David Barton

Significantly, the Founding Fathers had considered requiring a two-thirds rather than a majority vote for the passage of legislation, but adamantly rejected that idea. Why? Because under such a policy, one-third of the body would hold veto power over the two-thirds, thus violating the fundamental principle of the Constitution. As George Washington explained:

[F]or if the minority – and a small one too – are suffered to dictate to the majority after measures have undergone the most solemn discussions by the representatives of the people and their will through this medium is entered into a law, there can be no security for life, liberty, or property; . . . there was never a law yet made, I conceive, that hit the taste exactly of every man or every part of the community. [i]

James Madison also explained in Federalist 58 why a two-thirds approval margin for normal laws had been rejected:

In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. . . . [who] might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal [good], or . . . to extort unreasonable indulgences [advantages and favors]. [ii]

Alexander Hamilton likewise noted in Federalist 75:

[A]ll provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government, and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority. . . . If two thirds of the whole number of members had been required, it would, in many cases, . . . amount in practice to a necessity of unanimity. And the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed is a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder. [iii]

(Similar quotes appear in Federalist 39 and Federalist 51.)

Yet might not some good be achieved by requiring a two-thirds margin to move a measure through the legislature? Yes, undoubtedly some good would occur; and some bad measures might indeed be stopped. James Madison acknowledged this fact in Federalist 58, but explained why that policy had nevertheless been rejected:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required. . . . That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution cannot be denied. . . . But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. [iv]

Do you feel like you’re considered Public Enemy No. 1 by groups such as Barry Lynn’s?

Please elaborate. As noted above, those on the left definitely don’t like me. The name of Barry Lynn’s group describes its mission (Americans United for Separation of Church and State): it wrongly wants all religious expressions (which it considers “church”) separated from the public arena (which it considers “state”). A look at the list of lawsuits with which that group has been involved, and the type of issues it condemns, makes clear that it holds a position exactly opposite to that which I hold on many issues. They want no nativity scenes in public; I do. They oppose voluntary public prayers; I support them.

They attack public displays of Ten Commandments; I defend them. They oppose pastors talking about abortion (and have even filed legal briefs and action against the pro-life positions of both the Catholic and Lutheran churches); I believe pastors should talk about abortion in the pulpit since the Bible openly addresses that issue. They want the pulpit to remain silent about leaders and policies that support traditional marriage; I encourage pastors to address from the pulpit moral issues and current events related to Biblical principles.

They support keeping the IRS involved in monitoring what pastors say in the pulpit; I oppose government having any authority over what is said in the pulpit – even if it is something with which I strongly disagree, either Biblically or socially. Etc., etc., etc. While I do support a jurisdictional separation of church and state, I do not support the forced militant secularization of the public square that AU seeks. I support the separation of both the jurisdictions and the institutions of church and state; but they completely compartmentalize faith and isolate it away from the public arena. There is a big difference between our beliefs, and it is therefore no surprise that they view me as they do.

A great disappointment to me about them (and other similar groups) is not just that they hold a different view (that is understood and accepted); the great disappointment is the lengths to which they go to attack me personally and deliberately to falsify reports about me. Interestingly, we actually have records of those involved with AU who left the group simply because of the way AU deliberately mischaracterized me(charging that I make up history, etc.). In my case, AU is not content to fight on the field of ideas but they unfortunately seem to feel that they can prevail only if they invoke a disingenuous approach.

Early American politics was characterized by a partisanship no less intense than that experienced today. In fact, the clash between Federalists and Anti-Federalists in America’s early years actually causes modern conflicts between Republicans and Democrats to seem like child’s play, and rhetoric and tactics widely employed then would never be tolerated today.

Yet, notwithstanding those intense partisan conflicts, there were certain fundamental constitutional principles on which both Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed – fixed boundaries beyond which neither would proceed. After all, even though they often held opposite political opinions, both sides had fought hard and sacrificed much to see America become an independent nation and a constitutional republic; neither was willing to commit parricide (the killing of the country one loves).

One of the nonnegotiable lines that neither side would cross was a principle they considered to be the inviolable basis of our republican form of government – a canon clearly articulated by George Washington:

[T]he fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail. [i]

Washington, even though he lived through a time of intense partisanship, was relatively non-partisan. In fact, one of his strongest and final warnings to America was that a love of party must never be allowed to surpass the love of right principles:

Let me . . . warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. . . . It exists . . . in all governments . . . and is truly their worst enemy. [ii]

While Washington was not a lover of party over principle, he was a Federalist in belief; and many of his strongest supporters and cabinet members were fervent Federalists (e.g., Vice President John Adams, Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, etc.). But Washington also had ardent Anti-Federalists in his cabinet – such as Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Yet, Jefferson completely concurred with Washington on the fundamental principle of republican government, declaring:

[T]he will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived. [iii]

Both sides agreed that the will of the majority, as expressed through a majority of elected representatives, was the fundamental principle of a republican government. Consequently, nowhere does the Constitution permit any minority group to exert more power or influence than the majority; and a simple majority is always required for the passage of every law and policy [iv] (only for exceptional measures such as a constitutional amendment was more than a majority vote permitted [v]).

When and why did you start WallBuilders?

I began a long, arduous search of statistical information – information obtained primarily from federal cabinet level agencies (Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Education, Labor, Commerce, etc.). With the aid of dedicated co-workers, on weekends and at the conclusion of the school day, we searched through literally thousands of articles and documents relating to the four areas. The results of that search were both clear and shocking: over forty categories of government measurements related to those four areas indicated the same dramatic statistical decline that had been apparent with the SAT scores. I published a book, using the government’s own charts and statistics, that documented those findings (America: To Pray or Not to Pray?). Having completed that work, I turned wholeheartedly back to my teaching and administrative responsibilities.

This book was published in 1988, at the time of the presidential election contest between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. Voluntary school prayer had become an issue in that campaign (Bush was for it and Dukakis against it); when some media saw the book, they sensed a campaign story and wanted to interview me. That interview was seen across the nation, and I was soon inundated with requests to speak to various groups about the findings in the book. In late September 1988, I took a temporary leave of absence from the school, and over the next 52 days, I spoke to 72 groups and traveled some 13,000 miles – all in a Ford van in which myself, Cheryl, and our three small children drove coast to coast three times (with my parents following in another van).

Following that trip, the requests for me to speak continued to pour in, and I finally had to decide between teaching school and speaking about God and public education. The response to my presentations had been so enthusiastic to that point that I felt like it was important to get the information out and potentially impact the culture. I therefore chose to continue public speaking and resigned from the school.

We started WallBuilders using the model in the book of Nehemiah, with our emphasis verse being Nehemiah 2:17, wherein Nehemiah called the people to rebuild and thus remove the reproach that had been upon them. We believed that message was appropriate to what we were doing: calling average citizens to participate in rebuilding the moral and religious foundations of the community and nation in which they lived. However, I was soon to be confronted with another Proverbs 16:3 thought that would again dramatically redirect my life and thinking.

Following the 1988 publication of the book on prayer, I had begun doing statistical correlative research on other Court decisions, pursuing what I believed had been indicated by the first book: can the removal by the Court of a Biblical value or principle be measured statistically for an impact upon society? That is, could the limitation of abstinence teaching in public schools (as argued in Kendrick v. Bowen in 1985, because of the alleged “separation of church and state”) correlate to a corresponding rise in teenage pregnancies and sexual activity? Could the suppression of the Ten Commandments in schools (in Stone v. Graham in 1980) result in a corresponding increase in violent crime in schools? etc.

Early American politics was characterized by a partisanship no less intense than that experienced today. In fact, the clash between Federalists and Anti-Federalists in America’s early years actually causes modern conflicts between Republicans and Democrats to seem like child’s play, and rhetoric and tactics widely employed then would never be tolerated today.

Yet, notwithstanding those intense partisan conflicts, there were certain fundamental constitutional principles on which both Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed – fixed boundaries beyond which neither would proceed. After all, even though they often held opposite political opinions, both sides had fought hard and sacrificed much to see America become an independent nation and a constitutional republic; neither was willing to commit parricide (the killing of the country one loves).

One of the nonnegotiable lines that neither side would cross was a principle they considered to be the inviolable basis of our republican form of government – a canon clearly articulated by George Washington:

[T]he fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail. [i]

Washington, even though he lived through a time of intense partisanship, was relatively non-partisan. In fact, one of his strongest and final warnings to America was that a love of party must never be allowed to surpass the love of right principles:

Let me . . . warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. . . . It exists . . . in all governments . . . and is truly their worst enemy. [ii]

While Washington was not a lover of party over principle, he was a Federalist in belief; and many of his strongest supporters and cabinet members were fervent Federalists (e.g., Vice President John Adams, Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, etc.). But Washington also had ardent Anti-Federalists in his cabinet – such as Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Yet, Jefferson completely concurred with Washington on the fundamental principle of republican government, declaring:

[T]he will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived. [iii]

Both sides agreed that the will of the majority, as expressed through a majority of elected representatives, was the fundamental principle of a republican government. Consequently, nowhere does the Constitution permit any minority group to exert more power or influence than the majority; and a simple majority is always required for the passage of every law and policy [iv] (only for exceptional measures such as a constitutional amendment was more than a majority vote permitted [v]).

---

[i] Messages & Papers of the Presidents, edited by Richardson (1897), Vol. I, p. 164, from the “Sixth Annual Address” of President George Washington on November 19, 1794.

[ii] George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States, and Late Commander in Chief of the American Army, to the People of the United States, Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), pp. 19-20.

[iii] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), Vol. XVI, p. 179, “Response to the Citizens of Albermarle,” February 12, 1790.

[iv] See, for example, U. S. Constitution Art. I, §5, 1; Art. II, §1, 3; the 12^th Amendment; 25^th Amendment; etc.

[v] A constitutional amendment must be passed with a two-thirds margin in the House and Senate, and then be ratified by a simple majority in three-fourths of the states (see, for example, U. S. Constitution Art. I, §3, 6; Art. I, §5, 2; Art. I, §7, 2; Art. I, §7, 3; Art. II, §2, 2; Art. V, 1).

Given their various personal convictions, how did the founding fathers reach a consensus on the Constitution?

The first several weeks of the Constitutional Convention were characterized by conflict and dispute. With the Convention ready to break up, Benjamin Franklin made an eloquent call for prayer, citing a number of Scriptures to support his proposal. The Convention adjourned for three days, went to church and heard a sermon. When the delegates reconvened, there were still tensions and disputes, but progress finally began; they eventually produced the document under which America still governs itself today.

Significantly, many delegates viewed the Constitution as the result of Divine intervention and blessing. For example, delegate James Madison openly acknowledged:

It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the finished Constitution] a finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.

Benjamin Rush similarly testified:

I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as perfectly satisfied that [it] is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.

There are many similar declarations; and those closely involved in writing and adopting the Constitution clearly saw God’s hand visible in the final product.

What are the most pressing legal issues in today’s culture?

The source of law is the most significant debate in today’s culture. That is, is God the originator and source of law, government, and rights, or is man? Our founding documents openly acknowledged: (1) that God gave specific rights to men (“all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”), and (2) that it is the purpose of government to protect those rights (“to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”). Among the God-given rights to be protected by government were those of life, liberty, property, religious freedom, self-protection, due process, sanctity of the home, as well as other inalienable rights listed throughout the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Significantly, the recognition and protection of God-given rights was America’s security. As Thomas Jefferson acknowledged:

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis – a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God, that they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just – that His justice cannot sleep forever.

As long as God is the source of our rights, government will remain stable and those rights will be secure. However, if man is the source of those rights, then man may invade or change those rights – as is currently the case with abortion, public acknowledgment of God, definitions of marriage, etc.

Why did you attend ORU and are you still connected to the Pentecostal world? Please elaborate.

When I was young student (either at the end of jr high or the beginning of high school), I attended a meeting in Dallas at which Oral Roberts spoke. He talked about a university he had recently started that was dedicated to training not just the mind but also the body and the spirit. I had graduated in my small high school in Aledo as the top male in the class, and third overall, and ORU had offered me an academic scholarship. I had also been an athlete during my years in high school, and was very active in Christian ministry and street witnessing and student Bible studies. Therefore, I had an interest in the training of the mind, body, and spirit; and ORU appealed to me as unique in that regard.

My time at ORU affirmed what I had hoped: top academic professors, rugged athletic competition and physical education activities for all students, and spiritual ministry and opportunity required of all students. (Not only did all students attend chapel and floor devotions, but each was required to attend the church of their choice every Sunday morning; and the University also offered over four dozen student-led ministry outreach opportunities; I worked with Cherokee children in Eastern Oklahoma.)

Perhaps the most lasting impact of my time at ORU was the relationships I forged with Christians from all fifty states and many foreign nations. As I travel across the nation today, I still regularly run into students with whom I attended school. I still retain many connections with ORU, having just finished a lengthy term as President of the Alumni Board.

I maintain connections not only with the Pentecostal world but with all forms and branches of Christianity, and with the Jewish community as well. I have spoken in denominations that I never knew existed; and I recall a weekend in San Antonio in which I filled the pulpit of a Pentecostal Church, a Roman Catholic Church, a Bible Church, a Nazarene Church, and a Baptist Church (certainly five diverse groups within Christianity!) – all in the same weekend.

Where do you attend church with your family?

I am frequently on the road on Sundays, speaking in other churches. However, when I am home, I attend church where my father pastors: Aledo Christian Center. My son is also the youth director there. I was on staff there before beginning WallBuilders.

What can Christians do to return the U.S. to a “Christian nation?’

If the judiciary were to allow religions to express themselves voluntarily, based on the free speech of their adherents (as was the policy for the first century-and-a-half under the Constitution), imagine the change that would occur. Consider, for example, a public school classroom: if student-initiated voluntary prayer were permitted, then in a room of 100 students, from 82 to 88 of the students might pray Christian prayers; 2 of the students would pray Jewish prayers; ½ percent would pray Muslim prayers; 1/10 percent pray Buddhist “prayers” (i.e., meditate); 7 percent would pray no prayers; etc. However, this is not permitted today; the judiciary currently requires either that no prayers at all be prayed, or that those in the smaller religions be given precedence over the larger one (Christianity). Or, as Scalia explained: “Those religions enjoying the largest following must be consigned to the status of least-favored faiths so as to avoid any possible risk of offending members of minority religions.”

For this reason, the nation largely appears as a non-Christian nation – despite the fact that 81 percent of the nation supports daily, voluntary, spoken prayer in public schools; that 68 percent of the nation supports the teaching of creation in the classroom; that 87 percent want “under God” retained in the Pledge; that 77 percent supports the public display of the Ten Commandments; etc., etc., etc. In any other situation, objective observers would conclude that America – while openly encouraging pluralism – was indeed a “Christian nation.” Yet what has occurred today was accurately described by Charles Hodge (1797-1878, a professor at Princeton University), who explained:

The proposition that the United States of America [is] a Christian . . . nation is not so much the assertion of a principle as the statement of a fact. That fact is not simply that the great majority of the people are Christians . . . but that the organic life, the institutions, laws, and official action of the government, whether that action be legislative, judicial, or executive, is, and of right should be, and in fact must be, in accordance with the principles of . . . Christianity. If you plant an acorn, you get an oak. . . . If a country be settled by Pagans or Mohammedans, it develops into a Pagan or Mohammedan community. By the same law, if a country be taken possession of and settled by . . . Christians, the nation which they come to constitute must be . . . Christian. . . . It is in accordance with analogy. If a man goes to China, he expects to find the government administered according to the religion of the country. If he goes to Turkey, he expects to find the Koran supreme and regulating all public action. If he goes to a [Christian] country, he has no right to complain, should he find the Bible in the ascendancy and exerting its benign influence not only on the people, but also on the government. . . . In the process of time thousands have come among us who are neither Protestants nor Christians. Some are papists, some Jews, some infidels, and some atheists. All are welcomed; all are admitted to equal rights and privileges. All are allowed to acquire property, and to vote in every election, made eligible to all offices, and invested with equal influence in all public affairs. All are allowed to worship as they please, or not to worship at all, if they see fit. No man is molested for his religion or for his want of religion. No man is required to profess any form of faiths or to join any religious association. More than this cannot reasonably be demanded. More, however, is demanded. The infidel demands that the government should be conducted on the principle that Christianity is false. The atheist demands that it should be conducted on the assumption that there is no God, and the positivist on the principle that men are not free agents. The sufficient answer to all this is, that it cannot possibly be done.

Yet the judiciary and education have undertaken to do so, and for this reason many Americans (although not the rest of the world) is reticent to describe America as a Christian nation.