Conversations With the Hoff
Steve Hoffman—lovingly known far and wide (or at least across the Liberty Crack Media breakroom) as “the Hoff”—is our resident radical Conservatarian, a man who can quote the Founding Fathers faster than most people can microwave a burrito. A founding force behind Liberty Crack Media, the Hoff blends constitutional conviction with the charming subtlety of a bald eagle crash-landing through your living-room window to remind you about personal liberty. Whether he’s railing against government overreach, passionately defending your right to smoke a fine cigar, or delivering rants so entertaining they probably need their own FCC classification, Steve Hoffman remains the ideological caffeine jolt that keeps Liberty Crack Media gloriously wide awake.
Conversations With the Hoff
Alexander Higgins: The American Test - U.S. Constitution
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
The Hoff has a discussion with author Alexander Higgins on his works including the American Test - U. S. Constitution.
The American Test U.S. Constitution: The Gold Standard
THE AMERICAN TEST DECLARATION CONSTITUTION: Gold Standard of American Social Science
The American Test Exam Book 1: Gold Standard of American Social Science
The American Test Exam Book 2: Gold Standard of American Social Science
The American Test Answer Key
Rebel Rabbit infused seltzers. Get a free Microphone Monkey's button with purchase at Inlet Dispensary in Murrell's Inlet.
Tune In for Microphone Monkeys
It's a beautiful day on the Grand Strand. Welcome to Conversations with the Hof. I'm Steve Hoffman, your host, and with me in our virtual studio today is the executive producer of Liberty Crack Media, Trip Detmering. We also have a special column guest all the way from Sumter, South Carolina, Mr. Alex Higgins. It should be an interesting segment as we are going to take a deep dive into the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Alex Higgins is an American civic educator and author best known for creating the American Test Declaration Constitution. It's a comprehensive course book built to raise constitutional literacy among everyday citizens, public servants, and government personnel. His work centers on strengthening national understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, treating them not just as historical documents, but as living governance architecture. He designed the American test to establish standardized method of teaching and evaluating knowledge of America's founding documents. The book includes full text versions of both the Constitution and the Declaration, writing exercises, detailed explanations of fundamental concepts such as the preamble and the constitutional balance of powers. His commentary derives from authoritative sources including, I'll get this, The Law of Nations, Congressional Transcripts, Black's Law Dictionary, and the Federalist Papers. The book contains hundreds of text recognition exercises that cover basically every ratified word of both documents, along with 300 questions from his American Test exam series. He has discussed his work in interviews, including a 2025 appearance on the Ingram Centurion podcast, where he explained the purpose and structure of the American test. His core mission is to make America's founding principles inspectable, teachable, and testable, ensuring that citizens can engage with constitutional governance at a deeper level than many political scientists or lawyers. His approach clarifies, emphasizes clarity, accessibility, and the idea that constitutional knowledge is essential for a healthy republic. Well, welcome to the show, Alex. Well, thank you for having me, Steve. Yeah, before I begin, um it's obvious that the those founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, are what made America the world's example of what freedom is really like. So before we start talking about the book, what do you believe are the natural and basic conditions needed for freedom?
SPEAKER_02Um I'll try and give a natural law explanation for freedom. So I'm trying to get even deeper than the Bill of Rights here or type of philosophy. Or I'm trying to get developed the deepest philosophy on freedom. So, what creates freedom? I'll discuss this in terms of time and space. And what is freedom? Freedom is the ability to do what you want, or it's the ability for us to do what we want without any contractual obligations. That's what freedom is, plain and simple. Or that's the definition I will use. Um we're also going to talk about communism or collective control. I'm going to define communism as group collective control, it's rules and regulations. Uh that's what communism is. It's uh not necessarily communism wasn't necessarily created by Karl Marx. Some societies, or excuse me, all societies are a mixture of freedom and communism. There are group rules and regulations that we all have to follow to some degree, but then also societies need freedom or pleasure or the ability to do what you want. Obviously, we want more freedom. Even the Constitution has collective control. It's a collective control document to some degree. Um but the founders and framers said the Constitution is uh has the least bit of collective control. That was the idea behind the Constitution. I don't know if that's really true or not. Um again, people should read by book, they should read the Constitution and come up with that idea about their on their own uh to see whether or not the Constitution is a perfect or imperfect document or something in between. Let's get to it. Uh, what creates more freedom? Here's the quick answer: more free time and more free space. It's more uh free time in your life and more available living age, free residence. That's really what creates more freedom. Um for the most part. Um, what creates communism? The exact opposite condition, when we have less free time and less free space, or less available time and less space. Um now you're probably asking, well, you know, why why this simple explanation of time and space? I'm going to try and give answers. Um and folks, this will be intuitive to folks who have both lived in the country and the city, like myself. I've lived in uh large cities when I was in the Coast Guard. I lived in San Diego, California. I lived in Charleston, South Carolina. It's not really a huge city, but it's a densely crowded city. Also live down in the country. But basically, when you have more available acreage to yourself on your residency, you can do whatever you want without any worry of running into somebody else or without harming anybody else. That's why fewer rules and regulations are needed in rural areas.
SPEAKER_00So if you have lots and lots of acreage, you can Thomas Jefferson kind of envisioned us as an agrarian republic. He knew that an agrarian society probably had more freedom than a uh a highly condensed urban society. Well, I'm just guessing.
SPEAKER_02Wait, well, well, no, you're absolutely right. Uh James Madison came up with the same idea. He wanted to amend the preamble uh to make sure that property or a certain amount of property would be available. Um let's talk about being in the country again, just to paint a picture here. If you have 10, 20 acres of property, let's just say to yourself, you're not in a dense-packed city, you can up open up the back door, you can fire off the 12 gauge without worry, you can have cookouts, you can uh have bonfires anytime you want, you can build a basketball court for that property. Heck, maybe if you had enough property, you wouldn't even have to follow the speed limit because you could possibly have a racetrack on this property, and you wouldn't have to worry about running your car into anymore. Um so available space naturally creates the condition of freedom. Also, with regards to time, if you don't have to work so much to obtain that space, you're gonna have more time to enjoy that space. Um, if you live in the city and you have to work several hours for a very small apartment, there are literally people living in New York City, and uh there are people in New York City and they live in ten by ten apartments. A hundred square foot apart for for some folks in New York City. That's how bad the condition costs. And if you're living in a small compact apartment by several other small apartments, you just can't do what you want to do. Again, getting back to the definition of freedom, freedom is the ability to do what you want. And if you live in a density packed city, you're gonna need more rules and regulations. You're gonna need more parking meters, you're gonna have uh more stoplights, you're only gonna be able to work, walk, um in in in certain areas. There will be restrictions on you feeding the animals. Um so when you live in a densely packed area, that condition that that condition naturally creates communism or collective control, whether we want to call it that or not. So if we have a a city and it gets or a town and it gets more densely compact, um with folks moving from out of state, even if all those folks are uh George Washington, Thomas Jefferson's loving people, uh they're they're naturally gonna work they're naturally gonna come to the conclusion that they need more rules and regulations so that folks can deal with these tight spaces. A lot of it has to do with where we can move, there will be more rules and regulations on where firearms can there will be more rules and regulations on on uh where people can and cannot have a bonfire or a cookout and whatnot. So we want to consider this in South Carolina when it comes to growing the economy. When we go to grow the economy in South Carolina, um it might not be an improved economy, meaning that the South Carolinians already living here and their children, they will not be able to afford as much living space per 40 hours worth of work if we do this thing called growing the economy. A lot of politicians use that. A lot of times they they advertise the economy of South Carolina to other states. Now, when we do that, it grows the gross size of the economy, it grows the gross size of the economy or the total size of the economy, however, the economy per person for the South Carolinian already living here gets worse. And again, just to quantify this, the area of living space earned for 40 hours worth of work becomes less and less in those cases when we are doing this so-called thing called growing the economy. And the evidence of this can be seen with Charleston and even its neighboring city, uh Somerville. Somerville used to be somewhat of a small town in maybe 2000. However, now it's densely packed, coffee is hard to afford. People have to work more and more hours for less space. They're stuck in traffic more. Okay, Alex.
SPEAKER_00I hate to cut you off. Uh uh you already answered the question, I think, about uh the basic conditions for uh freedom. I I really want to get back to your book, uh the um The American Test. Um what you I think you might have answered this question already, but what inspired you to create the American Test? Why did you why did why did you write that book? And then uh and uh ask questions and the study guide.
SPEAKER_02Well, it's it's a mixture of you know pride. I wanted to do it, I wanted to write a book. I think everybody wants to do that. Ever uh more importantly, I wanted to help my country in what ways that I could. And furthermore, ability. I one time I sat down, I read the Constitution, I'm like, I'm gonna read this document. I've never read it before, and uh I was really preparing for a tough read. And I read the document, I read it in about 45 minutes. The Constitution was done and over with, and I was very surprised. And then I got the idea I could make a test out of this uh Constitution. It's not that much material to cover, and since it's the supreme law of the land, since we all have to swear to uphold it in the military and in law enforcement, and since we talk about it all the time in history classes, we should develop a test on this constitution because it's practical, and uh that that's really what inspired me to do that. The uh practicality of this constitution test. It's its short size, motivated me to believe that I could create a test on this small amount of material.
SPEAKER_00I remember going back to school back in the 50s and 60s, back when uh public schools actually gave you an education and they actually had civics courses, and they they mentioned the Constitution, they mentioned the Declaration of Independence, but they really didn't get into you know a lot of detail about the Constitution. So obviously, it's good to see that your American text is a book that's out there that now gives a lot more detail than what we learned in public schools or what they're not learning in public schools today. Um, how did you decide on the structure of the coursework? The full text, the writing exercises, uh explanation, the glossary. Well, why did you go into all that?
SPEAKER_02Um what was in one of my books for the uh structure of my book, the way I arranged it, with the new book, you you have a uh copy of the white-covered book, I have a black covered book. In the white covered book, I put the learning exercises, the writing and relationship exercises at the beginning of the book. And what are writing and relationship exercises? Actually, you might um ask this in your next question. Let me just say, here's why I decided on the structure of my book, here's why I made it the way I made them. It's so people would learn more about the Constitution. That's the plain, simple answer. Okay. Um, and we could kind of get into the details of how these things help us with um some of your further questions. I don't know if I answered it.
SPEAKER_00What are these what are these uh text recognition exercises and how and what role do they play in helping uh readers, the students understand the founding documents? What give me an example of a text recognition uh exercise?
SPEAKER_02Well, text recognition exercises, that's really a fancy uh term for multiple choice questions. In the book, you have a whole entire practice exam in there. And it's much longer than the digital exam that people will receive. There are hundreds of questions in my books, and what they do is they force people to read the ratified text of the Constitution. Before you can have a deep understanding of the Constitution, you have to be very familiar with the superficial text. You have to know exactly what it is that you're trying to understand. And my belief, to understand the Constitution, you have to read the Constitution. You have to read the actual words chosen by the framers of the document. And the tax recognition exercises, they force people to deal with that ratified text of the Constitution. Uh, a constitutional interpretation uh may not help you. You can't give a Christian or an atheist point of view, you can't give a Democratic or Republican interpretation of the Constitution, you just have to know that uh Constitution. That's because text recognition exercises uh force people to do.
SPEAKER_00The um in your book, you also talk about the concepts, the sword and the purse. What is that? What does that refer to?
SPEAKER_02Um James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, they mentioned those terms. And uh Federalist 58, and then in Federalist 78, Federalist 58, it's about the House of Representatives, and Federalist 78, it focuses on the courts. And sort of in the first, it's much it's much more important than the Supreme Court. So in schools, we learn this Supreme Court-centered point of view of the Constitution. Um what's really important is who holds the sword and how much money that person is getting to wield that sword. So basically, militaries, police forces, and whatnot, um, they they can infringe greatly upon our freedoms if they are incredibly uh well funded. Um if you want to take away if you want to take away the brutality of the sword or the guns that the police have, you want to take away their money. James Madison said that uh that that the ability to defund militaries and police forces was the most important thing for protecting freedom. It's not necessarily a Bill of Rights argument in a court of law that will protect us. It's really our ability to fund or defund things that will affect our freedoms. Now, sometimes, you know, it is good to fund the military or police forces. We want them to some degree. But when they turn deviant, we want to defund them. And uh all bills for raising revenue beginning the House of Representatives, that's the first line of Article 1, Section 7. That might be one of the most important lines in the U.S. Constitution. That might be more important than even the Bill of Rights when it comes to preserving our freedom. Um also it's uh we gotta think about economics as well. We talked about the Second Amendment, gun rights, and stuff like that. Let's just say that the Supreme Court says that we can have any type of firearm or any type of ammunition that that we want to. And I do believe it that that should be the ruling, at least with things that you can carry with both of your two arms according to Black's law dictionary and according to the intention of the Second Amendment. However, if the government has a lot of money, what they can literally use, they can go in, they can buy up all the bullets and guns, and for all practical purposes, they take away our Second Amendment rights.
SPEAKER_00So Yeah, they did that a couple years ago when uh the uh government had all kinds of purchase orders that basically bought up all the nine millimeter ammunition, and us regular average citizens couldn't buy any nine millimeter ammunitions because the government had all of these procurement contracts for ATF for every every government agency where employees car carried guns, so we couldn't even get ammunitions. This is about what it was about 10 years ago, 15 years ago? So that did happen. Plus, you um you mentioned about you know the purse and the sword. Uh our founding fathers kind of had mixed signals about uh an army. They um they were leery of a standing army because of the British, right? But they also wanted a citizen army with the militia. So maybe that's why they put in the Constitution that the army was only going to be funded for two years. Um you know, in the uh Article 1, Section 8, it talks about Congress has you know just to fund the army for two years. That way they had some control over the purse of the army. Now I don't know if they have that today, but that was their original thoughts. What do you think about that?
SPEAKER_02Um Oh no, I'd say that's a pretty good observation. I also noticed that the House of Representatives, their term in office, that matches with that uh length of time that we can fund an army for. So, you know, once again, the armies, as you pointed out, according to the Constitution, Article 18 says armies can only be funded for two years. Well, also, um, all spending begins with the House of Representatives, or it's supposed to, anyways, and a House of Representative term uh lasts for two years as well. It matches up with that um that length of time that an army can be funded for. So maybe the thought behind that was if the army is infringing upon our rights, if the army is getting too power-hungry or we have a deviant ruler. Um the thought behind.
SPEAKER_00We'll we'll move on here again. In your book, you uh you talk about the connection between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Now, the time frame between those two documents is many, many years. I mean you had the con the Declaration of Independence signed in what seven seven 1776, and the Constitution wasn't ratified until at least a decade later. So what's the what's the connection between those two documents?
SPEAKER_02Well, I it's the Constitution, it makes mention of the Declaration of Independence. Um the Constitution said it was um it refers to the Declaration in Article 7. So how are they related? There were events um cited in the Declaration of Independence that were influential to our Constitution, such as with the uh the King's ability to fire judges at will. So judicial pay and their time in office were entirely contingent upon upon the uh they were fully contingent upon King George's will in our Constitution, and I'm just giving one example of here among many. Um in the Constitution, judges have life in office. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but maybe it's better than what King George had. Um presidents can appoint judges, however, they have to um make a group choice with the Senate to appoint those judges under the Constitution. So we have a president that's kind of like an elected king, kinda sort of, but he doesn't have sole power to appoint judges, and uh the appointment of judges was pointed out, or the uh or the corrupt appointment of judges was pointed out in the declaration of independence. Um there were several events listed in the Declaration of Independence that you know influenced our our Constitution. The Declaration is a historical uh document. It marks the separation of our nation away from Great Britain. Um but the Declaration of Independence is not the Supreme Law itself. The Constitution is very much a reflection on the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution is a document on how to uh correct all the wrongs that King George did. So that would be the relation between the two documents, in my opinion. That's my opinion, that's my interpretation. And uh I I don't know if you have any thoughts on that, Steve.
SPEAKER_00The uh wasn't there a philosophical background to the Declaration of In Independence heavily influenced by the works of John Locke. So the Declaration of Independence kind of had a a philosophical setting to it, uh, were the uh private property and the and the right, you know, the basically individual freedom and liberty and uh right to personal property, or the Constitution a decade later, did it still reflect those same philosophical concepts of like John Locke? Or there was somebody else at play there. Um the fear of uh excessive government was there because you mentioned about the separation of powers and stuff and the constitution.
SPEAKER_02Well, I believe that the Declaration of Independence was probably influenced by John Locke. I'd say a lot of it sounds like the Law of Nations to me, which was written by Emmerday Vittel. Um a lot of it was based on probably Aristotle as well. He wrote um politics. Aristotle studied hundreds of constitutions, but uh I I would say that I I mean there are hundreds of uh philosophical inspirations for the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, he was well read in pretty much everything I said.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I hate to I hate to correct the Founding Fathers, but in the Declaration of Independence, they talk about uh life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When really it should have been life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. What do you think about that statement? That was John Locke. Well, um Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property.
SPEAKER_02Okay, life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. Now, James Madison, the first proposed amendment to the Constitution, as far as I know, um, I read the Bill of Rights Debates uh transcripts in the annals of Congress. The first proposed amendment to uh the Constitution was to the preamble. James Madison wanted to say that all of us have a right to property with that amendment to the preamble, with this proposed amendment. Now the idea of that was shot down. Um it's not that the it's not that the other framers of the Bill of Rights were against uh that idea. They said that the preamble already means that by itself. So James Madison, James Madison, he wanted to add a more uh lengthier description to the preamble. He wanted it to be longer, but the other framers at the Bill of Rights debates, they said, no, no, no, that's not necessary. The preamble already means that without adding those extra words. But James Madison, the father of the Constitution, he wanted to add something into that preamble about the ability to obtain property. And uh, I think we went over that with our uh with our discussion on time, space, and uh freedom, breaking freedom down into those uh simple terms. We said that copy is necessary for liberty. You can't have liberty without property or without uh living space.
SPEAKER_00Well, I've mentioned the philosophical sources for these two documents. You talk about, you draw some sources from the Law of Nations, Congressional Transcripts, Black's Law Dictionary, and the Federalist Papers. How do these sources deepen a reader's understanding of those documents?
SPEAKER_02Um well, the law of nations, um that discusses some things about immigration that are popular today in our in the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, says that Congress has the power to define and uh punish offenses against the law of nations. And my belief is that's where we derive our immigration powers from in the U.S. Constitution. Uh the framers were very the framers uh were very inspired by Vittel. They knew exactly who Amr Day Vittel was, and uh they they felt uh if you want to learn more about what the term Law of Nations is, you want to read Emmer Day Vittel. Um, also in Emmer Day Vittel's Law of Nations, not only does he talk about immigration, he talks about all types of international matters, about which the contingencies should be for treaties, if we're trading for someone, about whether we should accept somebody's customs or not. So today we talk about Israel in the United States, and we have anti-BDS laws in our uh in many of our state governments, meaning that we can't, meaning that companies that contract with government cannot be involved in a protest against Israel. And there are some other nations there too, but Israel's just a common example that comes up these days. But Vattel, to address that situation, uh Vattel, if he were in office, according to his writings, I'm imagining if he were in office, he would not want us giving in to the cultural demands of Israel if we're developing trade relations with Israel. Because Vattel would say, we're the bigger, stronger nation, we have 300 plus million people, we develop this robust proven economy that's guided us through all types of uh circumstances from 1776 all the way through World War II, uh, before Israel was in existence. He would say that um he would say that contracting laws, he would say that uh government contracting laws should not be contingent uh upon these uh anti-BDS regulations that some foreign entity might be demanding. I don't know if it's um us that demands that or if it's them that demands that. Um but if somebody wants to contract with the government, they should be able to protest what they want to, as long as the protest is legal. Um, or as long as it's constitutionalized, I should say. So when it comes to uh trade negotiations, uh Vattel would say it would tell the United States not to give in to another nation's cultural demands in case we are trading with them. That's what Vattel would say, unless we happen to be in a weaker position. So um that's some of the stuff that comes up in Vittel's book. He talks about war, when to when to go to war, when not to. He talks about a lot of the same stuff that Aristotle talked about, too. He says that the purpose of uh society is to create the most happiness or the most pleasure in the society. Vittel and Vattel, Aristotle, and Thomas Jefferson all said that. Thomas Jefferson said that life, you know, men should be able to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And Aristotle said that that's the purpose of government as well. Um I don't know if we want government to uh help us to create this happiness, but we don't want government to infringe upon our freedoms uh to have that happiness. Uh but Aristotle said that the point of coming into a group or entering into a group contract, such as a society, society is a big group contract. The point of entering into that group contract is to create the most happiness with the most pleasure possible. Um well beyond some survival. Go ahead.
SPEAKER_00I'm for it it's my understanding that the Constitution, you know, we're we're a nation under the rule of law, and the constitution is it seems to be the basis of that law. But yet we had a Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, who bel who made a statement that uh our law uh can also be based on, or precedent law can also be based on the laws in other countries. To me, that doesn't sound like she's ever read your book or ever read the Constitution or taken the exercises. How can you have a Supreme Court justice believe that the United States should come under the law of other foreign countries? I don't understand that.
SPEAKER_02If that was the case, it would have to be some type of an interpretation of treaties. Now, now treaties they are law according to Article 6 of the document. So you have Article 6 in the Constitution, says that treaties are in fact laws themselves. In treaties, that that's one case where the president can generate laws. Of course, they have to be certified by the Senate. But maybe that's well, obviously.
SPEAKER_00Go ahead.
SPEAKER_02But I'm against what she she is saying. Um I guess you can have any law, but that's only as long as it doesn't violate the parameters of the Constitution.
SPEAKER_00Well, obviously, there's a gap in what uh Americans are being taught about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. What do you think is the the biggest gap in uh constitutional literacy among uh students in the United States? What is it that they don't understand the most?
SPEAKER_02Well, I mean, I I tried to hit that on the head with my book. People just have to read it. So again, that's why I wrote my book, and that's why I wrote it the way I wrote it, with these identification exercises. My book used to be called the Exact Volks Test before it was called the American test. Um, people have to actually read the Constitution. It's not really a good idea to listen to other people's interpretations and tell people have a good footing in that superficial text of that constitution. So that's it's such a simple idea, but people just don't get it. Um my book was made to uh motivate people to do that. You can take the electronic version of the American test, you can take the electronic version of the American test, and you can get a score and a certificate. And uh, you know, again, my test it forces people to read the Constitution. There's no way to get an 80 or 90 score unless you're well versed in the superficial text of the Constitution. Now, with other civics of education, when they ask questions, uh you answer about interpretations of the Constitution. You don't really have to verify exact quotes from the Constitution. You don't have to verify the text of the Constitution. Um and you know, one thing here's what we want to do. No. Here's what we want to do. If we're interpreting the Constitution, or if we're hearing interpretations about the Constitution, if we're hearing these philosophies, we want to see if these philosophers can even recognize the premises which they are basing these philosophies on. So if some uh constitutional wizard has this grand idea about the Constitution, if somebody comes out and he says he's the reincarnation of John Adams, for instance. I don't know if anybody would really say that or not, but you know, some people think that that they're just like John Adams or one of these rake founders and framers, or they act like they ought. I think it would be good to see if they could even recognize the text of the Constitution before we listen to their interpretation. And this is just basic stuff from geometry. If you look at the cover of my book, um, if you look at the cover, if you look at the cover of my book, there is a flag with geometric symbols on it. I designed that. Geometry really inspired me, um, it really inspired my ideas about the Constitution. But if somebody has a conclusion, they claim to have a great conclusion, you should greatly question that conclusion if they don't know the premises which they base that conclusion on. To have a great conclusion, you have to know the premise well. You have to know it incredibly well. Um, otherwise, your conclusion or your coordinate interpretation or your legal ideas in the uh state or federal legislature are uh not going to be good. You have to know the premises well, you have to know the ratified text of the Constitution like the back of your hand. Now I can go a little bit more in depth about that if you like, um, but but people have to be really well read in the Constitution. That's what the whole entire United States needs. So you have to be read well in the Constitution.
SPEAKER_00So I kind of feed that way. If you were going to um, I'm gonna cut you off again, sorry. Go for it. If you were gonna open up an educational institution that to teach your your book and your concepts, what segment of the population would you focus on, or what age group would you focus on to f to teach your your book, the American Test? Who needs it the most?
SPEAKER_02Uh probably 16 to 16 to 35. Probably it was intended to be a book. It's for a uh sophomore or senior in high school, or it's intended for people in the first two years of college. That's the age group that it's intended for.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, they have to have the capabilities to understand what you're talking about. Maybe the the younger, like fourth grade, fifth grade might be too too um too early. Probably a better book for them would be those twin series tips about the freedom and limited government. What do they call that book? The something twins? You've probably heard that. Yeah, um, no. Um I just so so so what about you mentioned you'd focus on uh like uh eighth graders or people in that uh age group. What other segment of the population would you focus on?
SPEAKER_02Well, uh, I'd like it for 11th and 12th graders and people in the first two years of college. Um I'd like it to be at about that age group because these people are going into the service, they'll be going into police forces and whatnot. Um, that's the education level, anyways, that um would be required to get through my book. So my my book doesn't require a doctorate degree to get through, but they need to have had a few English courses and and whatnot, as even though the Constitution is a small bit of uh material, um bit tricky, some of the sentences and whatnot.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. You know, it's important that we all you know continue our education. Uh I was a quality auditor for many years, and I'd I'd spent a lot of time as an adult going to a site called Khan Academy. If I wanted to learn about a particular process or a particular engineering uh skill, I would go to Khan Academy. It'd be nice if um you had the our our politicians, our our state and federal representatives and senators and stuff, if they could go to a site to learn about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence from your perspective, because I think there's a big educational deficiency right there with our uh elected representatives. I mean, they they're doing a terrible job of upholding the Constitution.
SPEAKER_02Well, um, I'd like to address political parties, the Libertarian Party, the Republican Party, Democratic Party, no matter what. Um, I think we might want to start doing this in the Libertarian Party. We might want to vet our candidates based on some type of constitutional test score. Um, because otherwise we just get into demagoguery. We're just um we're just uh basing our vote on their personalities or their ability or their ability to act in front of the public. I think that all congressmen should take the American test, and we should be able to see their score. We should be able to see the score of candidates. So if you have a candidate that's running for the Libertarian Party, and they get a 50% on this American test, uh we might want to question those. It's not time to learn the Constitution when they get into office. When they get into office, they need to know that Constitution like the back of their hand. And that's even if they're at the state level. They need to need to know the US Constitution and the State Constitution. The US Constitution applies everywhere. But uh they really need to uh know that Constitution like the back of their hand.
SPEAKER_00Well probably the place to bring this up to our representatives is when they're first campaigning for public office and they make their uh their campaign stops. Or when they're elected, they come back and they do these town halls. I used to ask uh representatives when they came doing a town hall, I'd say, what is the purpose of the Constitution? And I'd get all kinds of crazy answers. You know, nowhere near the fact that the the purpose of their constitution is to preserve and protect our inalienable rights. Nobody ever said anything like that. It's like, well, the purpose of the Constitution is to make sure that our kids are well educated. Or we need to make sure that uh all citizens have access to health care. I'm going, what? Where did you come from? What civics class did you take? You know, that really weird answers. So, yeah, uh-uh, your book is extremely important. And my final question is do you plan on having a a follow-up set of books that will teach the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Do you have any follow-up um books coming out?
SPEAKER_02No, I just really want to keep into this. I I think sometimes uh the writer who writes least likes best, and evidence of that can be seen with the Declaration of Independence. Um I could never write so efficiently as uh Thomas Jefferson did with 1300 words, I would be quite pleased with myself. Um I'll never be as good of a writer as he is, but I'm still gonna write the least impossible. I just want to keep the material to as small as possible. And uh I just make people read the Constitution and that's good enough for me. If I write any other books, there'll probably be some flapstick, uh belligerent comedy things that are uh the exact opposite thing of uh law and whatnot.
SPEAKER_00But that one takes time and effort to write a book. I I know that. And uh you currently have that kind of time and effort, or you have uh uh uh other things to do to make a living?
SPEAKER_02Uh you know, I've been uh working full time. Uh when I wrote my books and how I would do them, I would just open up my computer every night. Write one thing. I I my only goal would be to open up the computer desk change one thing or add one thing to it. Over a period of months, I was able to help one step at a time. Uh more consistency than it is. Yeah, right.
SPEAKER_00So you could write a sequel, but it would take take time, probably a matter of years before you get something out. Okay. Well, Alex, uh, thanks for being on the show today. You know, we're living in an era of massive executive overreach, judicial activism, infringements on just about every right that's outlined in the first ten amendments of our constitution, and a government so large that it no longer represents we the people. So a major takeaway from today's conversation is that a free society depends on citizens understanding the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If our elected officials read your book, answered the review questions, completed the writing exercises and quizzes, maybe, just maybe, we would have less government and more freedom. So thanks again for being on the show, Alex. And now a word from our glorious leader and the executive producer of Liberty Crack Media, Tripp Detmering.
SPEAKER_01Well, I want to thank Alex and Steve for another fascinating uh episode of Conversations with the Hoff, and everybody has got to get a hold of the American test U.S. Constitution. We will have links in the comment section of these podcasts to Barnes Noble, where you can get the American test, you can get the American Test Declaration Constitution book, you can also get the uh exam, uh, the test exam book, uh, the test exam answer key and the test exam book two gold standard of the American Social Science Sciences, all from Alexander Higgins. And you will have those links in our uh comment section. Again, I want to thank you two, and if you want to find out more and have more exciting podcasts, go to Libertycraft Media.com. Thank you, gentlemen.
SPEAKER_03Lean in close, got a question in a black coffee glow. From campus quads to the Capitol steps, we're talking who we are. What comes next? Conversations with a hove, where the big ideas kick the shoes off, liberty tradition, side by side, argue, laugh, and let it rise. Conversations with a hop, turn it up and turn it over in your mind. Tax to the hill or left alone. How much power do we lawn? Rise on paper. Rise in hand. Where do we draw that line in the sand? Conversations with the hall, where the big ideas kick the shoes off. Liberty tradition. Side by side, argue, laugh, and let it rise. Conversations with the hall. Turn it up and turn it over in your mind. Is it either off? Or in between? Old school roots and a freedom dream. Pull a thread. See what you find. One more question. We're out of time. Conversations with the hall. Where the big ideas kick the shoes off. Liberty, tradition, side by side. Argue, laugh, and let it ride. Conversations with the hall. Hit subscribe and take a little time to think it through.
