The WallBuilders Show
The WallBuilders Show is a daily journey to examine today's issues from a Biblical, Historical and Constitutional perspective. Featured guests include elected officials, experts, activists, authors, and commentators.
The WallBuilders Show
Defending Freedom: A Constitutional Perspective on Treason and Government Accountability
A 10-year-old homeschooler's question about prosecuting government officials for treason launches us into a fascinating exploration of constitutional law, historical precedent, and the founders' wisdom in limiting political retribution.
The WallBuilders team breaks down Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution—where treason stands as the only crime specifically defined by our founding document. With remarkable foresight, the framers narrowly restricted treason to "levying war against the United States" or "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This precise definition stemmed from their firsthand experience with the British monarchy's habit of weaponizing treason charges against political opponents.
Through compelling historical examples, we examine the mere 30 treason cases in American history, focusing on Aaron Burr's failed empire-building scheme and Tokyo Rose's controversial conviction during World War II. These stories illuminate how even actions that seem unpatriotic may not meet the constitutional threshold for treason—a distinction increasingly relevant in today's polarized political landscape.
We clarify that while no elected official is above the law, impeachment differs fundamentally from criminal prosecution. Impeachment addresses political misconduct rather than statutory crimes, explaining why impeached officials don't automatically face jail time.
The conversation then pivots to a thoughtful question about Christian support for Israel. We examine the biblical foundations for this relationship, firmly rejecting "replacement theology" and exploring how Israel's miraculous rebirth in 1948 fulfilled prophecy and solidified its continuing covenant relationship with God. Drawing from Romans, we explain how Christians are grafted into—not replacing—God's covenant promises.
Whether you're wrestling with questions about constitutional limits on government power or seeking biblical clarity on Israel's significance, this episode provides the historical context and foundational principles to navigate these complex issues with wisdom and understanding.
Rick Green [00:00:07] Welcome to Foundations of Freedom Thursday on The WallBuilders Show. Always taking on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective, but today you get to pick which topic will go with that biblical, historic, and constitutional perspective. Send those questions into radio@wallbuilders.com that's radio@wallbuilder.com and this week we've got a lot of great questions that will drive that conversation and we'll look at all of them from a biblical,historical, and constitution perspective. By the way, I'm Rick Green here with David Barton and Tim Barton. And I'm just going to toss the first question out there. And, and by the way if you, if you like this approach of, these questions from the audience and us trying to get to as many as we can and given that, you know, biblical historical constitutional perspective, there's lots more of these programs on our website right now at wallbuilders.show. So just go back and look at our Thursday programs. And that's what we do every Thursday for Foundations of Freedom Thursday. And our first question of today comes from a 10 year old. Homeschooler John, thank you for sending this in and mom, of course helped get the email off to us. He said hi wall builders My mom and I have been listening to your show for a long time and recently on one of your shows you mentioned Impeaching judges. My question is is it possible to prosecute send to jail currently serving congressmen Representatives senators judges or Supreme Court justices anyone serving in our government for any crime? But more specifically for treason has this ever happened before I've heard of impeaching presidents Nixon, Clinton, Trump but none have gone to jail. I've heard of Benedict Arnold and Aaron Burr. Have there been others and could this happen today? And in your opinion, should it happen today, it seems like some people in our government don't have the general welfare or common good of our country that they should have in mind and they go against all things USA. Wondering your opinion. Thank you, John from St. Peters, Missouri. Okay guys, how many 10 year olds even know that the word treason exists, let alone would ask us about this?
David Barton [00:02:02] I was thinking back, I don't recall a question on treason on any previous foundation of freedom Thursday. This may be the first we've had. We've covered a lot of constitution, a lot unusual clauses in the constitution. This one may be a first.
Rick Green [00:02:18] Clearly we haven't had enough fifth graders, writing in, that's why.
Tim Barton [00:02:22] Well, yeah, maybe we need a different perspective. I do think, guys, we have covered this a little bit before. I I do have a recollection of us getting this a little, because I remember us having to go back and do a little bit of research to identify if there have been people tried of treason before congressmen, etc. But it's been a while since we've gotten into it. But I really appreciate this question for a couple of reasons. We have reprinted Stansberry's elementary catechism on the U S constitution. And one of the reasons I bring that up is one of the questions I really enjoy as an example question from the cateachism is can congressmen be arrested while they're sitting congressmen and the Stansbury's catechesm walks through what does constitution say? It says, well, not while they're actually in congress or if they're on the way to congress, but if they're not there, they can be arrested. They only can be rested while they are in congress are on the way to Congress. If they're guilty of one of three crimes, Constitution lays out one of those being treason and so it is, it's literally something that school kids actually probably that this age range would have learned back in the day and something that certainly most Americans don't know today, not to digress, I think we've talked about the issue before. It's been a long time, but for those listening, Stansberry's elementary catechism on the US constitution, we've reprinted it at WallBuilders. It does walk through the whole constitution, laying out some of these thoughts and ideas, practical application. It's a really great review from what used to be an old kids' textbook in public school in the 19th century. Not that I digress, dad, let me throw it back to you.
David Barton [00:04:00] I think where we start is treason. Let's define that. Let's look at the constitution. Then from there, we'll kind of back up to, okay, can you throw a congressman in jail or so for what? And how about impeachment is that jail? So let's do the treason part. Treason is covered in article three of the constitution and is the only crime that is defined in the constitution, now the constitution mentions crimes, but it does not define any. But it does define very specifically treason. And it's because treason was kind of an elastic crime for the founding fathers. I say that because if you back up to when they were British citizens, the British loved to use treason as a charge against you whenever they got ticked at you for something. And so it was kind to whoever, it's really kind of the retaliation we see now in partisanship where there's so much polarization. Under the British crown, treason is, if you were in the wrong party and you were doing something the king didn't like, then you were charged of treason. And so it really got to be a political crime and it was pretty elastic because there was no good definition of it. It started with good definition, but didn't end that way. So the founding fathers said, we do not want that. We don't want this being used against people because of the opinion of what they have or what they believe or what party they're with or anything else. So they made it really, really clear. I'm gonna go through the, here's the two clauses on it. Article three, section three, first clause says, treason against the United States shall consist only, notice the word only, there's only one definition for treason, this is constitution given definition, shall consist on only in levying war against them, the United State, or in adhering to their enemies and giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court. And then Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 says, the Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treasion, but no attainder of treasons shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. So you go back to treason. And it's really clearly defined in the Constitution, the only crime that is.
Tim Barton [00:06:23] And this is also where, guys, I'm remembering now, I think it was Aaron Burr was one of the examples we used. And I'm rememberin' cause of this definition, cause there was a trial and he wasn't guilty and I don't mean to put the cart before the horse and you're answer dad, cause I know that you were looking into this some and so I don't wanna give away some of the Aaron Burrs story of that's coming. But it is interesting, given the idea, the definition from article three, section three, calls one of the U.S. Constitution. That treason only exists if you are declaring war against the United States, or if you're aiding or comforting or adhering to those who are doing war against the United States, I can see some people going, well, what's happened with the southern border where you've clearly let America's enemies in, you are helping giving aid to them, which you could talk about some of the government federal aid programs that literally has been housing some of these illegal criminal aliens who certainly, some of them come from nations with great hostility toward America, there could be an argument for this idea that the Biden administration, some of the Biden regime was doing things that could be construed as treasonous. And I say that not saying it was treason, but I can see how people might make that argument given what that definition is. So this is something that we really haven't seen much of, if any, in our lifetime, except you could try to make some, maybe some comparative connections in looking at some of what presidents have done and where they've been friendly to nations that really were hostile or they've had tolerant policies that have allowed things to happen. Anyway, again, not to digress, but it is interesting given part of what Article 3, Section 3 and Clause 1 of the Constitution identifies.
David Barton [00:08:18] Yeah. And what you hit with Aaron Burr is, is one of the really big examples. And by the way, I don't know how many millions of cases have gone through the federal courts. I mean, literally millions of criminal cases, civil cases, et cetera, millions. There's only been 30 cases on treason in the history of the United States. So this doesn't go to court very often. And it's got some precedents out there that are pretty well established, not the least of which is what you mentioned, Tim. There were two cases with Aaron Burr. And so for Aaron Burr, you back up, he was vice president of the United States, he ran for president, didn't get elected, had a rejection complex, and I'm gonna be something great with my life. And he went and decided he would take the Louisiana territory, part of Mexico, and make his own empire, own nation out of it. And so he went and started this kind of uprising. He recruited people to be his army. It wasn't an organized territory yet but it went to court and in court Chief Justice John Marshall actually presided over the trial in Virginia. He was on the Supreme Court for one of the decisions and he was the trial judge in Virginia on the other and they decided that look it was not a declared war it was a really stupid thing to do but it wasn't a declared war. We can't say that those living in Louisiana territory, Mexico were enemies of the United States. We can say he was giving aid to the enemy. He was really arrogant and he was going against American policy. And so that one was not considered to be treasonous. And that's kind of where everything got started. That's the first treason case. And you just have to go pretty long ways before you get into more of those cases. So that was the starting point for it. And it really does boil down to you have to do something to aid the enemy in a declared war. You have to know exactly who your enemy is and you have be aiding them. So like at the southern border, the argument would be, well, that's not a declared War. And there's people coming from all sorts of nations and liberal progressive Democrats say, we should be kind to all people except Americans. And so we want everybody except Americans here. And that's an act of war, but you're certainly undermining the nation. A lot of it, when I look at like Biden and Obama, I think they're more in the position of what the American Revolution was a loyalist. And the loyalists were those who were very sympathetic to the government and very sympathetic to the unpatriotic positions. And so if you look at Biden, you look at Obama, what they did to help Iran, what they do to help China, those two nations are in much better shape now because of Obama and Biden, what the did. But they didn't aid an enemy at a time of declared war. So it would not be an act of treason. And just some of the other things that go with it. Here's one of the things the Supreme Court said, treason cannot exist unless two elements are met. And the U.S. Citizen might favor or harbor sympathies for an enemy, or they might hold beliefs that are disloyal to the United States, but that's not treason they have to take actions and it has to be an declared war. And so the fact that you're a liberal progressive and don't like America and think everybody else is better and you wanna help every other nation in the world come to America and take over America, that's not during an act of war and declared war and so that would be the big difference. While we might consider it treasonous in a broad sense, it's just not gonna meet the legal definition.
Tim Barton [00:12:00] Well, dad, while you were giving that explanation, I looked up real quick to see what other treason examples there were, and I was a little surprised. I had forgotten this example. Once I saw it and instantly thought, oh, I should have remembered this. Dad, do you remember, or you might already have the entire list in front of you. I see a lot of paper in front you. Do you remember any other noted people that were tried for treason? This is a little bit of a pop trivia question for you, but I think you will, if you don't remember off the top of your head, you will instantly know it when I say it. You just look at your paper. You might have already had it written down. What other famous person was tried for treason?
David Barton [00:12:35] Well, there was one before the Constitution was written, so you're talking after the writing of the Constitution.
Tim Barton [00:12:41] Well, wait a second, who's the one before? Cause I, we could go there too.
David Barton [00:12:45] That's Benedict Arnold.
Tim Barton [00:12:46] Okay. So no, let's come past there because there are a couple of examples we could point to of noted names, that, that I think people would recognize. So, John Brown was convicted in Virginia, not federal law offers right in Harper's Ferry.But not John Brown. No, this was another one. And this is one that you and I know more about. Think World War II.
David Barton [00:13:07] Well, there are certainly some World War II, and that's where a lot of the cases pop up is in World War Two. And that's something that I had. So who are you thinking of? What's her name? See, this is my question for you. This is my trivia. Oh, come on. Tokyo Rose.
Tim Barton [00:13:24] Yeah, okay. Yeah. Now, Tokyo Rose. If you knew her Japanese name, it'd be way more impressive. But yes. Oh no. Which I've read several times, and I'm pretty sure I would butcher the pronunciation of this. But yeah, one of the ones, Tokyo Rose, who... it ended up going to trial and the whole backstory, people can look this up. She was an American citizen. She had sick relatives in Japan, went back to Japan, that summer. Pearl Harbor's bomb. She gets stuck over there. Can't come back and Japan tells her renounce her US citizenship. She doesn't, she has to find a job until they end up putting her on the radio and part of her job was she was doing broadcasts for, some of prisoner of war camps and the goal of her performance, let's call it, was to disparage and discourage Americans. And anyway, so the course of the war goes on when Japan finally surrenders. It's found who she is, she's identified, but then it's found out that she was working with the Japanese. So there's controversy. She comes back to America. It was actually journalists in America who actually really get this story going that she really was in favor of Japan, et cetera, et cetera. So there was a trial where they bring eight charges of treason against her there's only one that ends up sticking and it was I mean it's super silly because it was over some really really vague reference she made about the Allied forces losing a battle. So it just seems I mean super politically motivated at that point she was sentenced to 10 years in prison fined $10,000 and stripped of her citizenship. There was a big movement about the miscarriage of justice that led to finally her being released after six years, and it wasn't till 20 years later. I think it's, wasn't it Gerald Ford? Gerald Ford is the one that gave her a pardon, restored her citizenship, was one of his final acts in office. But that's another very noted name. And I'm saying that because you and I have told many stories over the years involving some of Tokyo Rose, her involvement and some of the details behind it, but one of the things in our collection, we're at WallBuilders, we've partnered with Glenn Beck, the American journey experience. One of things that's really cool as part of the collection is Tokyo roses, actual microphone. Um, that she used in those broadcasts, which is a lot of cool details surrounding it. But I'd forgotten that was another example of when an American was actually tried for treason, was actually convicted of treason and later pardoned, recognizing some of the political motivation where there was just a lot Americans that saw somebody of Japanese descent and somebody that was over in Japan, most was going on and figured they must be guilty and so a lot of hurt and frustration from Americans at that point, targeting a Japanese individual, anyway, ended up leading to a pardon, not to digress, but that was another noted name, of an individual where treason was charged. And actually that person was convicted of treason in America.
David Barton [00:16:29] And it really was in World War II that so much of those treason cases happened. And I'll just throw out some numbers that I think surprise people. There were literally about 5,800 Japanese Americans who renounced their citizenship when the war started, took sides with Japan. So they had been a citizen. And the question is, can you renounce your citizenship? If you're a U S citizen, can your renounce it and then go to war against your country? And that was a big legal question back then. But about 5,800 actually renounced their citizenship and left the United States and whatever. And that's a story that doesn't get told very often.
Tim Barton [00:17:11] Well, that does seem like a silly thing to say, can you? I mean, if they did it, right? If they say, we're not American citizens, they're going to fight with Japan. It seems like they pulled it off, regardless of that thought. And obviously there's more details to it. And I know Rick, you're waving at us. We got to take a break. I get it. We have way more questions. We got distracted with some of this treason thought of these constitutional questions where it overlaps history. We don't get to talk about it all the time. Um, but anyway, yeah, interesting stuff from some of that world war to connection. And all the trees and stuff that certainly got brought up a lot because of World War II.
Rick Green [00:17:45] Well, as we're going to break, I'm going to do a hillbilly effort at pronouncing Iva Tokura Daiguino. I don't know if that's even close, but that's the one I had. Is that the one you had? Is that even close to the, because it, cause I read there was, is that anyway? That's the best effort I can give. That's one. Okay. So there you go. We at least tried. All right, quick break. We'll be right back with more of your questions here on foundation's freedom Thursday. You're listening to the WallBuilder show.
Rick Green [00:19:21] Welcome back to The WallBuilders Show. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Before we go to the next question, David, you were saying on our break you had something else on the trees in question.
David Barton [00:19:29] Yeah, because John also asked, is it possible to prosecute a congressman, et cetera? And the answer is, nobody is above the law. So a congressmen, a senator, a representative of Supreme Court justice, any of them can be tried for a crime that is a crime in the United States, and any of can be sent to jail. Now, you can't necessarily arrest a congress man while he's on the floor of Congress, because the Constitution does limit where you can arrest a Congressman. So you can't go in and arrest him while he's doing his job in Congress, but outside of Congress, you bet on the weekend, on a break on anything else, when he's off the floor, absolutely. But that nobody, nobody is above the law. Impeachment while you've had impeachment of presidents, impeachment is not for a, a, uh, a physical crime. It's, it's a political crime, but it's not a written crime. So impeachment is considered bad behavior. And there's something that really ticked the people off or tick the party off or tick somebody off and they wanna impeach you for it. But it's not a criminal act. The criminal acts are different. So impeachment was, and the early commentaries of impeachment going all the way back to founding fathers, they said it is for a political action in a political nature. And so all the stuff they've been trying to do with impeaching Trump for criminal stuff, that's not impeachment. That's not the way the Constitution set that up. That's just persecution, basically, especially since the judges have thrown it out and said you're just trying to concoct crimes that don't exist. So, impeachment, nobody goes to jail for impeachment. If you get impeached, you can be tried for a crime after you're removed from office. So, a president's done something bad in office, once they're back as a citizen, they're liable to be tried for any crime that could be out there. So that's kind of the answer to the rest of John's questions. And that kind of puts things in perspective. Well, guys.
Tim Barton [00:21:28] One more wrench to throw in this. What if during the impeachment process, you pardon yourself of the crime you committed that led to your impeachment. Can you be tried for the crime that you pardoned yourself of before you were impeached?
David Barton [00:21:45] Yeah, but if you're being impeached for a crime that you can pardon yourself of you're a criminal act now Which means you need to be impeached and then charged with the criminal act. So it shouldn't be part of your impeachment
Tim Barton [00:21:58] No but, you know, like, let's say you had auto pen and you're sitting in the impeachment and it pardoned you cause you know, you approved, I'm just saying I'm just, we haven't gotten there yet. I'm just curious. It seems like there could be more dynamic here.
Rick Green [00:22:14] I'm begining to feel like this is, yeah, thinking this is Who's On First, but it's who's got the auto pen.
David Barton [00:22:20] You guys have been watching too many fantasy movies or reading the news. It's one or the other, and it may be both of it.
Tim Barton [00:22:27] Actually, I was just reading about the Biden family and that just kind of led me down that path, but that's fine
Rick Green [00:22:33] All right, we got time for one more question today. Emily has a question that we talked a little bit about, well, a lot about this week, but she's got some specific questions about the support of Israel. She said, would David be willing to speak on why Christians should support Israel? Yes, it's biblical, but some believe in replacement theory that the term Israel has been replaced with the church. I believe David has spoken about how his trips to Israel were life-changing for him. I would like to hear more about that. It can get confusing with all the spiraling narratives these days. We know most Israelites are not necessarily faithful Jews. We also know that AIPAC is heavily influential in America. Do you believe they are an honorable organization? How much influence does Israel have in America and other countries? It seems pastors are shy on these matters and I'd like your wisdom regarding all of it, politically and spiritually. Thanks for getting me through my daily morning workouts with your wonderful podcast. You guys always make me smile and keep me informed with truth. Sincerely, a homeschooling mom and constitution coach from Iowa. Emily, thank you for sending that in. We don't have a lot of time for this one, but... It is a topic we enjoy talking about and we'll probably cover more of it in the coming weeks. David, go ahead, man.
David Barton [00:23:37] Yeah, let me go right up front and come and do a quick replacement theory is heresy, literally, the Bible is clear. But now nobody thought Israel could come back because she's the only nation that's come back from the dead. Literally. So she was done. She was over. God resurrected her and 1948. That's when replacement theology went out the door. Israel does exist. The people who had replacement theology said Israel is never coming back. So we'll let Christians take the place. Israel is back And then you have Genesis 12, God has said, hey, I've got a perpetual covenant with these people. You bless them, I bless you. You don't bless them I don't you. That covenant is perpetual, that is over time. So that's the first two points.
Tim Barton [00:24:20] Hey Dad, let's also point out in Romans, Paul is very clear that Israel is a root, that Christians were the branches grafted into the tree and so this idea that you can replace the tree that you've been grafted into that doesn't make any sense at all. You are part of the tree. We are now part of the covenant. We are not the covenant and we didn't replace the original covenant God made which is very clear again from Romans so dad to your point like whether Israel existed as a nation or not It doesn't matter the covenant was there and Christians were grafted into that tree from the covenant God made that root being Israel. You don't replace if you're again, you're the branch grafted in You don't t replace the tree. You're part of the tree you're part Of the covenant you don't Replace the covenant
David Barton [00:25:02] And Paul makes really clear that it's the root that bear the branches. It's not the branch that carries the tree. It's the, it's, the roots that carry it. And so it's that Jewish that carries, the, the Christian aspect. Other thing is, yeah, there are a lot of folks Israelites who are not faithful Jews, it said that way, the Christians, George Barna has pointed out that is really hard to tell the difference between Christians and non-Christians when it comes to their behavior and beliefs. And so that's, that's just a human characteristic and AIPAC. Does have a heavy influence on America. And it's, you know, AIPAC is made of many secular Jews, but it is the aspect of they are an ally. And they do take people from America, particularly from Congress, to see things in Israel, to understand Israel and how unique she is in that region. So they do a good job of educational aspects. It's not necessarily a conservative organization because they want Democrats and Republicans both to support them. Whoever the president is, they want support, so they work with both, and that's why they sometimes look pretty squishy. So AIPAC helps keep Israel protected with the support of America by letting congressmen know what Israel needs. A lot more we could say. It's a really great question, Emily, and that that's kind of the short answer to your question. You had a lot of good questions. Sorry we spent so little time on it.
Rick Green [00:26:20] Alright folks, we're out of time for questions today, but we sure appreciate you listening and encourage you to go to our website, wallbuilders.show, so that you can hear more of these Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs, as well as our Good News Friday programs, which you'll be able to hear tomorrow, a fresh one with some more good news, and then our interviews on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, all available at wallbuilder.show and then of course our main website, WallBuilders.com. Thanks for listening to the WallBuilders Show.
