book, I didn't use many other resources.

[00:09:47] Um, and the reason why is because I approached the constitution from a very different angle, as we talked about in our last conversation from this mixed form of government angle, which is a unique angle that most people don't take it from. So I had to kind of create those ideas from, from scratch, so to speak. Um, and then the same thing with the declaration, it's so principle-based and my, my, um, expertise is the fundamental principles of liberty. That's really what I gravitate toward.

[00:10:16] Um, and so when it comes to the declaration, I'm able to just tap into my own knowledge and intellect and, and, and just kind of go to town on that one. Yeah. Well, you've been studying this for how many years? Um, about 35 years now. Yeah. It's a long time. You started when you were like two. That's right. Okay. Now, how do we get to the point where we have freedom of religion? Why did that need to be stated? What, what's going on with that?

[00:10:43] Um, so I, I really wish the founders in the bill of rights would have stuck with their term that they, that they had ended up evolving to. And it's a freedom of conscience. Um, but I understand why they went to religion because they really wanted to make it clear that this was about, you know, our, our belief systems and freedom of conscience. Doesn't always, um, generate that thought in our minds that it's a belief system.

[00:11:10] Um, but really it's just any of our beliefs, any of our thoughts, uh, need to be free. And that's really what the freedom of religion is all about. But it took a long time to evolve. Um, the story of America that you're taught in schools, and they still kind of teach this in schools. Um, it's, it's, it's an abbreviated version, um, which is fine. We don't always have time to dive into all the deep things.

[00:11:34] Um, but the way that you learned about, uh, early American history, like what did you learn? Why did the pilgrims come to America? Um, for religious freedom. Um, that's right. Yeah. They just wanted religious freedom. And, and that's a great abbreviation of the story. And they wanted to be left alone by the government. That's right. Um, and that's, and that's a good way to say it when we don't have a lot of time to get into it. Um, but really they, they did want religious freedom to a degree.

[00:12:03] And so they went to Holland, which had religious freedom. Um, and they discovered that they didn't want that much religious freedom because it was so free that there were, that their kids were mingling with people of other faiths and mingling with, um, kids that were learning no faith. So they, they were among atheists and secularists and stuff. And they realized that they did not want their kids influenced by that. And so they didn't really want religious freedom.

[00:12:32] They wanted, they wanted freedom of their religion, but not necessarily freedom of everybody else's religion. So they came to America where they could be completely left alone and not influenced by either a king who was pushing his own religious views, uh, and church on them. But they also didn't want the influence of other churches on them either. Um, and so they came and William Bradford, who was great when, and, you know, they learned that communism doesn't work.

[00:13:02] And so they put a free market system in place. And William Bradford writes about all that. Um, in fact, he's referred to as the father of American history because he wrote the first, uh, history of, of, what is it? Of Plymouth Plantation is what he called it. But William Bradford ends up becoming what he, what he hated or what he claimed he was getting away from.

[00:13:24] He actually, as governor helped write laws that required that you be a member of certain religion in order to hold public office and to even vote. And so there was no religious tolerance there, no, no freedom of religion. Um, and then of course it ends up evolving into Salem witch trials. And we have, you know, those examples. And, and then they end up booting some people out of their community.

[00:13:52] Thomas Hooker, for example, who goes to Connecticut and writes the fundamental orders of Connecticut, the first written constitution. So thank goodness they booted him out so that he had the opportunity to write a new form of government. So we had this kind of, this, this idea of religious freedom, but, but not really it's religious, my religious freedom, not yours.

[00:14:13] Um, but as things started evolving in the country, um, we started realizing, yeah, maybe we do want to give people the right to practice their own religions, but we're just, we're going to just tolerate that. We'll, we'll accept it based on our terms. So like when the Baptists first started coming, then we said, you know, you can preach. Initially it was illegal to preach.

[00:14:38] Uh, but then they said, okay, you can preach, but you need to get a permit in order to preach in order to have a Baptist church. And, um, of course that's a big problem because now you have to jump through certain hoops and behave certain ways in order to get a permit. Um, and so they, they had this idea of religious tolerance.

[00:14:56] And then by the time you get to the founders, Thomas Paine, uh, wrote about this, George Washington wrote about it, that, that this idea of tolerance is actually a really bad state of mind. Because what does that indicate to you? If I say that I'm going to be tolerant of you, what does that say about our relationship? Well, tolerance is supposed to be something that's good, but when you do it like that, you're, you're saying, well, I don't really like you, but I'll put up with you.

[00:15:26] That's right. It puts me in this position of I'm superior. I'm better than you. Right. But I'll tolerate your inferiority. Right. And so that's what the founders realized. This, this idea of religious tolerance is, um, it's really condescending and it's really not, uh, a mindset of equality. And one other thing is you were talking about all this that I was thinking about during that time, they had the black robe brigade, brigade, right?

[00:15:55] And then you had John Wesley, who was the founder of Methodism, who had gone up and down the, the Eastern seaboard a couple of times evangelizing. And you had others who were evangelizing. So there was a, there were a lot of different kinds of religions that were being practiced and being spread during that time as well. That was going on leading into the revolutionary period. That's right.

[00:16:21] And so you had, you did have some, uh, uh, different periods of, uh, awakenings. And then of course, eventually we get into the great awakening where there's a lot of people preaching and stuff. And so. And, and the King still had control over religion as well. So there was a lot of things. There were a lot of factors going on that we, it's hard to imagine right now today. Correct. That's kind of what I'm trying. You're saying, and I'm saying the same thing, I think. Yeah.

[00:16:48] And, and the other struggle that we had with religion at the time was, um, when England would send preachers, they were, they were not very good. They were kind of like the, the rejects. And so like in Virginia and some other States and stuff, they actually had to pass laws that the, uh, the, the clergy, they were forced by law to have to, to give at least a certain number of sermons per month because they were just here and they weren't even, they weren't

[00:17:17] even doing their job. Um, or there was also other laws that made it so that the clergy couldn't drink and couldn't gamble. So obviously the laws like that are being made. If you had to have that, that means they were doing some pretty bad things. Exactly. Yeah. And so we kind of were getting these rejects, um, when it came to the clergy, not all, um, uh, some of the clergy that were here were some pretty amazing people, but, but we were kind of having these rejects.

[00:17:41] And so the religion wasn't necessarily, uh, very good quality as far as the churches and the sermons and things that were happening. Um, and so, and then we, we started, uh, seeing difficult things like, for example, like Catholics, they didn't have a home and they didn't have a place to go. And everywhere they went, they were persecuted and people were kicking them out. And so the people of Maryland said, you know, we'll accept you and we'll be tolerant of you. And so move here.

[00:18:11] And they moved in to Maryland in such high numbers that they ended up, um, controlling votes and all that, and ended up, uh, oppressing the other religions. So, so here it is. Yes, gracious. It's like, you know, we let you in. And then all of a sudden you, uh, you know, you have this, you turn on us and you become, uh, what, what was happening to you everywhere else. Right.

[00:18:37] And this is pretty common that when new religions would come in, there would be an awful lot of persecution. And this even went on, even not just in the founders era, but even through the 1800s, different religions. I mean, you didn't have the, uh, uh, the church of Jesus Christ literally being pushed out of the country in the, in the 1840s, um, because of persecution and stuff. Um, and, and so we have this religion's tough, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's,

[00:19:04] it's so close to our hearts and our emotions that boy, it's pretty easy to turn us against each other. Um, if we have some religious disagreements. And so this whole idea of religious tolerance is what the founders realized that they needed to get away from and really get into freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, that no religion should have the ability to, to, uh, oversee or have any kind of oversight over

[00:19:30] other religions, which also means that we can't have them involved in government in any way. Um, and that we re we recognize that when we combine like Jay, uh, John Adams, he's got this great quote where he talks about when you combine, uh, religion and government, it ends up corrupting both, um, both of them end up being damaged because of it. So even today, when we talk about the freedom of religion and we talk about how, you know,

[00:19:58] um, the freedom of religion means keeping government out of religion, but not necessarily religion out of government, you know, that's not entirely true. I mean, we, we need to be cautious when we do bring religious into government and in our, our public places. Um, I'm a deeply religious person and want to spread religion everywhere I can. But, um, I'm cautious when we mix religion and government because it, it, it can corrupt us.

[00:20:25] Uh, even like, for example, um, the tax exemption that religions get, um, I think that is a corruption of religion because those religions have to do certain things and behave certain ways and they can't speak up politically and things like that for fear of losing their tax exemption. Well, it would be kind of nice to let religions speak freely, which means that they shouldn't be tax exempt because that tax exemption is what marries them to the government so much so that they get silenced in some areas.

[00:20:54] Um, so anyway, so that's, that's kind of this, we still have some rockiness with religion, but that's kind of this rockiness. But the founders finally got to where the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion was, they had gotten to a pretty good level with it. Like even, uh, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote some legislation, um, in Virginia that was just beautiful as far as freedom of religion. And Patrick Henry was completely against it because he was pretty religious.

[00:21:22] And he's like, no, we should tax people, but, but let them pick the religion that they want their taxes to go to. And it's like, no, why, why do we need to have government involved there at all? Um, but then, so then that brings us to an interesting point though, is this idea of tolerance. So there's a, a subject on that's the, what's referred to as the paradox of tolerance. Have you ever heard that? I don't know that I have.

[00:21:49] I can't remember the, the, the, uh, the philosopher who, who wrote about this, his name mistakes me or escapes me at this point. But, but anyway, the whole point is, is that there's, there's some out there that believe that tolerance is so important that we are tolerant, not just of religion, but of each other's point of view and each other's lifestyles and everything that if you come across anybody

[00:22:15] who's, who you think is intolerant, then you need to shut them down because you have to save tolerance. And so you have to be intolerant to the intolerant in order to save tolerance. And that that's what they refer to as a paradox. It's like sacrificing free markets to save free markets. You can't do it. You can't do it. And so that's where I feel like, uh, some of our society is today is they're under the

[00:22:39] impression that if they disagree with you politically, then even though they might say that they agree with freedom of speech and they agree with, you know, other freedoms, freedom of thought or whatever, but, but you're hateful. So we have to shut you down. And they actually become hateful to the person they think is hateful. And, and so it's this, it's this slippery slope. They become the very thing they claim to oppose. Exactly.

[00:23:06] And so how can you, how can you want to silence somebody who you think is intolerant in the name of tolerance when it's just your opinion that they're intolerant? They may not be intolerant just because I have a set of beliefs or morals or values or whatever myself doesn't mean that I'm trying to force that on somebody else. It doesn't mean that I'm not willing to be a neighbor to, I mean, I have neighbors who are not my same religion and stuff, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't have a problem with that.

[00:23:34] Um, so it's important that we follow the, the, uh, example of the founders when it comes to tolerance that we recognize that to be tolerant, to think you're being tolerant of somebody, you're probably thinking that you're superior, superior, um, over them, which is dangerous because that's really what leads to slavery and what leads to, leads to bondage is when

[00:23:59] you think that you are superior over somebody else, then you will have a desire to bring them into captivity. That is not a good thing at all, but it, it is, it's not just captivity, but it also leads, and it also leads to just tyrannical dictatorial behavior. That's right.

[00:24:24] So it may not enslave somebody, but it certainly can, can tamp down on their rights and prevent them from being free. That's right. And that happens on, on both sides of the political aisle. And I'm not saying it doesn't lead to slavery. I'm thinking just in modern terms of like the cancel culture, it, it does, it's not necessarily enslaving people, but it's certainly infringing on rights. Absolutely. And it's, and it's bringing them into captivity in other ways. Yes.

[00:24:54] Right. Yes. Because it's, it's making it so it's taking away rights or it's making it so that they don't have the free exercise of certain rights. Um, and so, so yeah, that's, that's the kind of captivity that, that superior thinking leads you to. And if you force them to think a certain way, if you were to appear to think a certain way, then you are, you're not giving them freedom of thought. That's right. It's, that is wrong. That's right. Yeah.

[00:25:24] So that's why the founders had to address the issue of freedom of, of religion. Yeah. And it's great that they, that they came to the conclusions that they came to, because it can help us all realize that, that we can live among each other, um, with some pretty strong disagreements. But the number one thing that we need to agree to is that we can live among each other with strong disagreements. Right. Because at that point, you know, it makes it so we really can live with each other.

[00:25:54] When, when you think that you can't live with somebody, I mean, with the cancel culture where people are, are even like becoming estranged with family members and things like that simply because their political views are different. It, it, it's really terrible. And, and they're going to see a lot of their relationships be destroyed and we're going to see society crumble if we can't, if we can't even be at a barbecue with a family member that, that thinks differently than us.

[00:26:21] Then how on earth do we think we're going to be able to, to survive with, uh, strangers? Well, and it, it, yes, to everything that you just said. And you can just turn it off. Don't talk about politics. Talk about the sky or the food or your favorite recipes or your family. Like you have to, you have to, if you can't even be kind to your family. Yeah. How are you going to be kind to anyone else? That's right.

[00:26:48] And how can anyone else actually trust you if you can't be loving to your family? Yep. It, it, and sometimes there are family members who, who don't, you know, there are, I'm not saying if you're in an abusive relationship, obviously you need to get out. And there's that, there are insinuating circumstances, of course, but to not get along

[00:27:14] with your family because you have a political disagreement, that is, that's, that's not what we need to be. Yeah, exactly. And it's not going to make you a better person. No, not at all. Yeah. When you were saying we can live among each other with strong disagreements, one of the things I like to say when I speak to crowds of people who disagree with me to try to wrap things up, I always just say, look, you and I disagree and I, I get it.

[00:27:44] And we're not going to see the same on this issue. I hope we can agree that we both love the first amendment, which gave us this, didn't give us, which protects our right to this speech and to be able to have this kind of disagreement. And we can agree to disagree and still appreciate the first amendment and, and keep on. And most of the time people agree with me when they don't, they're usually part of Antifa. Yeah.

[00:28:10] So, and that's, and if that's the only thing we have in common, then let's build on that. Yes. And, and I mean, we all have something in common and, and so we can, we can build on that on anything in common and keep that to your, if you don't want to have the political disagreement, then yeah, just don't talk about it. Yeah. I bet you can find a recipe that you agree with or a sports team or something. That's right. Um, okay.

[00:28:34] Now we, do we, oh, you touched on the, the second amendment a little bit because you, you said that the right to bear arms had been around for hundreds of years. What about in a previous conversation, we talked about nullification of laws and that states sometimes are doing this, whether they, whether it's called nullification or not, how's the effect of it? What about jury notification?

[00:29:04] So jury nullification is something that most attorneys and judges don't ever want to hear. In fact, if you want a little pointer on how to, uh, uh, get out of jury duty is when you're being questioned and, and just bring up the fact that you think jury nullification is important. And I guarantee that those lawyers and those judges will not want to see you as a juror. Um, so what's interesting about our, our court system.

[00:29:30] So first of all, the jury, Thomas Jefferson said that the jury is the most, one of the most brilliant inventions of, of man that we have. Um, and, and that's, what's interesting about the jury is here. It is in the bill of rights. We have, we're guaranteed the right to jury, right? But it's not a natural law, unalienable right. Um, it's, it's a man-made, uh, creation.

[00:30:00] And, and so it's amazing that they, that it's such a brilliant man-made creation that the founders put it in there and treat it as if it's a natural law, unalienable right. Um, and, and maybe, maybe we'll discover it is, uh, in the future or next life or whatever, but, but it's a man-made creation and, and it kind of evolved, uh,

[00:30:24] it took a, the jury first started out hundreds of years ago as an investigative body. Basically, it was just the government officials needed help trying to determine whether or not, um, what, what the, what the facts of a case was. And so a jury would literally go in and investigate, um, like if, if there's a dispute over, over a

[00:30:49] land border, for example, uh, property line, then the jury would go in and investigate and try to determine, uh, what the dispute was. And then they would, they would come up with the, with the result. And it was, um, it was just found to be a really effective way, but then, but it was really hard to get the general public, uh, to have time and the energy that was required to go and investigate.

[00:31:15] So we ended up kind of evolving it to where we then had elected officials like sheriffs and things that would then go do the investigation and then present their findings to the jury instead of the jury doing it themselves. Okay. Um, and so, so then we, when it got to the evolution of, of where the juries were now, not only settling disputes among neighbors and things, but we're starting to, to actually

[00:31:43] investigate or, or hear the results of crimes, you know, murders and faith thefts and things like that. Um, then that's when they really started realizing the brilliance of the jury, because when bad laws were passed, the juries could handle those laws in different ways. Um, and so this, this actually can lead us into the, the trial of William Penn.

[00:32:11] And so William Penn, the same William Penn that founded Pennsylvania, um, he was arrested and being charged for preaching on the street. And that was illegal at the time because he was not a member of the right church and was preaching the wrong stuff. And so he was arrested him and, and, uh, and another guy and they were preaching on the street.

[00:32:39] And so they got brought into court and it was really clear to the court that they were guilty of preaching because they actually never even denied that they were preaching. They agreed that they were preaching, but they disagreed that they needed permission to do so. And the jury agreed with him. And so the jury came back with a not guilty verdict and the judge said, uh, you know, read that again. And they said, not guilty.

[00:33:06] And he said, no, you need to read it again differently. And the jury said, not guilty. And he said, send the jury back to deliberate some more. And then they came back, not guilty. And they did this for, for quite some time back and send him, go deliberate again. So then, uh, the judge finally rules that the jury needs to be sequestered until they come up with a better ruling. And when they still wouldn't change their ruling, then they, um, or their verdict rather,

[00:33:36] then they, uh, stopped giving them food and stopped letting them sleep and stopped letting them use the restroom and stop and really, really pregnant. And the jury kept coming back with a not guilty verdict. And that's when the people realize, wow, the jury can be our final protection against tyranny.

[00:34:05] And the reason why I go through all that to kind of answer your question about jury notification is, is to really understand why we have a jury and why it's such a brilliant thing is because it really is the final thing. The people have the final say over whether or not a law should be applied for that specific circumstance. And so if, if somebody is being tried and a jury knows that they're guilty all day long,

[00:34:33] but they shouldn't, they think that that law is terrible or that that law shouldn't apply to that particular situation for whatever reason, the jury can come back with a not guilty verdict. And a judge and a lawyer might, might tell you that jury nullification is not a thing. It doesn't exist, whatever. And they can say that all day long, but a jury can come back with a not guilty verdict for any reason. So it exists whether you want to say it exists or not. And regardless of what you want to call it, you can, you don't even have to call it jury nullification.

[00:35:03] And a judge cannot overturn a not guilty verdict. A judge can overturn a guilty verdict. Like if a jury comes in and says that somebody is guilty, but it's really clear that this person's innocent and that the jury is just like, you know, that person's brother-in-law and neighbor and all that, and they hate them and whatever, then a judge can say, yeah, no, that's not going to fly. But a judge cannot do that with a not guilty verdict. Wow.

[00:35:31] And so it exists whether you want to say it exists or not. And it should exist because I think that the people should be the final say over, over the law and over how that law applies. Now, when a jury nullifies a law, they're only nullifying it for that particular case. Just because a jury might come in with a not guilty verdict because maybe they disagree with a particular law, that doesn't eliminate the law.

[00:35:56] Somebody else the very next day could be convicted, could be tried and convicted for that very same law because maybe the next jury thinks that law is a good law. So jury nullification doesn't really affect our laws, but certainly can affect the individual who's the victim of maybe a bad law or the bad application of a law. It also, I think right now, has been used for political purposes.

[00:36:25] I don't know that that is the right thing to do, but we're seeing that juries and grand juries as the Trump administration are trying to get indictments. The grand juries are just saying no. And I think some of it is political just because they don't like President Trump. For sure. And it was happening the opposite direction when Trump was out of office, right? Right.

[00:36:52] The grand jury was coming back with an indictment on things that were just, that were really surprising, like that had never been done before. I mean, the trial in New York turning the misdemeanor into a felony without actually declaring what the underlying crime was, it was the first, first of its kind, first, I mean, it's not the first that's been tried or attempted, but it's the first that it actually went through that far.

[00:37:20] And so it is used politically and that's bad and annoying and all that, but especially if it's hurting innocent people. But the example you're showing with William Penn, that is one where, yes, I mean, it's so easy 250 years later to go, of course he had the right to preach. Of course. Yeah. Of course.

[00:37:45] But, and we have street preachers around, you know, we've all seen it or heard of it or most of us probably have seen one in real, real life. But, but what, what we're seeing right now happen from, from the left is harming, harming innocent people and not holding accountable people who maybe really should be held accountable.

[00:38:12] And not because they think the law is bad, but because they're just politically motivated. Yeah, for sure. And I think where the, where the, where the real problem and challenge of that is when innocent people are hurt, not necessarily when guilty people go free. And the reason why I say that is because like Jefferson said that it would be far better for a thousand guilty men to go free than to incarcerate one innocent man.

[00:38:41] Um, because that's, it's a much larger, um, uh, problem to take away somebody's rights when they don't deserve it than it is to be able to punish somebody. Um, because also because the founders being religious people, believing that there is some judgment in the next life. They knew they, that, that the, uh, that the perpetrator would, would not escape God's law, even if they escaped earthly law.

[00:39:09] Um, so because there's failure and, and I, I believe the same thing about like, like the pardon power. Um, the pardon power is, is abused to, to a large degree, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Um, because, because the need for it far outweighs, um, the abuses because we really need something.

[00:39:33] And the pardon power is really remarkable, um, because it's the power for, uh, mercy to satisfy the demands of justice. And that's so important that we have that from time to time. Um, in fact, you know, with our religious tenants is Christianity. I mean, that's exactly what Christianity is all about, right? Is mercy satisfying the demands of justice. Um, and that's what the president has given and governors are given that authority to do. Yes. Which is pretty remarkable.

[00:40:02] So the jury, even if, even if we have some problems and things with it, um, it's for the most part, it, it helps us so much more than it hurts us. I think you're right. The jury helps more than it hurts. I think sometimes they do hurt, but they're human beings. And human beings are not, not perfect. And sometimes they make mistakes or sometimes they just deliberately do things they probably should not be doing.

[00:40:26] And, and it's also something that, uh, when a jury makes a bad decision or whatever, it's, it's a one-off thing. If, if all these people were being, uh, tried and, and convicted by, you know, a king, then, then once that king starts making bad judgment decisions, they're going to keep making those bad decisions and it's going to pile on and pile on and pile on. Whereas it's just, it's not going to happen when it comes to the jury.

[00:40:54] And there are appeal processes and other ways to, to handle it if they make a mistake, especially if they make a mistake in finding someone guilty who was not guilty. Yeah. Um, what about, can we go back just a little bit to the third amendment and quartering of troops? It doesn't seem very important today. Well, it's not.

[00:41:19] And, and my argument is it's not because the third amendment exists, right? So we've never had to deal with this. This has actually only been brought to court once when, uh, the national guard was, um, um, and I can't even remember what the situation was, but then in what state it was in, but the national guard, um, was basically an apartment complex was forced to, to, uh, use their facility

[00:41:46] for a place for the national guard to stay or be stationed for something. I can't remember. And, um, and so they brought the state to court and they won because you can't quarter troops. Um, but that's pretty much it. The, the, the Supreme courts never really had to do much with it or anything. So when we got to that, that amendment, I thought, what in the world are we going to do with this particular amendment? Cause it's not that exciting. It's not controversial. Everybody agrees with it.

[00:42:14] Um, but we discovered something really interesting about the third amendment is we discovered a principle because that was the whole purpose is finding these underlying principles. And so in the third amendment, um, it doesn't say that you can't quarter troops. It just says you can't do it in times of peace. And then it says in times of war, um, it has to be according to law. And so that taught us something interesting taught us. Number one, consent has to always exist.

[00:42:43] Um, oh, and you can do it in times of peace, by the way, with the consent of the owner. Okay. So it does say you, you, you, you quarter, you must have the consent of the owner to a quarter in times of peace, or if you're doing it in time of war, then it has to be according to law. And so we realized, well, when it's according to law, is it still by consent? Well, it is because the consent or the law is pre-consent, right? So when the legislature is working on a law, the people have the opportunity to voice their

[00:43:12] opinion, their representatives are there making the law. And so it's like a way to, the people are consenting to the law. Um, and so we can pre-consent. And the reason why we want to pre-consent is because in time of war, it's an emergency. And so we may not have time to hash it out with the owner of the property. And so we're saying, okay, so if it's legal, then, then it's good. And so what that teaches us is the importance of consent and the importance of passing laws

[00:43:42] ahead of time, especially if, if we're, we're seeing some kind of an emergency to pass the law. And Samuel Adams actually talks about this specifically. He says that if there's already laws passed, then we need to follow those laws. And even in times of emergency, we shouldn't ignore those laws. Um, and so, so that's what that, that third amendment taught us. And, and of course, uh, we wrote the book a couple of years ago, which is a lot closer to,

[00:44:11] um, the pandemic and lockdown COVID-19 stuff. And so we realized, you know, that what a great modern example of us violating this concept that the third amendment teaches us. Um, so in my own state of Arizona, our state constitution outlines exactly what to do in a pandemic. It has two sections. It has an emergencies, uh, section, and it has a war emergency section.

[00:44:41] And when governor Ducey, uh, started first putting out his declarations, like other governors were doing, and he was locking things down, um, he was quoting the Arizona constitution where he was getting the authority to be able to do this. And so initially I'm like, well, I guess he has the authority. And I was just kind of taking it face value until after about the fourth or fifth declaration. And I'm like, Hmm, I'm going to check on this. So I'm going to read what the Arizona constitution actually says.

[00:45:11] And I discovered that the sections that he was quoting and referencing in the Arizona constitution were the war powers or the, the war emergency. And pandemic was not listed in war emergency pandemic pandemic was listed in the, just the general emergencies. And in the general emergencies, the governor has extra authority to tell, uh, different government departments, what, what they can and can't do.

[00:45:41] But, but the governor has no authority to tell businesses or individuals what they can and can't do. Right. And so here it was, the governor was actually citing the wrong stuff in the constitution, thinking nobody was going to check it. And he was right. Nobody checked. I am the only one that I've ever heard bring this point up. No politician, no radio host, no, nobody ever brought up the fact that he's quoting the war powers and not just the emergency powers.

[00:46:10] Um, so in the emergency powers, it talks about what he can and can't do, uh, in a pandemic. And, and, and then there's certain laws that we passed in Arizona many, many years ago when there were other, you know, health issues and other emergencies. And after those, we, we worked out these laws and we pre-consented to what, what we were going to accept and not accept. Um, and those were just thrown out.

[00:46:35] They were ignored and they were, they were tossed out and they pretended like they didn't even exist. Now, again, uh, like we mentioned in one of our other conversations, um, Arizona did pretty good in the sense that we, we stopped all that pretty fast. I mean, some States, they were like a year and a half or more into lockdowns and kids not going to school and all that. And Arizona just wasn't that way. No. Um, and so we got away from it pretty quickly, but initially it was really disturbing.

[00:47:05] And, and I, it was kind of weird for me because when I'd go out in public and I would see businesses locked down and I'd see people in masks, I actually would get a lot of anxiety because I knew what it meant to our freedom and to these underlying principles. And I knew that we were ignoring laws that we had already placed in the books. Yes. And, and, and I really, I literally, when the founders talk about trembling for their nation because, because of a constitutional convention or because of, you know, other sins that we've

[00:47:34] had, I literally was trembling for our nation because I'm like, this, this is horrible. Well, I was, I mean, I was leading, I was leading the charge trying to get the country reopened. I was one of the ones leading the charge. Um, and I was on the white, I was able to go to the white house. I spoke with the vice president. I spoke with people reporting to the president.

[00:48:00] The president had me speak at a round table to reopen schools. And I organized doctors and I just did every single thing that I possibly could. And I wanted schools reopened because I thought the schools were pivotal to getting everything else back open. Our whole society is based around school calendars. Our traffic patterns are based around school, school calendars.

[00:48:26] So whether you have kids or not, whether they're in school or not, our lives are, are around that. And depending on when your school system goes on break will determine whether your minister is on vacation or not. It just, it's, it's all, it's deeply integrated and interwoven in our society. And I would be on the phone and my son finally said, you have to quit these phone calls in the house.

[00:48:54] So I just go outside and have my earbud in. I'd be on the phone ranting and raving and talking to whoever I could, trying to get things taken care of, pacing around in my yard. If somebody videoed me, it probably was hilarious to watch. They all figured out what I was doing and they could all overhear me at some point, probably. So they, they kind of knew. And then at one point, my daughter did the sweetest thing at dinner. I just was like, I've done everything I can. I hope schools are going to be open.

[00:49:23] And I, they opened and then they closed back down and it, it was just stressful. My daughter said, mom, you've done everything you possibly could. And we knew that you did everything you could to help us. And it made me feel better because she knew I was trying to help them, but they also knew I was trying to help everyone. I didn't want it to just benefit my kids. I wanted it to, I wanted society and liberty back.

[00:49:51] And it was, yeah, I was terrified. That wasn't terrified because of mask. I wasn't terrified because of COVID. I was terrified because of the reaction to it. That's right. Exactly. And, and so now because of that, because we experienced that many states have changed their laws to try to prevent this from happening again. Thank goodness. And so I hope that when it does happen again, that we actually follow those laws because

[00:50:20] we already had some laws on the books. And that we, we recognize that, that those laws are, are pre-consent on what you can do in a time of emergency like that. So that was kind of cool to discover that in that third amendment that here, this, this non-issue of quartering troops actually has a great lesson about consent and the importance of consent and what happens in a situation of consent, um, there's just not time to get consent. And so that's where laws come into play. Yeah.

[00:50:50] You know, the, um, FISA that Congress is debating as we're recording this, uh, the, the House Freedom Caucus side really wants there to be, um, warrants when, when a FISA warrant is issued to, for an American citizen. Yeah. And there, the argument that, that, um, the people on the other side of this issue will

[00:51:19] make is that sometimes there just isn't time. We have to act quickly. And, and Andy Biggs, um, and others are saying, no, assign a judge or have two or three judges who are assigned to do this. And they are on call always pick up the phone, make the case to them and let them issue a warrant. Okay. Maybe it takes 20 or 30 minutes longer. Maybe it takes an hour longer.

[00:51:45] And if it is an imminent, like within minutes situation, then maybe you make an exception. If there is not 90 minutes and then we wait, but if there is 90 minutes to spare, then you go get the warrant. That's right. Like there should be some way for them to find some compromise on this that continues to protect our rights. Absolutely. And, and, and like with, I don't know for sure with, with FISA, but, but I do know that with

[00:52:12] other types of warrants, I mean, the laws are on the books that if like, if somebody, if somebody has a gun to their head and they are about to get killed, a police officer absolutely can enter into a private property without a warrant. Um, and so all those laws. Or if they see, they can see through the window that some, somebody is in imminent danger, they can, yeah. Whether it's a warrant or they're laying on the floor, not moving. That's right.

[00:52:38] And so, so those laws do exist and, and, and, and those laws should exist for those times, which is exactly what the third amendment is saying is in the emergency, then there's some laws. You have to apply the law. Exactly. Um, all right. What about the ninth, ninth amendment? So the ninth amendment was also a cool one to discover because the ninth amendment, we have

[00:53:04] been interpreting that incorrectly since its beginning. So the ninth amendment says that the enumeration of the rights in the constitution, um, are, should not be construed to, to basically think that that's a complete list of rights. And that's how we've always interpreted that, that the list of rights and, and because the bill of rights is such a clean listing of rights, we just apply it to the bill of rights.

[00:53:31] And we say, you know, okay, the rights that are listed in the bill of rights are not a complete list. And the other reason why we interpret it that way is because one of the arguments against a bill of rights was just that it was the, Hey, if we list our rights, government is going to then say, you listed them and you left this one out. So it must not be a right. And so we're going to trample on this one because you failed to list it. Sorry.

[00:53:57] And so, so we, we felt like it's, you know, those researching and historians and stuff were like, okay, because that was their concern. That's why they put the ninth amendment in place was to, was to protect that from happening. So while all that is true, the ninth amendment is much deeper than that. Um, it has much more meaning than that. And we've misinterpreted it for years. And there's a couple of reasons for, for the misinterpretation.

[00:54:25] One, because a lot of times when the founders of the courts or anybody is talking about the ninth amendment, we often apply it to the 10th amendment instead, because 10th amendment says something similar, uh, instead of saying these rights listed are not the complete rights. So we still have others out there. The 10th amendment says, Hey, the powers delegated to the federal government here. Um, any, any that we don't specifically delegate are left to the states and the people. So the two amendments are very similar.

[00:54:56] But we need to realize that whenever it's talking about powers, we're talking about 10th amendment. When it's talking about rights, we're talking about ninth amendment and people were kind of transposing that. And, and, and, and that was making it incorrect. The other thing that was difficult was there's a lot of information out there about the, um, the 11th amendment. And that was confusing people. So remind people what that is. They were, they were, they were overlooking what was being said.

[00:55:24] Well, the 11th amendment was originally the, what became the ninth amendment. Okay. And the reason why it was listed as the 11th amendment is because, so James Madison took, uh, a couple hundred suggestions from the states for what should be in, in the bill of rights. Cause in order to amend the constitution, um, I mean not amend it, but in order to ratify the constitution, a number of states didn't want to ratify it.

[00:55:53] And they're like, cause it doesn't have a bill of rights. George Mason at the constitutional convention even said, I'd rather cut off my right arm than sign the document because it didn't have a bill of rights. And in George Mason was from Virginia with John Madison. And then you had Patrick Henry opposing the constitution as well in Virginia. That's just in Virginia. And every state had some issue with it. Like they worked all this out and then they went home and showed everyone and everybody

[00:56:23] was like, Oh no, you don't. What are you thinking? And the number one complaint was it didn't have a bill of rights. Um, and the founders, like I said, they, some of them didn't want it in there because they felt like, you know, this is going to make it so that the federal government can, can misinterpret our rights or think that it's a complete list of rights. And, and all those worries were, were, are true. I mean, there's been plenty of times when the government, uh, is interpreting our rights

[00:56:50] incorrectly, um, in the, that's in the bill of rights. But nonetheless, um, Madison ended up realizing, okay, in order to ratify the constitution, we need to agree that we're going to put a bill of rights in there. And so he started pushing for a bill of rights instead of against one. Um, and so, so when Madison took these 200 recommendations, cause now Madison's in the first Congress, he's pushing to get the bill of rights done.

[00:57:19] Others are like busy doing other things. They're like, yeah, we can just put that on the back burner. And he's like, no, we promised the people that we would do it. And so we have to, so he kind of took charge and he took those couple hundred suggestions and boiled it down to 17 because there's just a lot of repetition, right? Rolled it down to 17, 12 of them passed, uh, in, in Congress. And so they sent 12 out to the States.

[00:57:46] And so when we list all the amendments, one through 12, the first two ended up not passing. Okay. And so that means we shift the numbering now. So what was the third amendment is now the first amendment. And, and then you shift it all the way down. And so the ninth amendment was originally the 11th amendment. So when the founders were out there promoting and selling the bill of rights, they were talking about the 11th article or the 11th amendment.

[00:58:16] And, and so historians kind of just ignored that, ignored comments about that because we're talking about the ninth amendment, not the 11th amendment. Right. Um, so anyway, so that made it so that, so that it, it took a lot of years and finally historians just, even just the last 20 years or so are finally discovering the, the, the ninth amendment. So the other important thing to recognize about the ninth amendment is when it says that the

[00:58:42] enumeration, which means the listing of rights, um, in the constitution, uh, shall not be construed. So we automatically think that it's the bill of rights. Well, if you think about it for a second, the bill of rights did not exist when the ninth amendment was written. And when the ninth amendment was out there to be ratified, it hadn't been ratified yet. So it's not talking about this clean list of rights.

[00:59:08] It specifically says the rights listed in the constitution, enumerated in the constitution. Well, if you go through the constitution, there's no clean list of rights in the constitution. Uh, there's, there's a couple things there, there is, um, you know, talks about jury and it talks about a couple other things in there. Um, but there's, so it's like, where are the rights? And so, uh, James Madison actually has a conversation through letters with, uh, George Washington

[00:59:38] about this very thing. Where are the rights in the constitution? And James Madison says, well, uh, protecting rights is the same as limiting powers. And so all of the limiting of powers in the constitution is the protecting of rights. It's just the opposite side of the same coin. And so every single thing in there, every limit of power. Protects rights.

[01:00:08] Protects rights. Yes. And so what the ninth amendment is really saying is that all of the things we're doing to protect rights in the constitution cannot be construed or cannot be confused, um, and cannot be reinterpreted to abuse other rights that we haven't specifically listed. And, and that makes a big difference in the way that we're interpreting the ninth amendment,

[01:00:36] because now it's the entire constitution and every provision in the constitution that we're saying, don't misinterpret it. In fact, the bill of rights itself has this great preamble that we very rarely read. So if you look, you're in the, uh, oh yeah, you see. So on page 20, right before, uh, the amendments, the bill of rights, there's, you'll notice

[01:01:03] this preamble or basically this letter that is talking about. So at the very beginning, it says the conventions of a number of the states having at the time of their adoption of the constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. So it's specifically saying the reason why we're creating the bill of rights is to make it so that you don't misinterpret the constitution. Right.

[01:01:33] It's to help clarify the constitutions, to help clarify what rights the constitution is protecting. So what this is essentially doing, according to James Madison, is the bill of rights is just simply presenting the other side of the, of the same coin. And that preamble is saying the same thing, saying we're protecting rights here. We're declaring the rights here. And, and so the reason why all that's important is because we need to recognize that when we

[01:02:00] misinterpret the constitution or when we add a power that doesn't really exist, or we take away a power that does exist, we are violating rights because some right that's being protected by that provision is no longer being protected. And so that's really what the ninth amendment is about. It's not about, Hey, we're protecting the bill of rights. It's saying, don't misinterpret the constitution. Don't misinterpret the entire thing.

[01:02:26] I, I think that's, it's important, but it is overlooked. People don't pay attention to that very much. That's right. And the, and the courts, interestingly enough, the Supreme court, um, has almost never used the ninth amendment as a reason for any ruling. And they should, they should use that ninth amendment. We always used to think that they should use the 10th amendment a lot because when you have government encroachment and expansion, they should say, Hey, but, but no, the ninth amendment

[01:02:56] should actually be used even more. And the Supreme court has actually only even cited the ninth amendment on just a few occasions. Wow. And the very first time they cited it, they cited it correctly. And this is back in the, in the mid 1800s. Um, and they cited it based on that original interpretation of the, uh, of the ninth amendment. But after that, they have, they've almost never referred to that amendment.

[01:03:21] And so, so some scholars are calling it the, the forgotten, uh, amendment or the lost amendment because we just kind of ignore it. That is very interesting. And I think that I normally just read right on past it without thinking about it. Um, before we wrap up, can we talk about Madison just a little bit more? I, we wouldn't, I don't think we would have the constitution or the declaration, not the

[01:03:51] declaration, but the bill of rights, the constitution or the bill of rights, had it not been for him. He did so much work and he, he, he made sure it got ratified. When they finished that convention, it took a lot of work. It was not an easy thing. And Ben Franklin comes out and he says, I, we, you have a Republic if you can keep it.

[01:04:16] And they all go home and the states have to ratify it, but they, they aren't, um, they're having trouble ratifying it. And then Virginia had enormous trouble ratifying it. Patrick Henry was so against it that he, he was, um, organizing campaigns against, against James Madison, trying to get James Madison not to be elected. I mean, it just was.

[01:04:44] And Patrick Kennedy was really good at arguing things. Yes. He, he was such an orator. In fact, there's legend has it. And, and, uh, I don't know that this is true, but, but just to illustrate how great of an orator he was, legend has it that as a, as a lawyer, um, he got up and argued, uh, in behalf of, of one side of the case, um, and, and convinced everybody that the, it was correct.

[01:05:12] And, and then somebody informed him, you argued the wrong side. Yeah. And so he immediately got up and argued the other side and switched everybody's opinion. And so, um, so that just illustrates. And so this is the man that James Madison was up against. Yes. In his own state, uh, fighting somebody who was really, really good at speaking and, and convincing, you know, and so he, you know, is quoted as saying, I smell a rat when it comes to the constitution.

[01:05:39] And Madison was up against very difficult. And I can appreciate Patrick Henry's concerns and, and in his distrust of government, he didn't want a, a national federal government. And he was very concerned about that. So James Madison overcame that. He helped the other states.

[01:06:02] They all, they, they tell everyone, if you ratify this, we are going to go into the constitution and our first constitution, not constitution, we'll start our Congress. And in our first Congress, we will start working on these bill of rights. And they kind of, and you mentioned this, yeah, they wanted to just go on. Like the first, the first Congress is so much like today in many ways.

[01:06:28] I mean, these are our founding fathers and they want to just get on with other business that they care about instead of doing what the people wanted. And the people wanted these bill of rights passed. It was important to the people. Senator Thune, you should pay attention to this because the Save America Act is important to the people. That's right. And the full Senate, all of them, not just Senator Thune, but the Democrats should be paying attention to it as well.

[01:06:55] And, and James Madison said, we are going to work on this. We have to get this done. We promised that we're going to get it done. Jim Jordan, if you just do what you say and keep your promises, you can get reelected. And he wasn't doing it to get reelected. He was doing it because he gave his word and he wanted to make sure he got it done.

[01:07:16] And some people wanted to not ratify the, the constitution at all. It, and instead of amending the constitution and using article, article five, article five has both methods for amending the constitution. They, they didn't want to use that to amend the constitution through Congress.

[01:07:41] They wanted to just have a whole new constitution, which would not have been a whole new convention, which would not have been an article five convention. It would have just been a whole new convention. Cause if you haven't ratified the constitution, you're not having an article five convention. Correct. Madison was against that, right? He was. And the reason why he was against it, not because he was against the fundamental right to establish,

[01:08:07] alter and abolish because he admitted that that right always exists. So he wrote a letter to Tuberville and he, in that letter, he was asked originally what, what his opinion was of this movement to have a new convention. It was, it was a movement that was happening in New York and they wanted a whole new convention. The constitution had just barely been ratified.

[01:08:35] Um, and so it was ratified at this point. It was, but just so newly ratified that, that none of the offices had been filled yet. They hadn't, the structure hadn't been put in place yet. Okay. They were, they were just getting ready to start elections and things like that. Um, and so, uh, New York, there was this movement to have a new convention, um, just basically ignore the constitution that was just written and ratified and let's have a new convention.

[01:09:03] And so Madison said he, he trembles for his, for fear for his country, if that was to happen. And the reason why it was because, uh, there were foreign nations, especially England, England still had troops. England still had troops, uh, on our soil for almost all the way through George Washington's, uh, first term. Um, and so he knew England was just ready to pounce. The moment they, there was a sign that they couldn't make this self-governancing happen.

[01:09:32] Other nations were ready to pounce. You also had other nations who we owe debts to that were really watching and whether or not they needed to call the note on some of these debts. And so he just thought it was going to be a sign to the rest of the world that we are failing in this, this experiment of self-governance. And he thought that it would be a really bad, a bad look, um, if we were to have a new convention. And so that's why he ended up, um, saying that he trembled with fear.

[01:10:01] Now, the problem with this letter is that a lot of people think that he's talking about an amending convention, uh, an article five convention, which is the other way of amending the constitution is through conventions of the States. He is not talking about that. Um, when he's specifically asked in this same letter, he, he's asked, um, what about the bill of rights that all the States have? Should we let Congress do it to propose these amendments or should we go the convention route?

[01:10:29] And when it came to the convention route, Madison actually said, you know, you should let Congress try because it's the first Congress and, and we'll give it a try and let's see if we can do it. And if we can't do it, then go ahead and send it to conventions of the States. So he, he really wasn't, he wasn't saying that we shouldn't have conventions of the States in this exact same letter. He was talking about a whole new convention when it came to conventions of the States. He's like, yeah, go ahead and try it if Congress fails.

[01:10:56] So he wasn't against it at, at that time in that letter. So that was a little frustrating for me when I first, with the whole article five, uh, convention of the States thing, um, I used to, you know, go along with strongly disagreeing with it. Uh, and I would take heart to some organizations that would give these quotes from Madison and stuff. I, well, if Madison was against it and I've got to be against it till I went back and read that letter for myself and realized they're totally miss,

[01:11:25] miss quoting him. They're taking that quote out of context. When it actually comes down to the article five convention, he's saying, fine, do it. That's the, that's part of the mechanism. Um, and there's always a safety valve because every single amendment from such a convention can, has to be ratified by a super majority of the States, by three quarters of the States. That's right. That is an enormous threshold. It is. It's really big. And, and I

[01:11:51] also want to reiterate that if, that, that some of the fears that people have in the convention, I hold those same fears. Um, but I also trust the system. Uh, and, and I also, those same fears already exist in our existing Congress. Um, which is the, which is the, the standing convention, right? Congress can, can recommend an amendment at any time. And so if, if we fear a convention

[01:12:18] being run away or whatever, well, Congress has already run away to a large degree. So it's like we already have what, what we're fearing, but, but anyway, back on the issue of, of the specifically of the bill of rights and about this, well, and about that convention, um, Madison did everything he could to not have another convention, but again, because he just thought it would be a bad look for our country. Just, I mean, we did it already. It was a miracle that we actually wrote this

[01:12:47] constitution. The chances of us doing it again is really, really slim. And so let's, I mean, let's at least give this thing a try. And if it fails, then I guess we can figure something else out. Thankfully it did not fail and they got it done. And we are celebrating this year, our 250th year since the declaration of independence. And because they got the constitution done and the bill

[01:13:13] of rights done, as we discussed in a different conversation, we can overthrow and abolish our government through elections every two years and the whole entire government every six years. That's right. So they've established something that for everything we might get frustrated with, even when things aren't going the way we want, this system and this framework is very powerful. And I'm so thankful that we have it.

[01:13:40] Absolutely. I mean, look at, look at other governments that are, uh, even oppressive governments, how they can't change. I mean, you know, look at Cuba, you know, they've had the same rulers or at least descendants of those rulers, um, for many decades now, and, and they can't change it out. We can change ours out. Yes. Which is awesome.

[01:14:03] It truly is. Um, I, I hope that as people were, were concluding this conversation and our series of the conversations, I hope people understand a bit more about the importance of these founding principles. And you've been studying this for 35 years. We've talked for a few hours and a few hours of training. There's so much people can, can learn from it, but just at least understanding the basics

[01:14:33] helps us be able to, to defend liberty today and to make sure that we are positioned to be able to debate it and to advocate for it. Absolutely. And you don't have to become a great scholar in it. You don't have to, you know, I'm, I don't think we need to, in fact, I don't think a lot of people should. And the reason why is because I think they need to become great in other things. We need great teachers and we need great doctors

[01:14:58] and, and policemen and firemen, and we need great, you know, people that are great in other areas. Um, and so, but at the very least we need to have a basic understanding of these principles so that we can at least protect our own rights and help protect the rights of others. And so I think that's, that's what every citizen at least needs to have a, just a fundamental understanding, understanding, um, of them

[01:15:23] in basically, but, and then those of us that are interested in it, dive in and, and, and become experts, right. And geek out and have long conversations. That's right. Years long conversations about it. Um, Bill, thank you so much. I want to remind everyone to get the full training that Bill Norton did for us. You can go to teapartypatriots.org forward slash 1776. He's written several different books. The three that we've talked about the most are behind the

[01:15:52] Bill of Rights, behind the Declaration of Independence and behind the constitution and behind the Bill of Rights is out as we are, are filming this and then, um, or recording this. And then the other two are going to be out this year. Yep. So make sure you buy those and read them and learn more and do the training. And Bill Norton, thank you so much for joining me. This has been so much fun for me. Thank you. Thank you. It's been a pleasure.

[01:16:19] If you enjoyed today's conversation, go ahead and hit like, and subscribe. It really helps us reach more people who care about liberty and the constitution. You can find this and other episodes at JennyBethShow.com, as well as Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, Instagram, X, and your favorite podcast platform. The Jenny Beth Show is hosted by Jenny Beth Martin. The Jenny Beth Show is a

[01:16:42] production of Tea Party Patriots Action. For more information, visit teapartypatriots.org.