Civics Before Congress

It feels obvious to say lawmakers should know the Constitution before they’re trusted with power, budgets, and national policy. But once we follow that idea all the way down, the real question becomes harder: can we legally require a civics test for Congress without breaking the Constitution itself?

We walk through what the Constitution actually allows for congressional qualifications and why adding requirements by simple legislation runs into a wall. We also wrestle with the unintended consequences of “knowledge tests,” especially the nightmare scenario of political actors gaming the system by controlling the questions. Along the way, we talk about what citizens can do right now that doesn’t require a new law: public accountability, candidate forums, and encouraging trainings like Constitutional Alive and Biblical Citizenship so candidates and voters understand separation of powers and how our constitutional republic is supposed to function.

Then we pivot to immigration and the Bible. A huge amount of today’s debate gets shaped by English translations that blur important categories. Drawing on Rabbi Daniel Lapin’s insight, we explain how Hebrew uses different words that can map to different kinds of immigrants, including a Ruth-like commitment to fully join a people, permission to live and work, and unlawful entry. That nuance changes how Christians should think and speak about immigration policy.

We close with a candid look at indoctrination, education, and why uninformed voting is often the predictable result of one-sided schooling rather than simple ignorance. If you find this helpful, subscribe, share the show with a friend, and leave a review so more people can rebuild real civic and biblical literacy.

Transcript

Rick Green [00:00:07] Welcome to the Intersection of Faith and Culture. It's the WallBuilders show taking on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical and constitutional perspective. You can find out more about us at wallbuilders.com, wallbuilders.com. That's our main website, lots of great information there. And of course, all the events coming up for the summer from our teachers’ programs, student programs, pastors’ events in the fall, all of it. It's available right there at wallbuilders.com and then just for your research, there's so many great topics happening right now in the 250th. Where you might be getting questions about the faith of the Founders or the Constitution or whatever it might be, just go to the wallbuilders.com site, search on there, you'll get lots of great information. And then you can also go to wallbuilders.show if you've missed any radio programs in the last few weeks or months and you wanna catch up, it's all available right there at wallbuilders.show. Hopefully you're listening to us, either on Bot Radio or some of our other terrestrial stations out there or on a podcast app. If you're listenin' on a podcast app, it's super easy to share that with your friends and family, forward out the programs. As you listen to them, and that helps us get truth in the hands of as many people as possible and get them a good diet of information, which is so important. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach, here with David Barton, America premier historian and Tim Barton president of WallBuilders, and we are so thankful for you listening today. It's Foundations of Freedom Thursday. We love Thursdays because we get to take your questions. So send them in radio@wallbuilders.com. That's radio@wallbuilders.com. Mind have a, I don't know, maybe a question on the Constitution. Maybe you've seen something in the news lately that raises a constitutional question, or maybe it's just a principal issue. You're looking for the biblical perspective on a particular thing that's happening in your neighborhood. Let's not forget that politics is just how you treat your neighbor. And so all of these cultural issues, all of this what we sometimes call political issues, are actually biblical issues, because every issue is a biblical issue. There's nothing the Bible does not address. And so that's what we do here at Wobblers is look at everything, as I said, from a biblical historical and constitutional perspective. And on Thursdays, you get to pick the topic. So thank you to every single one of you that have been sending in questions. Thanks for being a part of the program and listening, but also helping to drive the conversation. We're gonna start today with a question from Jo. She said, in light of the growing lack of basic civic understanding among Congress members, such as comprehending the Constitution, separation of powers, our nation's history of what caused success and failure, balanced budget, et cetera, would it be possible to introduce legislation requiring congressional candidates to demonstrate a foundational knowledge of how our Constitutional Republic is designed to function? Could there be a required course or assessment covering the essential principles of American government and finances before someone's eligible to run for federal office? It seems ludicrous that in spite of many professions involving life-altering decisions such as law, medicine, aviation, individuals must pass rigorous examinations before they're considered qualified to serve the public. Yet, those entrusted with governing the nation, which is the largest company in the world, are not required to demonstrate even a basic level of financial or civic understanding. Rather, it seems money and popularity are their qualifiers. How can we the people demand a higher standard for those seeking such significant responsibility? Wow, well thought out question, Jo. Thanks for sending that in. David, Tim, what do you think? 

David Barton [00:03:15] You know, that's a great idea. It would be really nice if, if people knew, it'd be nice if we had a test to, to know the Constitution before they went into Congress, but the issue is that the Constitution has set exactly what can and can't be done with congressmen. And here's the only requirements to be a congressman. You got to be 25 years old. You have to have been a citizen for seven years and you have to be an inhabitant of the state at the time that you represent the time of the election. Uh, it's for Senate, you gotta be 30 years old. You gotta be nine years a citizen and you have to live in the state that you're representing. That's all you can put on it. That's, all the Constitution allows us to put on it. We can't put on more than that. However, that doesn't keep citizens from putting that on. It doesn't keep citizens from going to town halls and say, hey, have you taken the immigration test? Can you pass the immigration tests? It does' stop them from saying. Hey, have you, have you gone through Stansberry's Catechism in the Constitution? Can you answer those sixth grade, fourth grade questions or whatever? It's something that people can do. They can film the answers. They can make it publicized. They can get it out there. But as good as the idea is you can't require more than what the Constitution requires as a requirement for serving in Congress. 

Tim Barton [00:04:29] I would have answered in the opposite direction. I would've said, you absolutely can require it. You just have to do a constitutional amendment to get it. 

David Barton [00:04:36] Yeah. Uh, yeah, 

Tim Barton [00:04:37] Because to your point, the Constitution, it doesn't have that parameter there, but that was part of the idea with the Founding Fathers say you have to be here long enough to understand how the nation functions and what the values are and what it means to be a representative in the House or the Senate. And clearly we've moved away from a lot of the assimilation ideas. We've moved the way from a lot of the framework of understanding. And so you yes, you can definitely have requirements and put those back in place. It has to be done ultimately through Congress to the legislative body and probably has to be done through the amendment process. It is something though, that I and this is a little further out there, but Dad and Rick both you guys could speak some insight to this. It is something that in my mind, you probably could have some of the parties, some of the state parties say that if you're going to run as a Republican candidate as an example, because they're probably the ones more likely to be supportive of this measure. But if you're going to run as Republican in the state of Texas, the Texas GOP, they want to make sure before you become a Republican in Texas on the ballot that you have taken a citizenship test and you pass with a 90% or better or whatever it is. It seems like there could be some state level requirements potentially, but ultimately, it's not constitutional. And then there could even to some extent, legal challenges inside of that. But do you guys think there's something that could be done at a state level? Because for these people to get to the federal level, it starts at the state level first, you have to make it through the primaries. And then the general, is there something that could be down at the state level? Or does this really come back to basically you'd have to have a constitutional amendment requiring the people understand the Constitution before they go represent and defend the Constitution? 

David Barton [00:06:31] I think it comes back to a constitutional amendment. I think if I was in charge of either state party and there were additional requirements put on a congressman, I would be the one to take the lawsuit to the courts and say, hey, this is not acceptable. Here's the only requirements to be a congressman under the Constitution. However, within the primary system, you can put a lot of pressure on them. It's like we have pressure to sign term limits things or sign whatever. I don't know that you can do anything that would be a disqualifier for a congressman other than what disqualifies them by the Constitution. 

Tim Barton [00:07:05] But for state parties, there's a reason that you have state meetings where you come together and say, here's the values we uphold, here's things we're looking for. And if you have congressmen that don't reflect those values, the party does not support them or the party can go against them again. So it seems like there's at least some level of pressure the state could put on from the outside looking in. 

David Barton [00:07:29] Well, I tell you that in Texas, we've tried before to have litmus test for even state representatives and cannot get it done legally. We can't even do that with our own state representatives. And we try to do that within the party itself, say, hey, don't vote for these guys. Don't endorse them unless they'll do this. But we've had lawsuits on that even within the state parties where candidates will file and say, hey, they can't do this to me. And the courts say you're exactly right because the State Constitution, the federal Constitution laid out. So those have been things we've tried over the years to try to get a little more constitutional knowledge, both state and federal in there, and none of them have survived thus far. Now, it doesn't mean they couldn't, but I'm gonna point out why I think it would be so good to have this. We talked before about the fact that there's 12 states that now require the immigration test for high school kids to graduate. And while 91 to 94% of immigrants pass the immigration test on the first attempt, only 4% of high school students do. And so it would be nice if our congressman knew as much as the immigrants that are coming into America, the guys who have lived here their whole life. There ought to be something that would help do that. But there's just nothing we've seen over the years that have been able to do that so far. 

Tim Barton [00:08:45] And Dad, I would clarify the legal immigrants who have gone through the process and done the training to take the test. Cause there's been millions that came across under the Biden administration who they certainly don't know any of the history about America or civics and government, et cetera. But you're right. We've known many legal immigrants that knew far more about the country than most US citizens did. And certainly, that seems to be the case. 

Rick Green [00:09:09] Yeah, and I tend to think of it, there's such a difference between the sort of technical requirements, like you mentioned the age and, you know, residing in that state. And, of course, I would support only serve so many terms, but those are all technical things. I just mean, I don't know how you enforce like you took a particular class or you as much as I'd love to require everybody to take Constitution Alive, or Biblical Citizenship, and certainly everybody go to wallbuilders.com right now. Get the course, send it to your congressmen, our candidates running for congress. And I've had candidates for Congress, I remember Morgan Latrell, Marcus Latrell's brother, when he was first running for congress, he found, you know, asked Rick Perry for my number and called and he's like, man, I'm going through your Constitution Alive class right now so I know how to do my job when I get to congress. That'd be great if we had more members of congress doing that and we can certainly encourage people to personally do that. And I will say to Jo's question, and maybe it's your answer too, David, is that we kind of voluntarily do this or we get like, we've got, I think we've got three or four different state parties right now that are pushing Constitution Alive and Biblical Citizenship down into their county parties and encouraging their, their county parties to host the classes, to ask candidates to take it before they run for office or while they're running for office. And believe me, we were nonpartisan. We'd love for Democrats to do the same thing. Cause it's nonpartisan education about how the Republic works. But man, I just don't know on enforcement how, even if you crafted that. I mean, I wouldn't even know how to craft that constitutional amendment requiring that because boy, I guess I get nervous about like, okay, what, how does the other side weaponize this to prevent people or to kick people off the ballot or, you know, those sorts of things. So anyway, I, I sort of lean against it. I get Jo's point and I totally support citizens pushing it. And as you guys said, for parties to push it, but to actually require it to get on the ballot gets tough. 

Tim Barton [00:10:59] Well, and Rick, to your point about where it could be dangerous, where the other side could weaponize it, is if the thought was in a constitutional amendment, that you have to be able to demonstrate constitutional knowledge. So you have to take a test and prove, you know, the Constitution. Well, then here becomes the challenge of who writes the test. 

Rick Green [00:11:17] Who writes the tests? That's right, man. 

Tim Barton [00:11:19] Right? Like what questions are they asking and where are they going? So it, this is something that 

Rick Green [00:11:26] Yeah, Tim, because their question would be like, the First Amendment says separation of church and state. What does that mean? And then we'd be like well, no, it doesn't say that. But now we fail the test, right? 

Tim Barton [00:11:35] Right. And to the point, this is where one of the realities that we have to use to examine a lot of the legal process are unintended consequences. And there definitely can be downstream effects from a good-hearted motivation that leads to legislation that can actually have very negative consequences. This is certainly one that seems logical. To go, you need to have basic civics and constitutional knowledge before you are in the government where you are operating civics in constitutionally. But the way that comes about does become a challenge given the woke weaponization we have seen. So yes, to your point, it, it's a bigger challenge than it should be. It should be so simple. Unfortunately, it's not, but there are things that we can do at the local level to encourage a lot of the the knowledge that should be attained. And honestly, already taught in schools, it hasn't been, but it can be required. And we have so many good resources to help do that. 

David Barton [00:12:37] And I think also that if you go back into the Founding era, one of the reasons they didn't put that, stuff like that in there is the same reason they didn't put in there a requirement that to hold office you have to believe that the sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west. It's because they believed everybody knew that. The way they taught civics back there and the Constitution, the way they had education framed, it would be inconceivable to them that you would have someone who might be illiterate, even historically illiterates. Or someone who might not understand the Constitution. That was such a basic document, not for government officials to study, but for every single citizen to study. And that was so much a part of basic education. It's just inconceivable to them that you might ever get to a point where people wouldn't know the Constitution, I don't think they could have ever foreseen where we are right now. That education would have gone so far astray as to leave us as a completely a civically illiterate people, I can't say completely, but a largely civically-illiterate people who are so unengaged in their own self-government. 

Rick Green [00:13:43] Lots of work to do on this topic for sure. We're going to take a quick break, quick break guys. We've got more questions coming up. Stay with us folks. You're listening to The WallBuilders Show. 

Rick Green [00:14:59] Welcome back to the WallBuilders Show. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Next question comes from Rick, not me, some other Rick. He said, I am taking the Biblical Citizenship class again, and Rabbi Lapin stated that the Bible addresses immigration on three different levels. I would like to know what those references are. Okay, so I'll be honest, guys, I haven't been through my own class in a while. So I don't remember this either. So David, when Rabbi Lapin talked about this, and I think you talked about it on a recent program as well, what does the Bible say about immigration? 

David Barton [00:15:28] Yeah, this goes back to something we learned from Rabbi Lapin one of the axioms he has that I think is exactly right is every Christian needs a Jewish rabbi. And so for me and Tim particularly he's been our rabbi for a number of years. We call him with all sorts of questions because there's so much that is conveyed in that original Hebrew language that we don't get in the English language. As Rabbi Lapin points out, he said English literally is the worst language in the world for communicating nuance. He points to the fact that the Eskimo people, the Inuit people, they have 20 different words for snow. There's wet snow and there's dry snow and there blowing snow and all that. But we just have one word for snow and that can describe 20 different things to that different race of people, that different language they have. We've seen the same thing in Greek where if you read the New Testament, you read word love, there's four different words of love in Greek. One is sexual love, one is love toward God, and one is brotherly love and one is love for your family. And they're all different. So when it says love your neighbor, it's not saying have sex with your neighbor. That's not the meaning, but we only have one word for love in English. And so we don't get what the scriptures are really saying with four different kinds of love. And it's the same with this immigration issue. And this is a big deal because particularly when Biden was in and even back to Obama, as they were trying to get open borders and open immigration and no requirement for people coming in. They would, Christians especially, liberal, progressive, secular Christians would show up and testify at the legislature, and of course Democrats loved getting Christians to testify to what they already believed. And they would testify that, hey, you know, we're told in the Book of Leviticus 17:34 that you're to treat the stranger just like you were because you were a stranger in Egypt, and the Egyptians opened up and let the Jews come in, and so we need to open up and let everybody else come in. And that's not what the word means. And Rabbi Lapin points out that in Hebrew, there are three different words for what we use as the word stranger or immigrant in the English Bible. And he points out those three different words are pretty close to the requirements we have now in law in America. That you can come in and be a legal citizen, you can be an immigrant that goes through the process, becomes a legal citizen. You can come and you can a Green Card holder, which means you can work here and contribute here. Or you can be an illegal alien here. So those are the kind of three different levels we have with American immigration, and all three of those are separate words in the Bible, even though they translate into English as only the word stranger. And he pointed out that the first one, wanting to become like a citizen, he said that's, it's the word that's used with Ruth and Naomi. And if you remember the story of Ruth and Naomi, Naomi was an older woman. She had two daughters, her daughters in law. Her sons died and so she goes back to Israel and one daughter-in-law goes with her and Naomi says to Ruth Hey, I'm gonna go with you wherever you are I'm not from I'm from Israel but I'm going to go back with you to Israel. And your God will be my God your people be my people. And goes through and says whatever you are I'm gonna be part of that. And that's the word for a legal immigrant in in Hebrew is, and he said actually the word that we use for immigrant is the word proselyte. I wanna be a proselyte to Judaism, or I wanna a proselyte to America. I want your God to be my God, I want you people to be on my people, your language, your customs, that's gonna be mine. That's a legal immigrant, and that was one of the Hebrew words for the word stranger, meaning immigrant. Another was, he said, particularly in time of King Solomon and King David, when you had two kings with a booming economy, all the neighboring people wanted to come get economics in Israel, get a job in Israel. There's high employment there. They're building the temple. They're buildin' the palace. They're buildin' all this stuff. There's lots of jobs. And so that was kinda like a green card person. And then there was third, the people that came in illegally and weren't supposed to be there and didn't have authorization to be there. So what you find is English is what really messes up our understanding of the Bible and immigration. The Bible actually has three words for three different types of immigrants. American law has the same thing, but if you only read the Bible and don't understand the nuance, which is why he says every Christian needs a rabbi, which we go to him on stuff like this, and those are those three levels. So it's kind of significant that you understand that English is not a really good language to communicate nuance. It can communicate concepts, but not nuance. And when it comes to immigration or love or snow or whatever else, there's a lot of nuances there that we don't often get. 

Rick Green [00:20:23] And I thought it was just George Bush, George W. Bush, and myself that had a dysfunctional relationship with the English language. I'm glad to know it's not just us. All right, guys. So let's see. This next one is from Randy in Iowa. He said, foolish question coming from retired, U S army, BA in political science, class of 85, are the Democrats really going to stick with this ungodly platform? And do you think folks in leftist held states are that dumb? And could not states like Minnesota call for a recall of those idiots running that state or are they just too lazy and uninformed to take real political action and force those folks out? That's after all the purple state and the leftist only hold the twin cities in Rochester, where the Muslims are trying to take over. I can't help but think with his, with his question, I remember the general, I think it was during Katrina that said to the press, you know, he kept saying, don't get stuck on stupid. So, I, I liked the way he asked the question. So I, I don't know guys. I mean, I would love to say that there can't be that many people that would vote this stuff in must be cheating in the elections or whatever, but the reality is we know there are a lot of uninformed voters out there as Rush used to call them. 

Tim Barton [00:21:37] Well, I would give a prime example in Texas with the Senate race coming up in Texas between a Republican and James Talarico, who is a Democrat. But right, James Talarico, I am seeing Christians around Texas that are going, man, he just seems like such a nice guy. And he's not crazy. And we want to support him. And you're like, hang on a second. The dude that thinks there are six genders, the dude that supports the gender mutilation of children. I mean, like, go down the list. Who thinks transgender story hour was good and these inappropriate books in schools. Like if you start looking and listening to what he says, it's mind boggling when the Bible talks about beware of false prophets. That's him. When the Bible talked about a wolf in sheep's clothing, that's him and yet polling showed that when it came to a potential matchup between him and Cornyn or him and Paxton, he had a slight advantage over both of them. Now I don't think that poll is where it's going to end and it's totally reflective. However, the fact that he had 40 something percent of support in Texas. And President Trump had a really great post earlier this week where kind of making a little bit of a jab, a joke and being like, you can't be a vegan and be in Texas, you can’t be in Texas and think there's six genders or whatever. Well, that's James Talarico, but if that many people are supportive and there's a unfortunately legitimate chance this guy could actually win and be in the US Senate, that is the reality of the world we live in with how uninformed and misled people are. And I appreciate the fact that it is so frustrating when you are watching dumb people do dumb things that impact your life in dumb ways, but that is unfortunately the world we live in, which is why the discipleship, the engagement, the, the teaching and training become so important to reach people. That have believed lies that have bought into a faulty narrative and a bad worldview that's led them to draw wrong conclusions. And part of this is exactly what the progressives wanted when they took over academia, they, they wanted people that would take orders and do what they were told, that would memorize them repeat. And that's what we are seeing so much in culture, but all of this again, backing up to say, I do think this is a legitimate challenge to overcome some of this because of how. Ill-informed, uninformed, and directly intentionally misinformed a lot of people are. 

David Barton [00:24:12] Yeah. And going back to his question of, do you really think that the leftist states are that dumb? I think too often we underestimate the power of indoctrination. If you've gone through 17 or 18 years of liberal progressive indoctrination, you don't know there's another side. And that's why the Constitution requires due process that both sides have to have their side presented before you can reach a verdict in a legal proceeding. We don't do that in education, we don't say, hey, let's make sure we look at both sides. You've got a bunch of leftist progressive educators who teach kids that this is the way it is. They have textbooks that are written for that viewpoint. This is the it is, and those kids come out there being thoroughly trained, thoroughly equipped. Those kids become our business leaders, our civic leaders. Those kids used to be named Tim Waltz, who now are governor. Those kids just been, you know, all those names. That they've got in Minnesota. They literally believe what they believe because that's the way they were trained for 17 years of formal education in some degree. So that's, the other side of this is if you don't, and that's why Psalm and Solomon 8:13 is so good. It says, hey, your friends listen to your voice, so speak. This is why we have to speak up on things to even people who disagree with us. And it might create some conflict for a little bit after your friends, they may say you're crazy, but they'll think about it. And after you tell them something, say, have you thought about this or heard about this, or have you considered this aspect, and they say no, that's not right. And they'll go off and think about it. And they'll come back and say, you know, I've been thinking about that and maybe and they start getting open, once they start hearing other stuff. So what you've got in Minnesota is a great example of pure government indoctrination. This is what happens when you don't offer choices, when you don't have school choice, when don't get another side. This is why the Constitution is so brilliant in saying nobody should be to be put away for life or anything else until all the evidence has been heard, both sides, we just don't do that with education, we really should. 

Rick Green [00:26:13] Kind of a theme today in our questions, lots of work to do on the education side of things and no kidding wallbuilders.com just a wealth of information there for folks to dig in and do these things whether it's candidates that are running for office you want to get it in their hands, can't have you know the exact requirement can't be there to get them on the ballot but you can as a voter encourage them to learn those things and then of course as the general population learning it is important as well. Thanks for all the questions that came in radio@wallbuilder.com if you want send some for next week you've been listening to WallBuilders Show.