Transcripts For CSPAN2 In Depth With KrisAnne Hall 20170806

... ... ... >> there would be no federal government. the parties of the contract come together to make the terms of the contract design the contract, and ultimately sign the contract. in our constitutional republic, the states on the parties of the contract. there are some who teach that the constitution is an agreement between the people and the federal government. that is not true. it can't be true. we can show that to be false by one simple fact. how was the constitution ratified? was it ratified by popular vote? >> you cannot siren the contract into legal being until the contract -- is you don't exist until the contract is already signed. so the only party that existed that could be the creators of the constitution are the states. in the federal government did not exist until the constitution was ratified, which makes sense. so, states are the creators of the constitution. the constitution created the federal government, therefore the states are the creators of the federal government. >> so july 2, 1776 to, what, september, 1783. >> 1787. >> when the constitution was finally ratified. >> question had the articles of confederation in between there, but they proved to be faulty on several aspects. when you read the notes to the ratification and the corporations they had with each other you learned that they greatest difficult at the, the great e problem with the original articles of confederation was that the federal government was operating outside of its boundaries and didn't have enough direction. the great problem we had at that time was the federal government was making inequitable treats where one city or one set of states had to provide all of the resources and then a separate state got all the benefits. so, the states having just now formed this union with this understanding it's supposed to be mutually beneficial, who are having to foot the entire bill were like, wait a minute, this is not why we signed up for this, to transfer our wealth to another state. so we're not -- we are not going to comply with this treaty. which is a really big deal. because not only is a treaty an agreement, it's a contract with a foreign government. so, our states who are refusing to comply with foreign treaties -- and they were righteously resist because the treaties were inequitable for the member offered the state, were making a foreign government mad for breaking the terms of the crashing plus the states that were supposed to get the benefit were mad at the states that wouldn't pay, so, we have a problem now in the airlifts confederation, our confederation is about to split and we just got started, because we're about to go to war between the states on conflict, going to war with a foreign government, which is why we brought together the new convention to create our constitution, which is why our new constitution is called "the more perfect union." so, when we dissolve the articles of confederation, there's no more federal government. and the only government that-governments that exist are the states, and there would have never been a new federal government had not our current constitution been ratified. >> from your book, not only living, breathing document, reclaiming our constitution, published in 2011, you write: a common refrain these days is that we fell asleep. what that means is our ignorance of the history that brought us our american liberty allowed tyranny to sneak up on us. however, that was not the case for our congress. >> when we take the big picture -- and i mean the full scope of the history of our american constitutional republic, we have to realize that it didn't begin in 1787. that liberty was not invented in 1776. and tyranny was not invented by george iii. and when i teach a class called the genealogy of the constitutional, which is covered in the not only living breathing document book, we take the 700 years of history that give us our declaration of independence, our constitution and our bill of rights, and it is this history that proves to us that our constitution is built upon time-tested principles, axiomatic truths. they're not inventions. because when you read -- when you know history, you know there are five documents written. their called the british liberty charter. win those five documents, you find every single aspect of our declaration of independence, our constitution, and our bill of rights. not even just in principles. sometimes in the very language themselves. just taken from the documents and supplanted. we didn't invent anything in our foundational documents. we inherited everything. and it is that history that proves to us that our founders actually -- this is what may surprise some people, surprises everybody who attends the class or readded the book -- there is nothing now in america. this its not a brave new world. there's a popular belief that the constitution is irrelevant, inapplicable to today because our founders couldn't know what we're possibly seeing today. but when you study that history, you see that we are just repeating the same scenarios over and over again throughout time, even today. the same stories. if the same people with the same interaction of government just, just different faces and better technology, history always repeats, and i think the theme of that -- not only living breathing document book, is those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. >> you mentioned these classes. >> i teach all over the country. we teach -- is this year number seven for us. >> who is us? >> my husband -- it's a family endeavor so there's three of us, my husband, jc, and my son, our son, colton who has been traveling with us and teaching for seven years now. he's 11. so he is quite the traveled young man. he's been to almost every state any union to include alaska, but not hawai'i yet. he's praying for that one. and he has been to four countries. and so what i do is i tried around, we teach on average over 260 classes every year in over 22 states. and we don't solicited for classes. people e-mail us and contact us and say, come and teach us. i teach high school, middle school students, college students, we teach civics groups, business groups,. we'll teach anybody, and what people find, when we teach these classes, is that some conceived falsies have to fall it. teaching the fallacies. teaching the constitution doesn't label me in a certain group. what people find is that it doesn't matter on what political side you stand. the constitution is relevant to everyone. i taught a national conference of physicians and surgeons and it was very exciting hearing theirs comments afterwards. these are not people that you would thick generally carrying around their pocket constitution, you know, and they were so excited about what they learned, and i think that's what we find when we travel around and teach, is that this is an empowering message for all people. an inspirational message that overcomes a feeling of powerlessness. >> do you charge? >> we have mo speaking fees. >> oh due you pay for it? it's a lot of travel. >> it is. we have airplane tickets, rental cars, food, hotels, we have never had a speaking fee, never required anybody to compensate us for our travel or our expenses. we do this as a mission on our part. we're nor independently wealthy. we've never received a grant from anyone. we work soley off private donations, $20, $30 here or there and the sale of the books, and we're not out to get rich. this is -- our family is a family of missionaries. so when we're not teaching the constitution of the united states, we are missionaries to have the servant's heart, and i -- the best way i've heard somebody describe what we do here is we're missionaries to the people of the united states in defense of the constitution. >> from your web site and your bio, i was raided a democrat. the only thing more evil than satan was a republican in my home. was an environmental list, an ardent environmentalist, some of my best friends were members of green peace and i supportedded the world wildlife fund and peta. and i was a vegetarian by ideology, not for health reasons, for almost 15 years. i believed in global warming and defended it vigorously. i believed in the big bang and openly criticized those who believed in creationism as ignorant and misled. i supported abortion, and often openly condemned others for being pro life. i have argued with abortion protesters on the street corners, called them names i'm not proud of. i was not only not a christian but i practiced many other religions; i was bitter against god and figured only ignorant, weak people needed faith. was too intelligent to tao ode -- too educated. >> i've come a long way. >> what happened? >> i didn't have an epiphany moment. was as transformation process for me. i began -- you start with the beginning, in my household there was nothing more evil than a republican, satan himself. it was a very politically active household. my parents -- my father and his father and all his brothers are union people, and so our political ideology came from that union-born, union-fed, and when we die we're union-fed. that kind of thing. so there was no other choice, and in that paradigm there was also a very, very strong work ethic. so, if you want to be the right person you need to be, you need to be somebody who is willing to work hard and put in the time and put in the effort. my dad is one of the hardest working people that i know. he was able to instill that work ethic in me. so when it was time for know good to college, i put myself through school, student loans, jobs, and i worked really, really hard. i graduated with a degree in biochemistry, and i didn't have any granddaughter -- i didn't grad wade with delusions of grandure. i realized i had to start off at the bottom and work my way up. in doing so i started noticing the paycheck that there are these taxes coming out of my paycheck. being raided i was taught that paying taxes is your fair share, to take care of the elderly, to take care of the orphans to take care of the disabled, people who can't take care of themselves. but if i'm looking around and noticing, my community around me, i'm noticing that the same people who weren't working when i was in college, are still not working. not because they can't but because they choose and make choices not to. and i didn't think that is the definition of fair, because if taxes were about fairness, then the people who work hard, who have sacrificed to put themes in a better place, would have to pay less taxes. and so i started -- i don't have any problem with charity. >> then when i had family i began to realize that it's not the government wiping noses and cleaning up sick and the late night. it's not the government who is administering the discipline and it's not the government that is really ultimately concerned on what kind of person my child would become. that's a responsibility that falls on me and my husband. it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a family, and when i looked around in the evidence in my community, the children that were being raised by the government in the system were not children who were respectful, who were as a whole -- not respectful of their surroundings and respectful of what they had and of the community. you have the individuals, right? but for the most part, they didn't have the values that my family wanted to have. so i realized it's our responsibility. and then when i gave my life to christ, you see, my whole life was -- i'm a seeker of knowledge. that's just who i am. i always felt an emptiness inside of me, and so i tried to fill it with lots of stuff. like i said i've practiced all kinded of religions to fill that kind of emptiness in me, and it wasn't until i had a meeting, a spiritual meeting with christ, that i realized that only he could fill that emptiness, and in learning in that, i realized, finally, the proper role of government in the lives of the people. and so it's been a long process for me, and in that process, i've come to understand that a lot of things that i held to be truth and wisdom were just as much faith as the path i have and maybe even less faith than i have in -- i'm are so -- more faith to belief in those thing than i do to believe in god now. >> biochemistry, undergreat at blackburn college which is were? >> illinois. >> jd from the university of florida. how did those two connect? >> with a long period insure in the middle, actually. i joined the military in between there, and i was a russian linguist in the u.s. army, when i was in the military i broke my hip so i had to -- i was medically discharged for service-connected injury, and i had to have a total hip replacement, so, i have a hip that is 16 years old this may, and when i graduated -- when i got out of the military, where i met my husband, we moved back to his home town, and the opportunities to be a biochemist in the little rural area we were livingy, were very few and far between. had to drive over an hour, and that's not like commuting in d.c. where you sit in traffic for an hour. mean you're really driving for an hour. and it just became very, very hard to keep up that, and i really didn't feel like that was what i wanted to do anymore. so to fill in the spaces, because i'm not a person who sits still well, don't just sit, i can't stay at home and do nothing itch had to go out find a job. started working for a local attorney as a receptionist, secretary, just for something to do. and i noticed that i was doing a lot of his legal writing, and i was thinking, man, i'm doing all this work, he's collecting the paycheck. this is something i could probably do. and i discussed it with my husband, i was 31 at the time, and i was really sort of intimidated to go back to school at that time, and i said to my husband, is this something -- this is going to be a huge sacrifice for the family. we'll have once again college debt, i'm not going to be able to work full-time, have to be away from home, and he was -- my husband has always been so supportive. his favorite saying is, we'll do it or die trying. we'll give it a shot. i talked to my mom about and it i said, mom, i don't know. i'm so old now. why go back to school? she says, how long does it tike good to install i said three years, she said, well in three years you'll be three years older anyway, why not fill it with law school anyway? and so i did. and it was through the encouragement of a friend of ours, who was actually a childhood mentor for my son, he is -- he was chief of state attorney in our community, tom coleman. he also taught my husband karate in his teenaged years. i sat down and talked to him about this, and it was his encouragement finally that gave me the confidence to go. and when i went to law school, i knew what wanted to do right then and there. i was going to be a prosecutor. i was going to work for tom. be the guy who wears the white hat and fights the bad guys, and i never had a job interview while i was in college. in law school. i never had any ambition to go work for the big law firms. i knew i was going and what i needed to do. so we got it done. i was actually given special permission by the florida bar association in and the university of florida to become a certified legal intern to work for our state attorney's office before any of my classmates, because we're a small rural community, ands the attorney then, jerry blair, wrote a letter to u.s. saying we could use her help. and i actually had tried over ten jury trials before i even had my bar license, and it was such an amazing experience for me, and i think that is -- much to the chagrin of my husband, where my brain started changing. i had a very influential professor, named joseph little itch think he is retired now, too. he was my constitutional law teacher, and -- which is done in the first semester at law school, and he said we're not here to teach you the law. that's impossible. we're here to teach you how to think like lawyers. and then it snapped for me. i don't need to memorize all this stuff i can look up in books. i need to learn how to think, how to make this happen. it was the skill of being a linguist and learning document translation and learning to think like a lawyer, that made understanding the documents that the designers of the constitutional republic wrote, and learning how to apply them to the constitution as it's supposed to operate. >> let's get our viewers involved. this is book tv on c-span 2, and we invite an author to come on and talk about his or her book and their lives. this month it's author, activist, constitutional activist, krisanne hall. she began publishing books in 2011, foye "not a lifing, bringing document" came out that year. "bedtime stories for buddy patriots" came out. "liberty first, the path to restoring america" came out the next we're. "essential stories for junior patriots"? 2013. the most recent book is "sovereign duty" which came out in 2014 and there's a new children's book out as well,. >> two, actually. >> and too much going on here at the table. we'll get to those in a minute. want to invite you participate in our program this afternoon. 202 is the area code if you want to dial in and talk. 748-8200, east and central time zone. 202-748-8201 for those in the mountain and pacific time seasons. now, if you can't get through on the phone lines but want to make a comment, we have social media ways of getting hold of us and that includes twitter,@book tv, leave a comment there or join our facebook page at facebook.com/booktv. you'll see.krisanne hall at the top. we'll begin taking your calls in a few minutes. how did you decide you wanted to write a book? >> that's a really great question, because i can't even remember actually sitting down and thinking, well, let's write a book. when i look back over the last seven years, it all seems a bit surreal to me because this is not the path i chose. it was -- it feels like a path that was chosen for me, that we simply said, yes, we'll do this. and so it's funny, i think i would ask my husband if he remembers, but i saw a need. i think one of the things that i do -- i moon i think every individual has a gift, a unique gift in what they do. and one of the things i do is i connect dots. i am a dot connector. i'm able to look at a picture and see how it comes together, and then able to explain that in a way that people understand. instudying the constitution, not just simply what i learned in law school, because i learned as i started studying that we don't teach the constitution in law school. what we teach is constitutional law, which is -- has unfortunately become very different from the constitution. our constitutional law classes teach that our judges and lawyers know more about the constitution than the men who wrote it, and that after all it was written over 200 years ago, so it can't possibly be relevant today. so when i start reading what the design ired of the constitution wrote and the history that built it, realized that errant understanding of the constitution stems from an ignorance of that history and a lack of vision of all these dot connectors. and it's where we get this idea that the constitution is a living, breathing document. when i say that i mean the people who believe that the constitution is amendable by supreme court opinion or by legislative act or by the need of the modern times. obviously the constitution can be amended through article 5 convention under very strict terms, but there's a group of people in america who believe that the constitution is not a contract and it's not a set of standards, but a sort of guideline for the government that we try to follow. but i realized that understanding only comes when you extract the history and the foundation upon which our constitution is built, and when i started connecting these dots and seeing how obvious all of this is, the axiom whattic -- the ramifications of setting those aside are not unforeign seen consequence us but actually foretold warnings, and i thought, you know, we need to put this in writing in a way that other people can understand this as well. >> are you in favor of an article 5 constitution -- convention? >> a lot of people ask that question and it's a very interesting question. think it's oversimplified today. there is no, yes or no answer to that question. and again, -- i don't mean to throw your question back at you but when teach, you asked me, are you in favor of it? i don't teach my opinions. don't think my opinions are necessarily relevant in the history and application of the constitution. what i am more concerned about is how an article five convention is intended to operate. how did the designers of the contract envision this term in the contract to operate? and how will that operate in light of today's vision, errant vision at most of how the constitution is supposed to operate. so the sovereign duty back has whole chapter on that and i did a week-long series on the krisanne hall radio show, where i high lated that as well, where we talk about the article 5 convention and i've written several articles on my web site as well. >> well, some cover duty you right our framers anticipated the need amend the constitution as our awareness of liberty expanded and perhaps our need for government diminished. listen to thomas jefferson's view on amending the constitution: it appears clear that he felt it was needed but not to be taken lightly and this is a quote from thomas jefferson: i am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. i think moderate inperfections had better be born with because when once known we accommodate themselves to them and find practical means of crequeing their ill effect. now also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. >> absolutely. and that -- the quote actual continues to make an analogy that to force a man to wear the same coat as he wore as a child, would be the same as forcing a society to wear the same constitution it wore at its inception, and the -- >> not living, breathing necessarily. >> no, it is not, because there is a contractual manner and a specific term under which the modification is to take place. it's not based on a whim. it's not based on modern trends. it's not based on who ever is in political power, this party, this party in power at this time, this ideology taking control, that kind of thing. article 5 says, this is how we do this, and this is the only way it can be done. you cannot modify the constitution's terms by interpretation. the constitution doesn't need to be interpreted. it's not written in chinese. it means application as a contract would be applied, and so article 5 lays out those terms. if we are going to have a convention in this modern day, james madison was concerned about a future convention because he thought -- he actually says that the only reason we're able to have this convention work today is because we have just come from a bloody revolution, and the horror we have seen are keeping the delegates' minds focused on liberty and keeping them from diverting to personal gain, political gain, of his and greed. -- of extra his and greed, but he said i'm concerned bad convention in the future without such motivation, how would be keep those delegates on focus and how would be keep those tellings from -- delegates from being the people who made the problem being tasked with correcting the problem. so when answering the question should we have an article 5 convention, the answer must be based on the application of article 5 as its intended. why are we going to do this? what is our prepare? are we going to have a convention so we can expand the liberty of the people? when you study the chief reasons for the incorporation of article 5 and know the history, every single time that our founders, before they became americans -- they were british and they were in a kingdom. so every time they wanted to limit government, and expand liberty, they had to pick up the sword and fight a king. they gave us article 5 so that we could expand the liberty of the people and whim of the government without picking up a civil war sword, and so what we have to understand is the purpose of article 5 is for an enlightened people who need less government. not a mechanism to control an out of control government. >> before we go any further let's take calls calls and hearr voices. joan in newport news, virginia. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. this is my favorite show that you have, and it's an honor to talk to your author, and. wanted to ask her to please clarify the difference with the supreme court. for instance, obamacare, immigration, there's so many of us just see common sense. in books i've read about the constitution they're not supposed to make the law. they're supposed to interpret the law. and, you're very smart, so please tell me the difference between them not interpreting the constitution and making the law themselves and thank you for your time and i'm enjoy you very minute. >> that's a great question. when we are talking about the role of the federal government and the acts they create, there are certain lines -- certain lines of questioning that must be answered. first, is the authority delegated to the federal government to exercise that power? and then, second, are they exercising that power within the limitations of their delegated authority? with health care, there is no authorization, no delegation of authority to the federal government to exercise authority over health care. that is a power that is to be reserved to the states. james madison, who is -- has obtain the nickname the father of the constitution, who is also the fourth president of our united states, wrote a document that we call federalist 45, and he explains that delegation of power and the separation of power between the states and the federal government. he said the power delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. those that remain in the states are numerous and indefinite. he says the powers delegated to the federal government will be exercised principally on accident objects, foreign affairs, war, peace, negotiation on foreign commerce. he says the powers reserved to the states will include all of the powers, the lives, liberties, the properties of the people, the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state. so what we need to understand is if it's not been delegated to the federal government, it has been reserved to the states. health care is the lives of the people, the internal order operation of the state, the property of the people, which means it is very distinctly a power reserved to the states. the supreme court does not have a delegated authority to expand what has the power that has been delegated to the federal government. they themselves are limited by the terms of the constitution because the supreme court is a product of the constitution itself. and our modern supreme court has jumped outside of its constitutional founding. it has created in and of itself a power to determine the power of the federal government. you know what is interesting is that our founders actually anticipated a court system to do that and made comments on why that's not appropriate. and so health care is not a power that has been delegated to the federal government. therefore it is not a power that the supreme court can grant or sanction or the federal government either. we have three branches within the federal government. three parts to the federal government. legislative, executive, and judiciary. the judiciary is part of the federal government. if we continue to allow part of the federal government to define the power of the whole of the federal government, then what we're actually saying is we have an arbitrary government that is not bound by a constitutional standard, whose only limitation of power is what it designs for itself. if that is the case, then we must admit we no longer operate as a constitutional republic but as a banana republiccor a totalitarian kingdom. >> you write in the path to restoring america that many time his constitutional law classes distort and destroy a proper understanding of the constitution or shift itself its authority to courts and precedent. >> that's right. that's part of the unmooring of the constitution. what is interesting. when you study the history that built up to the constitution -- 700 years of government in a limited monarchy that was created by the anglosaxon community, back 1014, there's a trend of government in consuming more power and limiting the liberty of the people, and one of those -- i had mentioned earlier in the history class that we teach, there's five documents that create the constitution, the bill of rights and our declaration of independence. the fourth document is a document called the grand remonstrance and the preamble says the root of this -- a malignant and pernicious design to subvert the liberties of our kingdom. they're saying we have been watching government for about 600 years and beginning to notice a pattern, and this pattern of activity with government, whose only person is to overturn and undermine our liberty, can be identified and that pattern was the first step of government in taking liberty from the people and expanding the power of the government was always corruption of the court system. when you have court system that is not bound by the terms of the law, but only point by the -- bound by the ideology of those in power, you can change the law without rewriting it. there's portland about human nature. we trust judges to be fair and impartial, as if they're super human, they're not sort of -- they're not influenced by political influence or personal gain or greed. sometimes you put on a black robe and now you're a super hero and you're shielded from all out that. history says that's not true at all and it is the court system who becomes tied, much like the church, tied to the government first, and starts doing the bidding of the government, contrary to the liberty of the people. >> next call from mark in santa clara, utah good, afternoon, mark. >> good afternoon, hi. i left high school -- a big supporter of the truth you teach about the constitution. two-part question. multiple cities reveal that between 80% and 90% of all present day federal government activity anded and expenditures are unconstitutional, arguably criminal. would you please tell us what is the duty according to thomas jefferson of every state legislate in your this country concerning nullifying any and all federal government activities, federal laws in the particular state which violate individual rights of the people, and the second part of the question, talk about the unconstitutional nature of the u.s. supreme court rule, mulberry, the most destruct tough supreme court decision in history in which the court claimed the constitutional -- [inaudible] -- the federal government the fewer fully -- any act that choose this congress, executive branch and state and county and city laws. thank you. >> that is a fantastic question. there's so much there it's going to be hard to address it all. i would like to simply say, this is the whole reason that -- the answer to that question is the whole reason why we wrote the book "sovereign duty" and it's why i teach my state sovereignty class. james madison wrote in the document we call federalist 52 that there are two distinct spheres in government, the sphere of the -- at the state and local and the sphere of the federal, and in understanding those two spheres of government there is a separation of power there. he explained that separation of power in federalist paper 45. and what we have lost attachment to in america is the greatest check and balance on federal power, thomas jefferson explains in many of his writings that the greatest check and balance on federal power is not the federal government checking itself but the check of the states on the federal government. jefferson even says that if the states look on with apathy the gulf which is to swallow all, the term, the gulf which is swallow all is a you've million for washington, dc. he said we will become colonies in a kingdom rather than independent sovereign governments in a constitutional arraign. and that great check and balance is the authority of the state through the govern and the attorney general and the local representatives, through the authority of the sheriff, in their promise, their ole together defend the constitution of the united states, to say to the federal government, this power that you are exercising is outside the power we delegated to you through the constitution. remember, the federal government is the creation of the states. they are the -- the states are the master of the federal government by the nature are its creation, and our framers, hamilton, madison, jefferson, masons, all of these in our debates understood that it was the role and duty of the state to control its creation, by saying we want to remind you, you have been delegated this power and this power alone. what you're trying do is not a delegated power, therefore its usurped from the states and the people. and since you are stealing this power from at the tates and people, it is an unlawful exercise of power which makes it null and void. hamilton says this in federalist 78, jefferson says this quite a bit. maddison says that even the power of thank you judiciary cannot be above that of the states because the stays created the judiciary. in that, the proper response by those who design the constitutional republic, who designed the check and balance, the proper response to control the federal government is the states as individuals to say, this is an unlawful exercise of power being stolen from us, the states. therefore, it is null and void to us and we will not comply. and james madison call its inner position. it is the role and the duty hoff state to step in between an unlawful exercise of power by the federal government to the defense and the security of the lischs of the people. -- the liberties of the people. jefferson explains how interposition works, call nullification, nullification says a power examiner exercise by the federal government that is not authorized by the constitution is an unlawful power, therefore it is null and void. hamilton expressed it this way in federalist 78. he said no law, contrary to the constitution can be valid. it's simply the states stepping up and saying as your creator we have a responsibility to the people to secure their rights and lischs, liberties -- liberte have to limit your power so you don't become a kingdom again, and in limiting your power we're going to reserve our power and limit your power within our station. so your unconstitutional authority is null and void wind our states. we see that happening today in america. the states that have legalized marijuana wind within their states are nullifying federal lie. righteously nullifying federal law. what we need realize is there's no authority within the constitution that delegates -- i'm sorry -- there's no delegated authority in the constitution to allow the federal government to regulate plants or anything that we consume, ingest or issue hail. that was power created by the supreme court in a supreme court case about wheat. the supreme court said that because a wheat could possibly be a matter of commerce, and we have this commerce clause, therefore it is a power of the federal government to regulate the control of wheat, and through that they have the slippery slope of including everything in there, now we include marijuana in there. the supreme court does not have the authority to expand the power of federal government by opinion. that is what makes us a banana republic, a constitutional republic says even part -- whether it be the executive, legislative or judicial, no part of the federal government can expand the powers of the federal government beyond the constitutional limitations. this is the ultimate check and balance. the states saying, you're not authorized to regulate our plants, so as sovereign states we're going to operate based on the principles of the people of our state, and we will legalize this. and that is how it works. >> are you stilling law? >> i do not practice law. i have an inactive status which means that i still have e have my bar up in, when you're teaching 260 times every greer 22 state is can't take a case in the courtroom. it would not be fair for my client. could not dedicate that, and as much is a miss the courtroom, because i really do miss that -- the trial dish mean as a prosecutor, had more trials than most lawyers will have in their entire career. had more trials before my bar number than most law professors will ever see in their contrary. do miss the courtroom, the debates and the advocacy but i really, really feel a passionate need to do what we're doing now. >> from your book, the path to restoring america, it says that krisanne halls an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the constitution to tea party groups. what happened? >> well, when i started learning about the constitution, and realizing the difference between how the courts operate and how the constitution dictates they operate, and how the people see their government as opposed to how the government is supposed to operate, i felt something stir in me, and -- that inner natural fire that says, hey, this is not right. and so i started talking about it, and i got -- we have a supreme court justice in florida named fred lewis. at the time he was the chief justice of the supreme court and he is the reason why wrote that book, "path to restoring america." the took a poll of floridians and asked this question, without using any resources, without looking up on the computer -- just off the top of your head, i want you to name all five liberties of the first amendment. there are five liberties in the first amendment alone. and he found out through that poll of floridians that only two percent of the people polled could name all five. and that really disturbed me. here's the thing. if you don't know what your rights are, how do you know they're not already gone? and how are you going to defend your liberty if you cannot even define it? and so federalist started a program in florida called justice teaching where lawyers and judges, volunteer to go into the classrooms and teach on aspects of the first amendment and that's hough i got started. started teach neglect middle schools and high schools about the first amendment because it bothered me that -- we're not talking about kids. we're talking adults, cannot tell you the five liberties of the first amendment. and so i started teaching in the classrooms and news traveled a bit. when i was working as a prosecutor, we had a unique opportunity -- two you eek opportunities that came into play at the same time. we had the chance to adopt colton. i wanted to be able to stay home and be with my son. and the second unique opportunity came to work for a law firm that specifically focused on first amendment law, and i could be a digital employee, which means that the firm worked out of tampa, which is two and a half hours from my house. i was able to stay home and be with my son for the first two years of his life and still do what i do, and that's where a passion -- my passion for the constitution actually really, really started to develop, the study of constitutional law in its application was just a glaring alarm juxtaposition the intend of the founders and so in that position with the private law firm, i was also doing a bit of traveling across america, representing people who had been arrested for handing out fliers and pamphlets, public, protesting, holding rallies and stuff that the local governments didn't know because they didn't understand the constitution either. and i also instructed schools and school boards, and how to maintain the rights of the students because our students have a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of expression within the public school, even the department -- the u.s. department of education recognizes that a student in a public school can have bible studies, they can write about their faith if it's relevant to the subject. they can hand out religious materials to their classmates in between classes. if the school allows them to wear superman or pokemon on their t-shirts they can wear jesus and religious things on their t-shirts as well. so we were busy advising the schools on that. when my term with the constitutional law firm ended i went back to work at the state attorney's office, and in my small rural community, the word got around what was doing professionally. i our local school board asked me to come and speak to them. they wanted to hold an invocation before school board meeting but wanted to make sure they were compliant with the florida constitution and the rights of the people and their freedom of expression. so we sized them how to include all religious invocations in a rotation schedule for theirs invitations and to include everybody in the community, because if you're a public school, you collect taxes from everyone, your views have to reflect everyone in the community. otherwise it's tyranny. and so what we did in doing that, i started getting invitations from private civic groups. come teach us about this. we want to know more. it's 2009-2010 and there's sort of an awakening of constitutional -- the need of constitutional understanding. and i was working for a state attorney at that time who didn't agree with how i was teaching the constitution nor who i was teaching it to. he told me i had to quit teaching, and i was doing this all on my own time. didn't do anything to interfere with he job, didn't talk about the case, didn't talk about anybody at work. he just simply said, you can work for me or you can do this. and after practicing first amendment law, i realized that was not the right decision that i had to make. and here i am. in... >> host: hug h, thank you so much for holding on. go ahead. >> caller: thank you, c-span for having this forum and also thank you to krisanne for her military service and ongoing important service to the country to keep your freedoms. i would like you to comment on two things. american indigenous people and how the constitution can help them, treaties keep being broken and you saw what happened in standing rock related to the reservation. and the other thing is how she got her ministry started forivatfor haiti. i would like to help in that regard to something that would be powerful all the way around. >> thank you very much for your service as well. what we have to recognize is i think we have to recognize is these are the results of the blurred lines of the operation of our federal government as well. american people do not constrain the federal government to it's power and in that it is doing a lot of things it should not be doing. and not precisely what it should be doing. what we have perhaps forgotten in america is the native american communities are sovereign governments. they are not part of the united states. when we created the united states, we allowed the indian nations to be within our border. that is how the federal government can make a treaty with an indian nation because it is like making a treaty with france, spain or germany. the problem, as you alluded to is that america is not keeping their treaty. we are violating the contracts with the native american communities. and a proper understanding of the constitution and how the federal government is supposed to work is essential to making sure that the federal government is doing what it promises. and when i say federal government, i think we do a disservice. it is your congressman failing to uphold the treaties with these foreign nations that we call the indian nation. it is your congressman who is not keeping the promises. it is our president's over deca decades who are not keeping these promises. we as a people must understand that our federal government doesn't have the authority to invade the borders of an indian nation any more than we have the authority through the federal government to invade canada or mexico or france or germany. it is the dissolving of the lines of jurisdiction that has become in controlling the government. i am thankful about the mission to haiti. if you want to know more, high husband's website is jchall.org. we are a unique mission team through a group called islander evengelistic ministries. we take sail boats from florida to haiti delivering humanitarian aid, supporting the economy locally than just bringing in stuff. the u.s. government dumping rise and other things into the community. haiti was one of the largest rice supporters in the region. now because we dumped so much rice into haiti the local rice farmers can't compete with free. we try to educate and teach the people to be self sufficient to be economically and business minded and we help them build themselves in independence from the ground up. we also are christian missionary so we bring the gospel and help build a church. we just recently built a huge church in a little fishing village called sue let on an island off the coast of haiti. it was such a blessing. cinder block structure with a tin roof and completed right before hurricane matthew hit. when the hurricane came, these are little villages mind you who have no water and the women have to walk two miles with a five gallon bucket for their water for the day. there is no electricity. ome the electricity that can be provided by the generators that don't exist in many places. even a couple fishing and we helped build it. we are not government funded. >> our website is krisannehall.com. and we teach a lot and we want you, if you think you might come and teach, you need to contact us now. my friend janet who was also my assistant does all my scheduling and she will get you in as soons possible. we launched a forum called liberty first university because for six years we have had to turn down invitations to come and teach because it is just me. i am already maxxed out. it is a heavy burden on the family to travel like that. we have had to turn down teaching opportunities because we can't handle the schedule. so, for six years, liberty first university has been a dream for me. and that dream has been reinforced by people who said to me krisanne, put something online so we can learn from you without being here and libbert libertyfirstuniversity.com is that. these are classes worthy of the highest institutions of learning teaching the constitution, american history, world history, government, civics, philosophy, the bill of rights, all in a manner that is historically accurate as if those who were writing our constitution were teaching it themselves. so we have that available at libertyfirstuniversity.com. this is starting today. >> host: from your book, liberty first, you write i for one will not send my young son to government schools. it is a sacrifice that our family has decided to make. i prefer my child's mind to be protected more than i need to have cable or the fanciest car or latest gadget. but if your child does attend government school, you must protect them from brain washing. it is your duty. >> we have, and this is very sad to say, it breaks my heart as an educator, we have an education in america that is now more politically influenced than ever. more ideology influenced than ever. we have left behind history and fact and we teach opinion, we teach political correctness, and we teach what we want our students to think instead of teaching them how to think. and that is a very disturbing thing for me. i have, because of what i teach, i have people sending me the textbooks saying read this section on american history and tell us what you think. it is absolutely mind-boggling what we are teaching our students today about the foundation of america. my daughter went to college in maryland and she told me about one of her classes. they spent more time talking about alexander hamilton's affairs, or george washington's affairs and how alexander hamilt hamilton's battle with burr than they did about the constitution w and who these people are. not only that, we teach in your schools that the women who founded america were non existence. our history books teach that these women couldn't be because they were not respected by the men, oppressed, treated as ir l irve irvelevant portions of society and kept in a lower part of society. that is so disturbing to me because i know these women. the first american woman playwright every wrote shakespearean plays that were published and performed in the american revolution. she said i have to write this history because i lived it. she didn't write it in a skew that defied those who fought for independence. ana wrote her a scathing letter because she didn't enjoy the way she portrayed certain events. but mercy was an important confident and advisor to many of the men. to thomas jefferson, james madison, george washington. you have mary led wig hayes who some americans might know as molly pitcher who was given a non-commissioned officer status by george washington for her fight in the revolution. you have people like prudence wright cumming, these women who created local militias to guard their families from the british troops that were invading their homes and violating their families and burning and stealing and looting. and it was her militia group that actually captured two torey infiltrators coming into the community and got very important classified documents for our battle for liberty. these women were so involved and so respected and we deny them their honor so that we can -- i don't know. i think it is wicked. america today has a new found love for the power of women. we are wanting to champion women and who they are in a society like that. prudence wright cummings, abigail adams, and others. why aren't we recognizing these women who believed so much in the quality of all people that liberty is for all. they were willing to sacrifice this so we can achieve this. i think it is terrible and our history books are purposely ignoring them and teaching us that the constitution was written by a bunch of elite, rich slave owners whose only purpose in independence was so they could consolidate power to themselves. ignoring the men and women, the black men and women, the freed saves who became a part of our liberty movement so that they could ensure their children became free. america is not unique because of of our houses and cars and opportunity. america is unique because we were founded among the principle that all men were created equally with certain rights. that is what they believed in. our history denies the memory of christer addict, a free slave who was a whaler for the merchant marines. the first man to give his life in our battle for independence through the boston massacre. it is not like these people are not written about and i am pulling this out of thin air. there is a whole poem written about the boston massacre. it says honor to chris addict who was leader and voice that day. the first to defy and the first to die. call it riots or revolution, his hand clenched at the crown and his feet first in place to pull the king's flag down. freedom now and forever. his head was first laid low. call it riots or revolution or mob or crowd as you may and such lives should be honored. they believe we would be honoring him today, forever. but homeland people in america know this name? or george middleton or peter sailman? or phyllis wheatly? these people who sacrifice their own personal station and comfort. a new found freedom. how many americans know there was a provision that if you were a slave, and by the way the slaves were black, white, irish, chinese, everybody. the majority of the slave population in the founding colonies were english white people how many know tlat sta t the states that said if you want to fright freedom you are a free men forever. we had a cultural change that happened in the mind and hearts of people and that doesn't come through violence and wars. it comes from teaching liberty and seeing it and wanted it for yourself. who better to fight for liberty than a person who is a slave but when we deny them history, we deny the fact there is some men who gave their only free breath so you and i could sit here and talk about it today. >> host: you are listening to krisanne hall, author and attorney who is our in depth guest. the next call is from imperil, missouri, it is anita? >> caller: hello. >> host: hi, please ago ahead, ma'am. >> caller: ms. hall, i live in northern jefferson county which is a suburb of the st. louis region. but my congressional representative in the u.s. house, i vote along with people half way across the state in the lake of the ozarks. the united states has been jerry mandered by the republican party and there is no way the republican can be anything else. i am worried about your democracy from the standpoint of jerry mandering and wondering your thoughts on that and what you think we can do it about it. >> guest: i would say if you look at the big picture throughout history, you will see you can't really point one finger -- you point a finger at one party or another. i am very washingtonian as far as political parties are concerneded which puts me at opposition with the republican and democratic party. george washington under the constitutional republic gave a farewell address and actually warned against political parties. he said it would be the destruction of liberty in america. i think what we have now is the jerry handering that described is being done and you are just feeling the influence of one particular party over another. i would tell you, wait a few years and that will probably change as history dictates. i think that is the symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. george washington tells you the problem is we have become a two-party system and the american parties lost the identity. i wonder how many americans understand that the democrats or republicans not agencies. the democrats and republicans are private corporate clubs. that is why you have all of this controversy over the preliminary elections. the primary elections before we get to there general elections. primary elections are not civic functions. primary elections are where each corporate club where the members are to chose who will represent this in a general election. the unfortunate reality is we have modeled the private club with tax dollars so it a quasi-government function where the taxpayers are paying for an election that is supposed to occur within the body of a private corporate club. because we limited ourselves to two private corporate clubs generally speaking with every once in a while, a third party or independent creeping in we have private clubs that dictate to us elections, laws, politics. it is part of the reason why we think that the president of the united states is the leader of america because the president of the united states has become less of a representative of the state and more of a leader of that political party. when the political party wants their candidate to win the office of the president it is because they believe that is now the leader of the political party. so what we have to do, once again, is ensure that we are getting back to the proper role and placement of the government, the proper legislation of the constitution we are oprerate an it is based on their qualifications and their character. on who thai as an individual, who they lived their life to be an individual as part of history and knowledge rather than electing people based on their party affiliation. liberty over security, principle over party, and truth over personality. if we could stick to those three principles, it is okay to have a political party but you have to make sure that principles come first over personalities in order to maintain a just government. if we can gain a proper perspective on who political parties are than the people themselves would have better opportunity to control what happens. >> host: barbara is in huntington station, new york. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for your work, chris christkrisanne, and sacrifice involved. i am so excited to hear about liber liber liberty university because he heard you speak and wanted to bring you back and heard it would take two years before you could come back and speak to us. my question for you today is our founders put the right to religious freedom first of those five freedoms and i am asking how important did they feel religious freedom was to our country and how does coincide and work with the phrase separation of church and state. >> guest: thank you. that is a wonderful question. the reason it is first is because it is not just a religious right to practice your religion. it is liberty of conscious because our founders knew that if any government could kickitate to you how you think and who you worship then you have no liberties at all. one of our founders who was a delegate in the first state convention was john witherspoon. he was the president of the new jersey college. you should look at his history. he taught so many of who would become our america. he said throughout history you will never see a nation who sacrific sacrificed obtain any religious liberties. if we can be dictated in our thought process, and the most bases of the fundamental rights is our belief, then we will enslave ourselves in our minds to match the dictate of government and enslave our seflz to mind to what we cannot see. it is the worst form of slavery. self imposed slavely. unfortunately, because we don't teach the history of our constitution mostly at all, but when we do accurately, we believe that separation of church and state is something that is hystistorically never been. since the year 300 and through our liberty charters that created our bill of rights, separation of church and state, first codified in the 1100 charters, was a promise that the government would stay out of the church. henry the first is the team during the authorering -- authoring -- says if the government is influencing your church you have an evil and oppressive government. we don't have oppressive government so it is separate. separation of church and state is not a protection of government but a protection of the church and protection of the conscious and freem of the conscious of the people. it is always meant the government has no business in your church. but it has been only since our most recent misunderstanding, and i think that has a lot to do again, with the way the supreme court operates outside of history and application based on personal interpretation and politics. we have come to believe separation of church and state means god has no business in public discussion. that is actually if you look at that, it is a very radical form of belief because the standard has been separation of church and state says the government stays out of your religion and church. that was necessary to make sure people remain free and have liberty. because we don't understand separation of church and state thing, like i mentioned before, we have public schools and administrators who unconstitutionally, unlawfully, limit the speech and constitution. it is understood that our students do not check their right simply because they attend the government school. there is a student bill of rights that is available through the department of education and the alliance defending treedm is another organization that created a pamplet and i use and pass out. we have the catholics freedom of religion, liberty council, we have all of these people who are fighting for the understanding of religion freedom. that is what i love about what we do. i am not here to be the defender of all rights. i am an educator. >> host: one thing we like to do with authors on booktv is ask them to send enwhat they are reading. our conversations and calls will continue after we look at krisanne's hall list. >> here is a look at some of the best selling non fiction books. the glass castle tops the rist, and preorders for hillary clinton upcoming book, what happened. followed by mark manson's advice on leading a happier life. fourth, jd vance recalls this childhood in hillbilly eligibility. and neil degrasse tyson explores theb universe and phys physics. continuing on with dangerous, from former editor, milo. followed by al franken's memoir. and facebook ceo and psychologist adam grant provide their advice on moving forward after facing set backs in option b. and retired navy admiral 2014 graduation speech to the university of texas, make your bed. and wrapping up the list at amazon's best selling non fiction book is devils bargain about the relationship between president trump and steve bannon by joshua green. some of these authors have or will be appearing on booktv and you can watch them on our website, booktv.org. [music] [music] >> host: krisanne hall, what about the constitution? >> guest: it is the primary sour source. it is because he was delicate. he takes in the discussion and our founders relied on a man named black stone and his understanding of english and apply it to this new form of the constitutional republican. it is unfortunate wedon't teach that. we traded that for a treaty written by joseph story which is a federal centric and often missed application of the constitutions intent on the power of government. >> from our facebook page, joe eldrid, you seem to be suggesting a continuitey between the declaration of independence and the constitution. but many argue the constitution of 1787 was a betrayal of the revolution of 1776. do your curses include the work of 19th century and the social constrain constraints. it is specifically designed for this. i limit myself to original source documents which mean when i look, i look for both documents written by the people who lived them. not the interpretations of what is going on. the caller has valid points but -- and the foundings -- founders wrote this. it was important to determine well maybe i agree with this and maybe i don't. >> e-mail here. what is your opinion of 2014 standoff in oregon? do you agree with the idea it was a federal government land grab? >> i think the fact she is asking for my opinion and i appreciate that but when you see moi most important is how would the designers of the constitution republic see what our federal government is doing with land in the west. that is the part that i teach. we have a group of citizens who are exercise their right to petition the government for readdress of their grievancgrie. they have a right to protest as long as no one is hurt and no property is damaged. but we also have to understand the federal government once again has a limited and defined authority in landownership. and national parks is not a delegated authority in the constitution. t the federal government to form land, and that is article one, section seven the federal government owns property. magazines and needing this. section clause 32 further defines the article one clause and says of that property that the federal government owns this is the authority they have over their property. the constitution says it it is not a magazine or people building to run those three. there is no territory held in tru trust. they were saying the property and authority exercises by the federal government. it is specifically very clear and it is very clear. it is only when we leave and extract to wrote those dockms how much they wrote it. it is guaranteeed -- guaranteed the federal government can write this. he played with the writing on the land government but he was clear it was the government. we said the federal government has no authority over that land. it can never return to the federal government. >> host: jeff holly, facebook comment. on a hundred years of expansion of the federal government, have we passed the tipping point of return without a revolution? >> guest: that is probably my most asked question every where i go. are we too far done? here is the interesting thing, if we had the constitution in history, we would know exactly what we need to do. we would also know that we are not too far done. to be totally honest, we haven't even begun to correct the wrongs. our framers gave us a plan, a course of action to take when the federal government comes outside it's limits and defined box. when we teach the constitution there is a history it repeats. they relied on that history as wisdom to create a security in the government. patrick henry said i have one lamp in which my feet are guideded and that is by experience. alexander hamilton said experience is the oracle of truth and where its responses are not equivalent they are held to be conclusive. einstein said if you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results that is the definition of insanity. you know they anticipated maybe with this liberty because with liberty always comes prosperry but with the prosperity stemming from liberty the people might become pacified. in that moment, government will take more power with the permission of the people quite oft often. that is what we do in the book and couldn't put all the steps in place right now. as samuel adams said, the knowledge and virtual of the peop people. the control of the state and local government, and the use of state and local government do is control the federal government. one of the greatest gifts the designers of the constitutional republic gave us is the refusal to govern. we have become so federal centric that we now look to the federal government to solve all of our problems. they are the source of the problem and the solving of the problem must occur state and local. i don't teach my opinions but if someone were to ask me in my ideal world people would be just generally concerned about federal election. all of our political influence, support and time would go into the election of state and local governments because that is where all the power exists in the hands of the people. if people just understood how powerful the office of the sheriff is in the defense of our libbert liberty, we could change america's course back to a liberty centric place instead of a federal centric place in just a matter of years. >> host: and from her book not a living document, krisanne writes a common refrain is we fell asleep meaning our ignorance all allowed tyranny to sneak up on us. next call comes from peter in renton, washington. >> caller: hello, my name is peterson. i just want to ask a question. judges have the authority to determine whether an executive order issued by the president can take affect or not. >> guest: i think the best way to understand that is determining the position of the supreme court. i think we should start off by saying what the supreme court does not do. the supreme court does not make law. supreme court opinions are not the law of the land. for us to give supreme court opinion, the authority of law, we are actually violating one of the most fundamental principles of our constitution republic of separation of power. law making is reserved to the legislative branch so the laws reflect the people through equal representation. we did not elect anybody on the supreme court nor can you unelect anybody on the supreme court. what we need to understand is how supreme court opinions work. not how we view them or interpret them to work but how law really works. a supreme court court opinion is only binding on the people in the courtroom. the parties of that case. and it is only binding on the parties of that case as long as it is consistent with the constitution itself under article six, section two, even the supreme court of the united states jurisdiction is limited by the constitution itself. the question is can the supreme court determine whether an executive order is lawful or not? the answer is yes, but the questions is what is the supreme court's opinion on whether an executive order is lawful or not consistent with the powers delegated within the constitution? so you would ask yourself as the supreme court is sitting a judgment over the executive authority. first and foremost, if the executive authority consistent with the constitution? is the supreme court making its opinion based upon the constitution or their own political ideology. the supreme court doesn't nullify an executive order. it determines that its activity is inconsistent with the law. it is then up to congress to come and be the check and balance on that. if the supreme court's opinion is outside the jurisdiction, it has no authority at all. i wish there was one thing we could change about the way we speak about the supreme court. you quite often hear people say the supreme court ruled today. courts don't issue rulings. kings do. courts issue opinions. if we understood them in their proper application as opinions that are only binding on the people in the courtroom, and only binding if consistent with the constitution, then we would have a better person of the role in place. ..... >> host: 748-8200 for the east and central time zone. 748-8201 in the mountain and pacific time zone. we'll also scroll through our social media addresses so you can contact us via social media. next call from sean in hawai'i. go ahead. >> host: i hope you make it here some day. i. >> caller: i just have one dilemma. we were illegally overthrown in 1898 but the resolution passing congress on june 7th, signed by mckinley. we became a territory of the united states, finally becoming a state, the last state in the union. now hawai'ions are still seeing were illegally overthrown from the prior. how do we regain back hawaiian property, rights, land, from the state we are in now a part of? >> host: sean, are native hawaiians, hawaiian descended people, do they have any extra state rights at all? hawai'i? >> caller: um, yes and. no it's based on blood quantum, but up in the air now because of the interbreeding. there's only one islandwest live pure hawaiian and the island is privately owned bay family. so we don't have any -- outside of clinton saying, sorry, when he was president, a formal apology, we have not had any restitution given back to us. >> host: thank you, sir. krisan hal, any response for that cal center sunny think one of most valuable things that hawaiians right now can recognize is that hawai'i is a sovereign government within the union of the constitutional republic. they're no longer a territory of the federal government. they exist now within themselves as a sovereign government. the constitution was created -- the union was created through consent. from its ven inception the only way you became a part of the union was that the state itself consented to be part of the union. in the history of our constitutional republic, we invited parts of canada -- what we now noes canada -- to become part of the united states, part of our union, and they declined. the only way you legally become a part of the union is through consent. the argument now that i hear is that those hawaiians did not consent but were conquered. but here's the good news. because you are a sovereign government, because our union exists, in a consensual nature of sovereign government, not a mandate, not a conquer, but you choose to be here, as a sovereign government, you can choose to go longer be a part of us if you don't want to. a lot of people would refer that to secession, and that is an issue that becomes controversial. how can a state secede? no state has the trying secede. of course extra tate can secede because we did not form this union based on mandate. it was formed on consent. if we would just simply look on a global perspective, the united states of america is quite like the european union. a union of sovereign governments coming together for their mutual benefit. great britain, being a sovereign government, a former member of the european union, decided they no longer wanted to be part of the european union, and that it no longer saw the benefit of it so they left the european union. they had the right to do that because they were 0a sovereign government. the union of our states is not created differently than that. matter of fact the european union is a picture of the union that we created in the union of our states in our constitutional republic. so it has to be a matter of consent, because if you deny a state its liberty to remove its consent, then your state is no longer a state. it is now a colony in a federal kingdom and we are not a republic but a kingdom itself. >> host: krisan hall, let's say something is watching this today and goes to your web site and wants to invite you to speak to a group. school group, civic group, whatever. when is the first available date? >> guest: oh, i don't know. you'll have to talk to -- i encourage them to actually fill out the speaking request form because janet -- >> host: wouldn't be tomorrow or next month. >> guest: no. no. probably be 2018. we're coming towards the end of the year, and remember, in november, our haiti mission begins. so november and december and the first part of january we are in country in haiti. so you don't have to rush and put something together. we, work in 2018 and build it up and get a good crowd or get what we need to satisfy the school district to be in there, or i have a class that i teach that is specifically geared towards law enforcement. a three-hour course on the constitution. this is actually one of the -- a unique course. my course i teach law enforcement actually does deal with supreme court case law in the realms of first, second, and fourth amendment issues. and so if you have somebody that wants know teach that course, you can call me -- sign up through the form. janet knows where i'm going to be. and she has all -- always tries to block at least a week in a certain location so we can get many, many meetings, and as she is blocking them, there are always open days. so it will be 2018 but it may not be may. it could be april because we're already slotted to be in your area for a week. >> host: next call for kris zap hall from james. >> thank you to booktv and c-span. miss hall, aim a fellow colleague in tampa, florida, i work in real estate law and we appreciate what you're doing for us, ands i said to call screener, which i kind of evolved a little bit during your course of action here, i just want to get your feedback on the overall control of the healthcare issues that we have witnessed over the past week, and also to get your take on being that your mother -- what you think about vaccinations and it was just on msn today about government is cracking down on parents that refuse vaccination, and thank you for taking my call, and p.s., jana and i have been in church and if you ever come to tamp passion florida, you have a host ready to host you. >> host: james, two questions. what is your take on the vaccination issue and the healthcare issue? >> caller: well, i run several radio shows as well, bank versus utv, big pharma versus utv, and frankly, it's like everything else that is good, i feel it's been usurped. feel it's a big pharmaceutical companies have really taken advantage of money over health. i don't have a problem with someone that is in a profitable business, say, horse and buggy whips, but when you're going to be in the business of human health care or even animal health care, i think you need to put the profitability side aside and i will interject to you that we noticed that congress and the house voted last week on the fd as -- i'm going to use the air quote -- extortion on the fda taking kickbacks off or higher-end medical equipment, being manufactured and sold, and then taking a tariff off each time a patient is, say, given a cat scan. i don't want to get all nasty here, but at the end of the day, we have been usurped. we have been extorted and it's time to give control back to at the people, the local municipalities. i have a lot of people that are encouraging me to run public office and some night is say my prayers and ask god to give me strength, and i did do air your shows on my internet tv. i've been the touch with janet, and in closing on that, i'm on the fence. if i wore to be elected to office, i would not sway but i think we need to get rid of the good old boy network. >> host: james, thank you. >> guest: when we're talking about the federal government we must first ask the question, what is the article, section and clause that delegates that authority to the federal government to exercise that power. there is no delegation of authority within the constitution for the federal government to have a food and drug administrationment they have no authority to regulate our food, our drugs, or anything that we consume or grow. this is clearly a power reserved to the states. the interesting thing is, when you study the ratification debates and the chief discussion that was happening, pro and con, of the constitution, the greatest objection to forming the union through the constitution was that the states would lose their sovereignty; that the federal government would become a kingdom and the states would be reduced to tributeary colonies. is was through the discussion between what we call the federalist and anti-federalist papers we understand, especially in the 40s section of the federalist papers, firstist 45, james mad disson is assuring the states, your sovereignty will not be usurped. you will retainure reserved power. those reserved powers were all the affairs of the lives, liberties, properties of the people, the internal order and improvement and prosperity of the state. madison was ensuring us -- assuring these states that the federal government has a very limited and fine power but will never, ever intrude on the domestic affairs the states in this way. we know that this must have been accepted to be fact because had this one point, in particular, not be accepted as fact as the driving fact of our constitutional republic, those states opposed to the constitutional republic would have never ratified. if they had not the assurance they're powers would be reserved. so the federal government not having policy through the constitution to regulate food and drugs makes the fda an unconstitutional, unlawful exercise of power within the jurisdiction of the state. the federal -- knowing that, the federal government cannot possess a lawful power to mandate vaccinations, cannot possess a lawful power to mandate health care, cannot possess a lawful power to insert attacks on the people to pay for health care, and i think what you mentioned about the pharmaceutical companies, is another symptom of our federal government out of control. there's a big argument today against capitalism. capitalism is not the problem. what we have is corporateism today. we have the federal government picking winners and losers through political lobbying and kickbacks and fund offering certain products and certain corporations, but what is really happening in america. so our corporations for most part are not ruled by the free market society because of this unlawful exercise of authority by the federal government. so, that is what we need to do. you're right, we need to return this power back to the states so the people of the state can make sure that their state reflects their principles and their beliefs. >> host: facebook comment, dylan: the comment i'm hearing most often from miss hall is we don't teach, et cetera, et cetera. perhaps the problem is that students or citizens are not interested in learning about the constitution as much as miss hall. these are abstract concepts and sometimes difficult to teach and motivate students to learn. >> guest: the thing -- the first thing would agree with is these are not abstract concepts. these are axiomatic truths, and you can only believe they're abstract concepts because we're not teaching the history that proves they are truth. they're unavoidable truths. they're things that happened throughout history, over and over and over again. here's not unseen consequence. they're exactly walt we note. like patrick henry said, lamp lights or future and our path. our path and our history is our greatest teacher. would challenge him to say it's not the duty of the student to want to learn. it's the duty of the teacher to make him hungry to learn. we have been dumbing down our students in classrooms filled with mandates and boredom and remember these dates and names, without teaching that these people will lie. we're talking real live tv drama in the 1600s who got brothers killing brothers to become king. we have kings putting people in high towers because they won't pay their taxes. we've got freedom of speech being interrupted, kings outlawing plays and stuff like that. i think the deficiency is not in the heart of the student but in the pacific of -- at the passion of the teacher. i teach students from 6 to 96, is my old e student so far, and i teach a fire-hour work -- five-hour workshop on saturdays that goes through the history of the constitution, through the bill of rights, i show you where the came from, that the mean, how how our offenders intended them to be applied, where we have gone off track and the solutions to making them right. in those five-hour workshop, five hours of teaching, six hours in a day, i have students of all ages, six, seven, eight years old, who sit and listen and learn in that workshop the whole day. the don't take notes. but they draw pictures about what i'm talking about. pictures of me speaking and little pictures of what they learned sparks they get excited about that. one of my favorite -- i have two favorite stories that it wrote about on my web site. one is about a middle school girl named whitney. i don't remember where i was teaching but was brought into the public school to teach the history of the constitution, and whitney came up to me with her friend, you know, she is just middle school so all intimidated and said i wanted to thank you for coming and teaching us today. we have had other people come in and teach us, but they don't teach like you do. she said it's just the way you teach that made me excited about what you were teaching. what we need is passion back in our classrooms. i had a high school boy which i think is probably my toughest audience, high school boys. and after teaching the history of the constitution, he came up to me and he shook my hand and said, miss hall, thank you for taking you time to come and teach us. he said want to be in government. i might even want to be president one day. but after what you taught me today, i want you to know that i will never let anybody take my liberty again. it's the teacher's job to make the student hungry. this is not just a paycheck. these are not just numbers. these are not just statistics and standardized testifieses. this is the future of america, the minds that will lead america, and they deserve our jut most passion. >> host: in "liberty first" you take on john dewey. >> guest: john dewey -- my goodness. what the education departments laugh as the founder of the american education system but he was a signer of the marckist manifesto, the humanist manifesto, and when you read the statements of dewey, and the plan that he had for more than education you have to question why our teaching system would even uphold him as an authoritiment he believed that literacy was overrated, and that illiterate actually led a more happy life and that is was more important to teach children to socialize than it was to teach them how to read and write, science, arithematic and there's an aural on my web site, called stolen education, stolen children, stolen future, which where i have captured an outline of the creation of our modern school system that begins in 1885. and if we are not familiar with the names of thorne dyke, dewey, stanley hall and what their philosophies were and how the drive still today our american education system, then we cannot know why our students are failing in literacy today. >> host: again from liberty first, you write, our educational system has become concentration camps of brainwashing and marxist programming. our students are not only not taught the constitution in and the principles of liberty, they're constantly indoctrinated that america is the source of all that is evil in the world. america's founding documents are flawed, its founding fathers were big gotted oppressor, the values antiquated. the free market system destructive. next call for our guest comes from vernon in newport news, virginia. go ahead. >> caller: hello. how are you doing, miss hall, thank you for c-span, all three networks. miss hall, recognize about the state sovereignty and what i was thinking is that if we recognize state sovereignty, state sovereignty justified the segregation laws, state sovereignty justified the secession from the union and state sovereignty justifiesed to the with heavy mel anyone content to be property and not human beings, and therefore, none of that would have been corrected if there had not been the use of or the recognition by a higher level, the other part of government, being the federal government. that's why i think state sovereignty -- when i hear states rights, it scares me because i've never seen states rights work for those who are in the minority. i do agree with you that local and state government is important, and just as important as federal and if not more important. i like to hear your opinion on that. >> guest: i bet if we talk about the history of that rather than my opinion because what you described is a common misconception about history in and of itself. if you want to know how the constitution was a mechanism to end slavery, there's an article on my web site, titled how the constitution ended slavery. and what we need to understand is that state sovereignty did not condone any of those things. state sovereignty did not condone segue agree gracious, and state sovereignty is not what declared men to be property. that was the supreme court who declared men to be property in the dred scott case. the supreme court using their errant interpretation of the constitution and misapplication of history, determined in their opinion, that men were property and people picked that up as law. state sovereignty does not enslave. state sovereignty makes free. one aspect of history we don't teach is that during the civil war, free states were nullifying federal law to free slaves. most people don't recognize that the federal fugitive slave act was a federal law that was being enforced even up into the civil war, and the free states were telling the federal government, we are a sovereign state, you don't have the authority to dictate to us the classification and identification of our citizens. this person is in our state and this person is free. and since this person is in our state, we're a sovereign state and is free, we will not recognize your federal law to enslave him. so it is actually the sovereignty of the states that was winning the freedom for all people. our history likes to teach that specifically black men were not free before the emancipation proclamation, that is not true, denial of history of people like james fortman, and george middleton, george middleton formed the african benevolent society of 1786. he was another only a free man. he was a citizen who owned a not for profit corporation to benefit the families, the widows and oar fan -- orphans of the black soldiers who fought in our revolution. the idea that the civil war ended slavery is also errant because if you look at the law s within the states, the institution of slavery was practically nonexistent throughout the union and only existed in small parts within the individual states. it did not end -- civil war did not end discrimination either, did not end abuse of the people, as you call it, for people with higher content of mel anyone. if the civil war did that why did king king have to march in a.m.? what we need to recognize today, something that the designers of our constitutional republic, black, white, yellow, red, male, female, all recognized is that the concept of liberty is not something that is won by conquer and mar. you do not free through constitution. you cannot plow other field overnight. in order to incorporate liberty into a society it must be a societal change and that's what was happening in america. this societal change that actually said, we the people. we, the people, will make change. it this constitutional republic that makes america great because only in a constitutional republic can a minority group have a society changing voice. and this is just scratching the surface. fear in those short period of time i've not gone a really good justice to this but i would encourage you, encourage everybody, to learn the truth about the end of slavery in america, to learn the truth about how liberty is spread and what our founders did to make sure that we were a place built on the principle that all men are created equal. all men are created equal and today by the crater with certain inalienable rights. >> host: tim from massachusetts go ahead, tim. >> good afternoon, guys, folks. sorry. c-span, thank you for this opportunity to speak with miss hall. it's really great. i think you scoured a real coup here so to speak. have tried to educate myself and read and i have a small understanding of what you have of the problems. thick one of the biggest problem is it voicer apathy or apathy of the public in general and how to get people to understand that their vote does mean something. think people feel like it -- the government has no -- doesn't have a hook into their lives and they don't care about voting. thought about different things and to great to a hear you today. one thing i've wondered about is why since 1908 we have not changed the number of representatives in the house of representatives, and how that is affected the proportion of people whom they represent, and made it difficult for us to have the mechanism to reach people through the state and if we just return to what we had back then, which got changed every 12 years prior or so before that, we would have four time as many people in the house of representatives, and i think we could do that by cutting everybody's salary a quarter, and that's what we would pay people to go in, and i think we would produce a lot of changes, help us fix the problem not having enough parties, and we would need to make other changes to have this happen, and again, think maybe constitutional convention might be possible. might be necessary. so, thank you very much. i'd like to hear your dish want to ask one question. what did corporations overcome to become people as so many other minorities have? thank you very much for your time. >> host: okay, the size of the house of representatives -- >> guest: the them and all that stuff. believe the apathy of the people is a symptom of a great are problem, and the greater problem is the lack of education which results in the people feeling overwhelmed. i don't know about you but what when sigh a project or task that is very big in front of me i have a terrible habit of proapparatus -- proapparatus nateing the beginning of the probable lamp because it feels overwhelming. if don't try i won't fail. that is what voting has become. we have become so overwhelmed with the out of control nature of the federal government but the fact our congressmen don't follow the constitution. if they even know what the constitution means, and they rarely ever listen to the people and we're convinced that lobbyists and their dollars have more control than the people who actually elect our representatives to office. so the real problem, once again, as samuel adams say, the universal ignorance and the debeaked manners of the people. he said we'll sink underneath our own weight without the aid of foreign invaders and part of the thinkingses is that physical feeling of being overwhelmed because you don't have control. i we can teach the people the power and control they have, we'll be able to break freeway of the prison of feeling overwhelmed and actually make a difference. it's something you mentioned about the -- it's interesting you mentioned the size of the number of representatives because in my book, sovereign duty, in the chapter on article 5 conventions, we actually -- in a sort of tangent, address that. for the last 50 years congress has been researching how an article 5 convention should work if it should ever be called. and in this research they called together their experts -- people they claim to be experts, and they gather reports and the congressional research survey issues reports. one of the point brought forward was the fact that we're supposed to be reapportioning the number of house members. there was even a fight in the 1920s to make that happen. some states brought forward, hey, this is what you have to do. we haven't done it for a long time. we must do that. and i can't recall the name off the top of my head -- if you rat that chapter you can see it. but one of the special counsel for the -- for congress at that time used that precedent as a mechanism to say that even if the states want to call a convention, congress does not need to call a convention. he said after all, when the states brought forward the necessary tonight the ford -- the rea portionment of congress, and congress refused, nothing was ever done. his point was that the states in the power that congress holds now through perceived authority, the states have no way to actually force congress to do anything they don't want to do. and because they can't force congress to even follow the constitution, they can't force congress to amend it either. so the point was, who cares if states get together to form a convention? because congress, if they don't want to they don't have to because the precedent has already been set. this series and assumption of power by congress can only exist because the people have lost touch with the power and the placement of the sovereignty of the states. >> host: walter, form solisster general, advised congressin' 1979 that if the states want to trespass any original limitations on the convention, then they have the fewer do so. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: what is the cover of "sovereign duty," the big x? >> guest: it's the roman numeral 10, the 10th amendment was the codification, the reassertion of the sovereignty of the states. it reads -- see if i can do this by memorythe powers not delegated to the united states nor -- i always forget that middle clause -- nor specifically prohibitinged to it by the state are reserved to the states. so, basically what that means is if the power is not specifically delegated within the articles of the constitution, that power is reserved to the states. so the power is the federal government possesses are specifically enumerate, and everything else is reserved to the states. one problem is we have lost attachment with the definition of word. the word reserved is a very powerful word. ill actually implies property ownership, dominion over something to the exclusion of everybody else. and so by reserving power to the states, what we're saying is the states have property dominion over this power to the exclusion of all government, foreign or domestic. >> host: you also talk about the word "shall," and "shall not. "what does shall mean legally. >> guest: in my 11-year-old knows what that it mean. don't know what is wrong with judges and politicians. it is means what it means. it is a specific and ultimate prohibition. what we have, though, is another human nature aspect that comes in. throughout time the meanings of words become del lewdded or redefine -- diluted and redefined. we're actually seeing in legal documents and in legal dictionaries the idea that the word "shall" and "may" are synonymous, which is dish don't know -- linguistically ridiculous to assert that. always had very distinct meanings. that's how society goes and comes from the lack of proper teaching. i like to give this example when i'm teaching. i want to tell people, am here to encourage you, right? well, when we say encourage, you might get the sort of vision of a cheerleader in your mind. look at the definition of the word, encourage. it means to infuse with courage. as a former biochemist to infuse means to saturate to the sell you already level. i'm veer to infuse you with the courage to do something. a little more than a cheerleaderring are right? that's why we have to hold tight to standards instead of del luting things into meaningless boxes. >> host: have you been asked anything by our viewers today that you have never been asked before? >> guest: no, sir. after six years, you know -- like i said, we don't just -- we don't just preach to the choir, all the to the choir does niece education. we're teaching lots of different people and social media brings a real varying set of ideals into the public forum. i think the thing that is attractive about what we teach and the we we teach is we're so liberty-focused, we are not politically tied, we're not party tied, we are so liberty focused it's attractive to all people and inviting. it's not intimidating because i'm not not going to stream and yell at you because you don't like my political candidate. we're going to have a logical, historical, and factual discussion, and i'm pretty tolerant of my facebook page with discussion because i like to have that public forum but i don't tolerate people would want to come and throw around political epithets and that sort of thing. so, we do try to make our forums very, very inviting for all people because liberty -- no political party owns liberty. as a matter of fact it's unfortunate, as washington said, that the institution of political parties is usually anti-liberty. that's why liberty first university is important because it's going to be able to reach people in the privacy of their own homes. don't have to be embarrassed to comb to a meeting where we're talking about the constitution, and they can see the universal nature and applicableity of the constitution and liberty. >> host: in your view or research, what have the founding fathers get wrong? >> guest: if -- there there is one thing i can point to they missed the mark it was their faith in people to learn lessons of history. they really believed -- in that quote you gave from jefferson about the amending of the constitution -- they really believed that with prosperity we would have less war, we would have less conflict. the union would ensure the way the constitution was designed, limiting the authority of the executive, would limit the number of wars we're in, that would -- the union itself would create a peace and prosperity among the states, which would allow the people to spend more time in the development of their understanding of natural law and philosophies and liberties to give them a greater attachment to liberty and to need less government. and i think it was their faith in that progression that missed the mark most. i think that although they hoped that, they also knew that there were certain aspects of human nature that will always play the same way, which i why they always had a plan b. in place, like e the plan to control the federal government when it gets out of control. one of my other favorite found issues, named richard henry lee, and i agree with many of the historians he is the writer of a series of anti-federalist papers called the letters from a federal farmer, and in that he says that history proves that people will suffer an unavoidable -- what -- how did he -- unavoidable period of inattentiveness. as we become pacified by pros apart, lazy in luxury, come place sent and quiet, history dictates the people women surveil an unavoidable interval of inattentiveness and that's where the education needs to come in. >> guy has been waiting patiently in fall city, washington. you're on with kris ann hall. >> you allude today history as the facts. i'm talking get preamble of the constitution. the history of america, the robber barons and the history of labor the country. the preamble says to promote -- to ensure,, domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. now, being 80 years old myself, i am familiar with my father's days and for the 150 years before i was -- with the democrats took over and the new deal was the only time that was promoted the general welfare, and it's been taken back by the robber barons today, and the latest legislation that i've watched go through congress in the last six months has given it back to robber barons and the promote the general welfare is a thing of the past. >> guest: well. >> host: response. >> guest: i think what we need again understand is the meaning of those terms "ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare" as they were written to mean, not as we interpret them today. to promote -- to -- the domestic tranquility was something that was addressed in the first ten sections of the federalist and the anti-federalist papers. what they meant by to ensure domestic tran quit by the formation of the union, they believed it would connect the states, these independent sovereign governments together, would connect the states in a relationship that would keep them from warring with each oomph their whole experience is europe, and these neighboring states constantly warring each other because they didn't have a relationship with each other that encouraged domestic relationships, and so to ensure domestic tranquility, the purpose of the union in doing that was to create a relationship between the states where they could not only cooperate but also rely on each other. so, ensuring domestic tranquility was not a power of the government to impose regulation on the state. it was to be a naturally occurring thing that happened through the relationship of the confederation of the states. the general welfare is also a very, very misapplied and misinterpreted phrase in the constitution itself. general welfare has absolutely nothing to do with handing out money to people from a national level to a -- from a federal level to a local level. general welfare is not what we describe today as welfare programs. the general welfare clause was incorporated interest the preamble as a reminder of the purpose of the powers delegated to the federal government, and it stems from the problem that we had in the articles of confederation where the federal government was making inequitable treaties that benefited one state and the other states had to foot the bill. they said when the federal government exercises its powers as author thyroid the articles in the constitution -- authored through the articles in the storks it must remember that whenever it makes a treaty, it must take the general welfare of the union of the states in mind. you cannot make a treaty that benefits one of another. you cannot go to work because of one state over another. you cannot declare peace because of the views of one state, ignoring all the others. that general welfare clause was to refer to the general welfare of the states as members of the union, not as a handout to the people on the individual level. any welfare that was to take place had to take place on the local level, not from the federal to the local. >> host: liberty first, here's a to-do list. keep the proper perspective. educate beyond the election. id and educate candidates, sure and hold halls of power, purge recapture g.o.p., expand new media, recapture education of children, pray for pastor awakening. >> guest: i would say that the purge the g.o.p. would have to apply to all political parties as well. i think the reason that we focused on the g.o.p. because of the g.o.p.'s platform is dedicated to the constitution. i wonder how many members of the g.o.p. have actually read the g.o.p. party platform, especially 2016, which says we are the party of the constitution, we are the party of state rights, we are the party that will believe in limited government. problem is, with so many people who call themselves r republiccages who will operate contrary to the constitution, operate contrary to sovereignty of the states, expand federal power and federal realm and they're not following the platform. suggest that the governans of political system -- if we're walk with this party paradigm, the people have to be willing to hold people to standards of their party and get rid of. the if they don't. any republican that votes to have federal health care is operating contrary to the political party platform, because federal health care is contrary to the power delegated to the federal government. and in so it's the standards that we must uphold but it's not pop floor say that. i think -- pop floor say that and because we're so districtly liberty, that puts me at odds sometimes with both parties. but what we need to see is that all liberty itself this most valuable possession we have as human beings. john adams said liberty must at all hazard be supported. >> host: in essential stories for junior patriots, you have study questions. i thought about making viewers answer one of these ahead of time but i couldn't answer half of them so i didn't want to look like a fool. >> guest: can you name the five liberties. >> host: i've one trying, speech, religion, gathering. >> guest: assembly. >> host: right to petition. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: and -- >> guest: -- >> guest: press. >> host: that one. >> guest: the fun thing about petition it's not just the right to petition. it's the right to petition for a readdress of grievances and that's something we inherited from the magna carta, clause 61 says that not only do you have the right to petition but you have the right to be made whole based on your petition. >> host: here's a study question for the viewers to concentrate on. what do you think the anti-federal yeas were worried about when the federalist wanted to give the central government more power? there's one for you to noodle on. as we hear from melinda in jersey shore, pennsylvania. >> caller: hello. i wanted to ask you two questions. the first one is that james madison says the state power extends to the live, liberty and property of the people and the internal order and prosperity of the state. and the word of founder ands the states compact, what says that there's a limitation to our state and local governments or do we have to comply with rules that directly conflict with our rights? >> guest: what a beautiful question. here's the thing. the states were reserved this power because that is the home of the people. remember, it is not up to government to limit itself, ever. it is the responsibility of the people, as our framers said over and over again, it's the jealousy and the vigilant of the people in the defense of their own rights to limit government itself. every single government must be limited by natural law. there's a great book that you can read that helps you understand how that is supposed to work. it's called "the law." additionally, thomas payne's book, "the right man" and thomas -- i'm sorry -- james madison's" essay on property "and samuel adams' essay on the rights of northwestern colonists, all address the aspect of natural law, and to really just sort of answer your question in a nutshell, i want to redirect you to the declaration of independence, because remember the declaration of independence was written to announce and declare the formation of the states by the people. the declaration of independence says, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all many are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and says that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their justice power from the consent of the governed. so the single purpose for creating our states, the only reason they exist, is not to create economic improvements, not for national security, not for business regulations. it is to secure our rights. that is their primary and sole rope for existence. -- sole reason for existence. remember our declaration of independence continues and says that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these means -- the securing the rights of the people -- it is the right of the people to alter, abolish, jefferson with right they have a duty to do so. so the reason that the states were reserved this power is because that is where the people had the most control. you have more control over your state legislator or your federal congressman? the answer is obvious, more control of the governor or more control of the president of the united states. obviously you have more control over your local government so they can be -- have access to more powers because you have more power to limit their exercise of the power. it's when we forget the natural rights we possess by the nature of our creation, and that we trade our liberty for security and comfort, that we find ourselves in a place where your states become gist as tyrannical as a larger government, and so the states do not have the right to be tyrannical. their only purpose is to secure the rights of the people. >> host: e-mail: knut reynolds from arizona. i'm glad i discovered you on booktv. you messengered at one point in you life you had a spiritual conversation with christ would you mind giving more detail how this happened, what form it took, et cetera. >> guest: my goodness. wow. that's very personal. like i said in the beginning, i was -- i'm a truth seeker, and i always felt an emptiness, so i kept trying to fill that emptiness with something. and a series of events happened in my life that made me very miserable. when i broke my hip in the military, the va medical system was very, very bad to me. so bad that we had congress get involved and force them to actually help me and treat me. i was living with chronic pay. couldn't do laundry, couldn't do anything in the house without being in bed for two days because i had a broken hip but nobody would help me with it. and i think because of my struggles, because of the chronic pain, because of things going on, we were also struggling in our marriage, the family was having trouble -- we were in church and remember i said that i used to believe that christians were weak, stupid people. and i was too smart for this. i'm struggling internally with this faith thing because i thought it was impossible for me to have faith in something i can't see, feel and touch. so we had gotten involved -- we started attending a church and were listening and i was doing my studying, i'm a very diligent researchers. and the more i read, the more it started to affect me, and i think we hit that point where i realized, i can't pull myself up by my boot straps anymore. i can't fix what is wrong anymore. and i remember being in church that day and just being so absolutely broken. i just said, look, god, if you who are they say you are, then be real to me that way. and i will let you do whatever you need to do to fix this and i will live my life for you because i believe that you did that for me. and i would love to tell you that everything miraculously -- angels and choirs and all that kind of thing made everything better immediately but that's not the walk of a christian. but it was through our faith and our understanding of the promises of christ that anything that we go through is for the glory of god for the betterment of ourselves and we can go through this by faith, knowing that there's a bigger plan and a birth picture and that all of the suffering we have today is accompanied by a great amount of joy and peace and happiness, and i never felt that in any other religion. never felt that peace, never felt that settlement. i never felt that hope. ...

Related Keywords

Haiti , New York , United States , Canada , Tampa , Florida , Germany , Missouri , Texas , Alaska , Washington , Boston , Massachusetts , China , Virginia , United Kingdom , Newport , Arizona , Thailand , Pennsylvania , Ireland , Jefferson County , Spain , Utah , Hawaii , Thai , Britain , Americans , America , Hawaiians , Floridians , Hawaiian , Chinese , British , Irish , American , Jeff Holly , States James Madison , King , Abigail Adams , Patrick Henry , Jerry Blair , George Washington , Thomas Jefferson , Samuel Adams , John Dewey , Joshua Green , Kris Ann Hall , Thomas Payne , Stanley Hall , Al Franken , Richard Henry Lee , James Madison , Wright Cummings , John Adams , Samuel Adam , John Witherspoon , Alexander Hamilton ,