Decoding the Constitution: Past, Present, and Future

Moore To Consider: Welcome to another edition, More to Consider. I'm here with my friend Charles. So Charles and I, gosh, as we've said in just about every show we've ever talked about, we talk. We talk in the car, on the phone. We're on the phone talking about things and subjects to talk about. to me, talking politics has become so cumbersome and kind of messy because everything just seems so crazy to me now that I don't even really know what we're talking about. I think sometimes it needs some time. In historical context to really look back and figure out. now I think we're finding more and more that what we believe to be true in so many areas is not true either. Like some things either have been held for us. Governments always lied, whatever. Make of it what you want to. Charles, how are you my brother? So when I was back and forth, yeah, yeah, but you know, all So we're in Virginia and,

Charles: I'm doing all right. Doing all right man. Enjoying this nice weather.

Moore To Consider: Over the weekend, I was in North Carolina and it was pushing 80. Today, where I was, I was in Virginia Beach today, it was 85. But I understand by the end of this week, it's going to be 40 again.

Charles: home, right? Yeah, a lower 40, but it's going to be in the sixties during the daytime. That's fine.

Moore To Consider: Okay. All right. So, the snowman's probably gone away. We're not going to see snow probably again for the rest of this year or sorry, rest of this season. Now the clocks have moved. Didn't bother me or affect me to near as much as I thought it would. was, you know, it's just pain in the ass, but I was away for baseball and I kind of naturally fell asleep. Um, it was all day on the field in the sun. I, you can probably tell a little bit from this. I don't know how well it picks up, but.

Charles: Let's hope. No.

Moore To Consider: I was in the bullpen and one of the kids like coach. I was like, yeah, you really not want to use any sunscreen. I'm like, ⁓ sunscreen, whatever. He goes, you're, you're kind of purple. you're, you're, you're turning kind of pro. haven't, ⁓ I haven't gone through any scaling or, ⁓ what is it? Shedding or, ⁓ peeling. It hasn't happened. So I thought I got a pretty deep burn in the places I had exposed, but it hasn't really affected me yet, but it's weird.

Charles: Mm-hmm. Hahaha. Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: We're one week into March and I'm getting sunburn pretty heavy and I expected we'll probably have another cold front of some type before it really gets to be spring because it is technically still winter. And Phil did see his shadow. So Phil was talking six more weeks of bad weather. So crazy world. And you sent me sort of a, here's a topic we can talk about. think what you want to discuss. is given the present situation we're in and what we call the United States of America now approaching our 250th anniversary since the declaration. We're up on that. Um, and it'll also be the 200th anniversary of the death of Adams and Jefferson, which is amazingly, you know, huge historical coincidence that they both died on the same day, exactly 50 years after the declaration. you know, and there's the dispute about that. Some have said it was signed on the second, not the fourth.

Charles: Amazing.

Moore To Consider: Somehow it accidentally, you've heard that whole story, right? That the fourth was kind of accidental, like, oopsie, we started celebrating the wrong day. It should be the second, not the fourth. You ever heard that story? Yeah. Yeah. There's a question about when did it actually quote unquote take effect? Was it signed? And like it was officially signed on that. That's the story. It's like, it officially signed on the second. Maybe it didn't get out until the fourth, but like it didn't became tradition to celebrate the fourth when possibly it should have been the July 2nd, but that would mess everything up. Right.

Charles: No, never heard that. Yeah, kind of too late now.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, very late. Yeah. Cause if somebody came back to, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute, wait a minute. We figured out it's July 2nd. Everybody act accordingly. know, govern yourselves. It'd be like, sorry, can't do that. Wait a minute. I got everything ready for the picnic on a particular day and to find otherwise would be terrible. So.

Charles: You're right. Yeah, I already took the fourth off, man. I can't change my date.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, I just, yeah, I can't see, yeah, we can't change January 1st. That's going to Christmas has got to be December 25th. You know, we just know the days that we, now some of them have definitely been moved around or weeks have been created where there was a day of recognition of something. So things have changed as it relates to that. But so we're in the world we're in right now. And clearly the top stories would be. whatever America's tensions are with Iran. I watched two guys on Tim Poole, it was Tim Poole and another guy bitching and moaning about whether it's a war. And one of them is reading Webster's dictionary definition. And the other guy is arguing, ⁓ he's a lawyer and he's arguing a legal definition. I kind of got his point. He's like, Congress didn't declare war. The president has taken certain actions of aggression towards the sovereign nation.

Charles: ⁓ gosh.

Moore To Consider: You know, the other guys, don't care what you call it's war, you know, and then you get back to the year of Korea and Vietnam and how historians, you know, and I still think one that we've discussed before, I think the American civil war, it's difficult to define it as a civil war because I think the general definition was two factions within a country fighting for control of said country. And that clearly wasn't what the civil war was. And in the South, they referred to it as the second war of independence.

Charles: Right.

Moore To Consider: And mean, Great Britain criticized Lincoln and said, wait, what was that whole thing about? You could break away and secede. that what you guys said, you know, back in 17, whatever. anyway, they're on a show, they're, they're, doing a show and they're pissing and moaning about what a war is. And that's kind of where we are. That's in the news. Watching Bill and Hillary in front of Congress or members of Congress discussing the Epstein's files. Kind of interesting, but this is the. stuff that's going on. ⁓ this is where we are in the world. So the premise of what you kind of brought to me is where would the founders be with all of this? How, okay. I say, how would they be with this? Like, how would they react to what would, what would they think of the world that has now yet, or now has been created? Talk to me.

Charles: No, no, how would they react if they were dropped? Yeah. Yeah. If they just happened to walk out of a time machine, you know, like that movie, guess who's back or look who's back. if they would walk out of time machine to, to right now and just start looking around, you know, he gave them access to the internet. Say, well, this is where you find all of your news, quote unquote news right now. So just start looking. I'm sure they would be like,

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles: What in the hell? This is not what we envisioned when we signed all that paperwork 250 years ago. No, this isn't it. I don't know what the hell y'all have done. Hey, George, looks like we're in a whole bunch of entangling alliances. Didn't you warn somebody about that before? Isn't that the case? I'm sure they would be having a fit. I'm sure they would.

Moore To Consider: Well, and to me, and this is just my take on it. And it's definitely, ⁓ an argument I've had with people through the years, because I look at things, I think probably my personality indoor, just the way I'm cut. I, ⁓ man, it makes me gullible clearly at times too. I take everything at like face value, like what it says sort of the black and white of what's being said and don't look any deeper. than that into it. So I always struggled with people go, the constitution's living and breathing. It's whatever we would, we're like, nah, not quite. When you really look at it, the declaration has no effect in law. As many people have argued, there's nothing in the declaration that's actionable in like in a court of law. What it was, was a declaration of independence. And what Jefferson was saying, he opens with,

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: We don't willy nilly take this to break away from Great Britain as a, a whim. And we have to just, so it's written to the world in large part. I used to teach this in school. They're like, well, he's writing to George III. said in part, but he's also saying we have to justify this breaking away from Great Britain with the following reasons. So that's, that's the declaration. So I make that point to say all the constitution is. is a document of limitation on the federal government. That's all it is. And it lays out a blueprint of how the government should be run. It does set up in it an article five, article five says, don't break it, amend it, what, no, what's the old, don't end it, amend it. Right. You have an amendment process or mechanism. Okay. But that doesn't mean that the clear meaning of things that were said are malleable in the Supreme court can just go. What the hell? We kind of like to believe it means this. I don't think that's at all what they were going for. So it's a pretty quick read. The constitution is not that complicated. So it lays out all these parameters of what the federal government can do. And of course, ⁓ many people within the country, the anti-federalists were like, wait a minute, wait a minute, we're going to need a bill of rights. Many people were opposed to the bill of rights saying, problem is...

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: It'll then be defined against the very thing you're trying to protect, which I think is true. So there we are. So when you say the founders, at one level, the founders would clearly be, as you just said, like internet. Like what, what do you think a person from the 18th century would think of the internet?

Charles: Well, I... Well they would This is one of these things, man, it's kind of hard to answer that question because there's so much that you have to get to before you got to the internet. I would just say, just put them in front of it without having to explain to them what it is to say you can type a question in and then you go from there. ⁓ That's it. That's all I would say. It's too much.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. All right. Okay. All right. Well, let's, let's go a little bit more pop culture. I remember, um, this is kind of a funny story. October 26th, 1985 is the night of back to the future. That was like the night. Do you know what day I actually saw that movie? October 26th, 1985. And I was with a group of college students and friends, and it was an old outdoor theater in the part of North Carolina I was in.

Charles: ⁓ really?

Moore To Consider: And it was Dr. Brown and he had set it for a day and then wherever he wanted to go back to in history. And when the day popped up, I'm like, guys, did y'all see that? Like what? And I literally went, ⁓ cause I used to work in a theater. You could get a feature film with 30 canisters. And you you started one side and as soon, and when you ever saw that little dot in the top corner of a movie, it was to tell the projector, the person running the projector. that this reel's ending and then you'd flip and this thing would cover the one screen and then open up the other screen and then you'd pick up the film. So there was always kind of a film break. And I'm like, are they sending canisters around with that particular day on it? And then I found out, no, that actually is October 26th. And if you Google, it'll say the day from back to the future. And then they go back to, I think it was November 5th, 1955. But anyway, what happens in

Charles: Right.

Moore To Consider: One of the versions, I guess it was two, they go forward into 2015. And when they went forward into 2015 and the next one, that gave people a chance to go, how much of it will they get right? Cause they're making the movies in the mid to late eighties and they're projecting where things will be. And it was funny because one of the things they said, the Cubs win the world series and they went in 2016. But you know, they had the hover boards. So I saw a guy do a piece where he's.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: basically breaking down the things that people, cause the internet wasn't, it existed, but not to the degree that we now know it in 1986, 87, 88, when they made the second movie, but they're projecting what will things be like in 2015? And some of it, kind of get right. Now the other one in pop culture was the Jetsons, right? Did you watch the Jetsons as a kid? Right. So it was a whole space city, everybody out on the, doing traffic on the highway or flying around in the air.

Charles: Mm hmm. Yes. Yes.

Moore To Consider: But how close are we to that?

Charles: Not very.

Moore To Consider: Not very exactly. Okay. So that didn't become very practical, but, so I do think that as things, I'm sure there was people, I remember my grandmother was born near the beginning of the 20th century. So she saw literally in her lifetime, the Wright brothers to, you know, prop planes to jets and whatever NASA did, whatever you want to believe they did. You know what I'm saying? You could live in a lifetime. And go from horse and buggy, which she did to the, to the space age and, ⁓ you know, in some, some period of time. So I do wonder sometimes like, what, what, if you could fast forward people like 200 years and what would they think of the technology? But all right.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: Do you really believe if you could fast forward a Jefferson or a Hamilton or a Washington or an Adams or any of those, do you think they would be that shocked by the state of things or how far?

Charles: Yes. Yeah, there's a few subjects I think that they would have an issue with. A few. One is gun laws. I'm sure they would be like, you know, we kind of wrote the second amendment. ⁓ We don't understand why there's all these other federal laws. This isn't supposed to be here. Who agreed to this? You know,

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles: Why is it here? And they would be asking questions like, who thought this was a good idea? Don't you understand what happens when you start doing things that you're, we put limitations in the constitution. Why are you going beyond what those limitations are of federal government? Why are you doing this? It's going to just cause problems down the road. You don't understand this. And then the people here, if they were standing in front of the people who wanted these laws to be passed or were responsible for passing the laws, They would ask them, I'm sure they would. Obviously this is all hypothetical, fantastical really. ⁓ Why did you do that? And I can imagine somebody saying, well, I mean, we have people that are shooting up in schools. They're shooting kids in schools. And they would say, well, why doesn't everybody in this school have a gun? I'm sure that's what they would say. And the people who wrote these laws would say, well, don't, why should everybody have a gun? And now you're to start having a real problem because they're to ask those people, you don't understand what happens when you take everybody's, know, a method of defense away from them. You don't understand what happens when you do that. I could see it going down that road.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Yeah, but see, I don't know. I mean, I've had second amendment experts on both sort of pro gun control and anti and the rest, I still think, well, from the founders point of view, I think it was a simple thing. They didn't want standing armies. That was it. That's all it was. And so what they were saying is states regulate the firearms and regulate the militias. The federal government's not going to take their firearms.

Charles: I'm talking from the founders point of view, man. Not from, not from here. There, well, that also, yes. Yeah. Yes. Exactly.

Moore To Consider: But that leaves it up, I think the Commonwealth of Virginia, where we live, handled guns any way they wanted to.

Charles: Right. But they would first say, where in that document that I signed gives the federal government to have any more gun laws and it's already there.

Moore To Consider: No, I agree with that. I agree with you there. Absolutely. That it would almost seem to preclude federal legislation related to firearms, but what, did they get around everything? Interstate commerce clause. They bastardize everything. So they can say a firearm crossing state lines, which it could potentially do, throw it in the trunk of the car. could cross state lines. You know, I mean, that's how they reach like machine guns and

Charles: Yes, that's how. Well, hold on, hold on, on, hold on. But again, we're talking from the founders point of view, They would be asking, what the hell is this commerce clause thing? What is this? Who did?

Moore To Consider: They wrote it. They wrote it. It's in the Constitution.

Charles: But I'm sure they did not intend it to be the way that that's what they were asking.

Moore To Consider: No, no, no. And actually McCreney, or no, this is a great point. My buddy McCreney, our buddy McCreney, I went into the root, right? You know, he used to go out and do the hunting around for, um, artifacts. Uh, what is it? Mine hunting. What do you call it? Um, you go out and find buttons and metal. Hmm. Metal detecting. Right. And another big thing he was into was going to try to find antique books and things.

Charles: Metal detector on it? Yes. Metal detecting. Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: So I remember this is the mid nineties. come in the studio one day and goes, Hey, more, guess what? found this weekend out rummaging around at these antique shops. And what's that? goes, you can, you can look this up. mean, Wikipedia has a whole page on it. Commentaries on the constitution by Joseph story. The Joseph story was appointed to the Supreme court or he was nominated for, and he was confirmed by the Senate to be on the Supreme court. Guess who nominated him.

Charles: No idea.

Moore To Consider: John James Matt guy named James Madison. Okay. What did James Madison pretty much do? Right. The constitution. Okay. Right. So story writes a book and it was called, it was considered a high school primer. It was a high school book to teach everyone all the little kiddies at, you know, in 19th century grade school or through high school, what the constitution says. It goes, Jack, I literally got to the section on the interstate commerce clause.

Charles: Okay. You pretty much wrote the constitution, right?

Moore To Consider: And remember they wanted federal regulation of weights and measures and the commerce clause. said, basically as story put it meant there wouldn't be trading disputes among the States. wouldn't be border wars over tobacco that a pound of tobacco in Virginia meant a pound of tobacco in North Carolina. And that the States would trade in a uniform and sensible way. And that would be regulated by the federal government should dispute. They never intended to go as far. as to bastardize the constitution by using the interstate commerce clause to reach everything that may or may not cross the state line. So I've used this to indulge me on this real quick. There was a friend of mine that was interning for all the listeners. This is where it goes. This is how far it goes. Got a friend of mine interning in a federal prosecutor's office while in law school. And she's looking, it was in Norfolk and she's looking around the table. She's having to like, go through and weed out cases that they might be looking into and things. And they have a robbery of a Pizza Hut. Robbery is a common law crime. It is a taking from another through force, letter, intimidation to deprive that person of said property forever, know, permanently deprived. And robbery has been defined since the beginning of time. So you go in with a firearm and you go, Hey, Pizza Hut guy, give me all the money. That's an armed robbery of a Pizza Hut. And she said to a guy in there, Hey, How, how is this a federal crime? goes, well, it's like the Smith act or I don't know. He just made it Johnson act and it came from like 1931. And it said when you interstate, mean, sorry, when you interrupt interstate commerce, it's federal crime. And she's like, tell me more. And he goes, well, the, the cheese comes from Wisconsin. The pepperonis come from New Jersey, whatever. At the moment you put up the police tape and stop Pizza Hut from selling pizzas. You've interrupted interstate commerce.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: And she goes, you're kidding. You're, this has become a federal. He goes, well, we won't deal with it. We'll let Virginia beach prosecuted, but that's how they use the interstate commerce clause to create a federal crime to Robbie Pizza Hut. And most would look at that and go, you got to be kidding me now. And I've talked about this, course, that nauseam as well. When John F. Kennedy was shot, what was it?

Charles: to state prom.

Moore To Consider: It was a state crime. And the only way it became is if there was a conspiracy involving Oswald or whoever that crossed state lines. And, but yeah, that's why Dallas was totally in control of the investigation at the ground and they were going to prosecute Oswald and Ruby as well. And I remember watching all these old black and white films from the weekend of the assassination on the next morning. Hugh Downs is on with ABC news and he's talking to a correspondent consultant on there and he said, what do you think about this not being a federal crime? Because I think Congress is going to get right on it. 1965, they make it a federal crime to shoot at or kill the president. But up to that point it had not been. Washington, I mean, Lincoln and Garfield were both shot in Washington. McKinley had been killed in Buffalo. So, and they executed the guy. They tried him, they executed all under state law. But, Lincoln and Garfield being shot in Washington was in a federal city anyway, blah, blah, blah. You know, it kind of applied as federal law, but that's hard for people to believe that even less than 75 years ago, JFK was killed in a street in Dallas. And that would not have been a federal crime. Cause the idea was still, was,

Charles: Mm-hmm. What don't you think? Don't you think that's the problem that people wouldn't understand or that it's, they couldn't understand that it shouldn't have been a federal crime in the first place. That's the problem. And I think that's how the founders would look at it too.

Moore To Consider: With what? Yeah. Yeah. Well, but the whole argument about big government, little government, that's the whole Hamilton Jefferson from Jump Street. Hamilton wanted the people, the elites with money to have a great vested interest in the outcome of the country. And Jefferson was pie in the sky agrarian. He wanted this kind of farmer society and all that. Okay. They're both brilliant men. And Hamilton tugged on Washington more. mean, Hamilton was a war hero too. He was a dude. Of course he ends up, you know, know, the fate of him.

Charles: Yes.

Moore To Consider: ⁓ and of course he chose Jefferson over Burr when, when it was time for them, for, you know, to, to push politically. He didn't like Jefferson, but what I'm saying is this battle is 250 years old over what is the role of the federal government in our lives. And the person I think is more pure, the constitution does believe we live in a Republic and the state should pretty much do their own thing. You don't like it moved to another state. You know, and that was always attentional Roe versus Wade. It was absolute bullshit. that hold the whole opinion to write the law for all 50 States based upon a perceived right to privacy. It's not in the constitution. It wasn't in the bill of rights. It wasn't there. So it should have been up to the States to decide when people are born, when they die, all that stuff that should be up to the States. And it's hard for people to accept minus a constitutional amendment. You want to do a constitutional amendment. You got the horsepower to do it. And know, you go through the amendment process and they make a constitutional amendment, granting a right, a federally recognize constitutional right to an abortion, knock yourself out if you can get the States to do it. But it shouldn't have been done by the Supreme court because again, that was a jurisdictional issue. The question was who gets to define life when it ends, when, you know, and all that, that's up to the States. It's not a federal issue. Okay. So what else do you think they would be thinking about?

Charles: Right. Yeah, it's They, they will be having a fit about the taxes. And I'm sure the people on the other side is like, well, we kind of need the taxes to fund the government. And the founders would be like, so what exactly are you doing with the money? ⁓ well, I mean, we have this program and they would say, well, what is the program?

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Mm. Yeah.

Charles: What are you talking about? Well, it's where we take money from the tech, from the Treasury, and we fund a program for ⁓ whatever it is. I don't know. Saving the whales.

Moore To Consider: Right, right, I agree. preservation of the snail darter.

Charles: get something like that. And I can imagine Madison going like this. I don't see that in there. Can you please tell me who gave you the authority to do that? I don't quite understand. What are you doing? Well, but we have to do this. The state can do that if they want, but you're taxing people 30 some percent on every dollar that they make. What are you doing here? Hold on, wait a second. I could have sworn I saw something on the internet of this thing called foreign aid. What the hell is that? So you telling me you're taking money out of Americans pockets to put in some foreigners pocket. Have you lost your mind? What the hell is... Okay. ⁓ Jefferson, Washington, ⁓ Adams, Samuel Adams, really. ⁓

Moore To Consider: Yeah, all true.

Charles: You need to go get some wood together. We need to go ahead and start building the gallows again, because there's a lot of people we may have to hang. They're clearly not doing what they should be doing here.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Well, first of all, when you go into this 18th century view of things, one aspect of it, like this is hard for people to take too, but just read the constitution. The founders never intended for people to vote for president the United States. That's clear because what article two says is the electors would be selected by the state legislatures and go vote for the president. Okay. Then slowly the states allowed the people to be the mechanism to choose who the electors would be to go. But that wasn't written in because the only aspect of democracy they wanted in the foundation, the formulation or foundation of the country was a house. So you could vote for the biggest idiot down the street, Farmer Brown. You could vote for him, but it was a people's house. It's exactly what it The U.S. senators, and this was screwed by the 17th amendment, the U.S. senators were selected by the state legislatures. So what did this, you and I are the U S senators from Virginia. What are we there in DC to do? Protect the state of Virginia from the Congress. That's literally what we're there to do. But that, it's not that anymore. So what I'm, the reason where I'm going with this is people believe they should vote for president. People do vote for their member, the U S senator. And it's true on the way to the 17th amendment, states were already deciding to do that. They were allowing the people to vote for U S senators. So

Charles: Well, yes.

Moore To Consider: It wasn't, it was a wave of things happening and then it was solidified or codified in the 17th amendment. But my point is people today look at all these are cliche bumper sticker type of slogans, top down government. They think the federal government's the answer to everything. So the whole, if you say to these people, or you say to most people, federal government has no, what do mean they have no business doing that? They do everything. That's what they do. They're the federal government. And an argument for it has always been a certain degree of uniformity. Like what if some of the states balk on doing what they consider essential services? If they won't do what they're supposed to, what's going to be the hammer to make them do it? And it's.

Charles: ⁓ As a founder, I'm asking, what do you talk about essential services?

Moore To Consider: No, I agree. I agree. These are all things that absolutely would never have been considered.

Charles: Okay. Exactly. And I'm only looking at it from their point of view right now, just from their point of view. Yes, they will be asking what the hell is an essential service from, know, at the federal level. We don't, we don't even understand this concept. What are you talking about? So yeah, can we stop that and just let the states handle it? I mean, that's why, you know,

Moore To Consider: Sure. Sure. Right, right. True. All true.

Charles: I had an issue with a, a government agency when it comes to travel pay and asked the guy a very specific question. And by the way, this guy just happened to been instrumental in writing the law, the regulation itself. He'd been there for almost 40 years. And I said, well, why didn't you put this in the regulation? And he said, well, what do you mean? I said, but you didn't specifically address this issue. He's like, If we wanted to address it, we would have. And I asked them, said, well, how do you know? It's like, cause I wrote it. I know what needs to be in there. I know what it all means. You don't have to really go to ask anybody about this. Now that is kind of sort of part of the problem that we have now where people think that the federal government is supposed to do everything. And they say, well, but we don't know what the founders thought. Well, the people who were really instrumental on on the creation of the constitution and so on and so forth. There's plenty of writings that they did themselves as to what they were thinking. All you have to do is go back and read what they were thinking. You don't have to guess, but so much. You can hear what they were thinking. And you brought up Hamilton a little earlier.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I agree with you.

Charles: Not a Hamilton fan. I never have been a Hamilton fan. Yeah, I understand. But so was John McCain. OK. And again, so was John McCain. And I have outside of what John McCain.

Moore To Consider: Many people are not, but he was a man of courage. He was a war hero. and he was smart. Yeah, okay. I don't know if anybody was Hamilton though. Hamilton was like scary, brilliant. He was way brilliant. Yeah.

Charles: I agree, but my point is that I don't disparage anything that he did in uniform, but after that, I couldn't care less. Really. that's how I felt about

Moore To Consider: He was a central government figure. He was for central government.

Charles: Well, yes, he was for central government and actually he was for a central bank too. And thank goodness for Jackson coming along and saying, no, we can't have this. It probably much worse off than it is right now because the bank would have been around much longer than it has been already. And in that battle between Jefferson and Hamilton, when it comes to Washington and the influence,

Moore To Consider: He was absolutely.

Charles: You know, Washington obviously gravitated towards Hamilton because they both were in uniform. You know, I get it. I really do. But when it comes to the actual function of this new government, Hamilton was living in the past. Jefferson was not. He was living in the future. Hamilton wanted, that whole thing about he wanted the government from the very start to start taking out loans from every country and, other countries.

Moore To Consider: I think as part of it,

Charles: Why?

Moore To Consider: He was a finance guy.

Charles: Well, he said that, well, we take out loans and then that lets the world know that we can pay the money back. And Jefferson is like, that doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that? And thank goodness Jefferson won.

Moore To Consider: Well, we don't have, you know, we don't have the perspective of 1791. We can't. And I could think, you know, like if today in 2026, the country of boom just showed up. I mean, I think the first thing to go through our mind is like, are they going to be able to sustain this? Do they have a military to defend them? You know, all those kinds of things would go through your mind. And when you look back at the history, I think it's fair to say we pretty much didn't. We lost a major player in our defense by fighting against the nation that we had to break away from. And I do think historically, as we think of the United States as a quote unquote superpower, I guess it starts to turn up at the first world war, but it doesn't, it kind of solidifies with the second world war. So it's within the lifetime of people we know well, like United States became the United States in that sense. So I think in the infancy, Hamilton was really wrapped around the axle about how are other countries going to perceive us and how do we make inroads into some, not only level of stability, but credibility. Like what kind of country are we? So I, yeah, I mean, I don't know. I don't know all the mechanics on him with that, but I think the tension between the Hamilton and Jefferson was actually a great thing because I think that's where you get. Cause I mean, think about it, Jefferson and Madison were pretty much aligned, they were allies, but Madison was also writing the Federalist Papers with Hamilton. So I think Madison was kind of that squishy middle, if you want to call it that, that wrote the Constitution. Like he got, hmmm?

Charles: Yes. Good day. Yes, I have no issue with that. None whatsoever.

Moore To Consider: No, that's what I'm saying. I think that's the beauty of great minds like that battling things out. I think that there's naturally, and I think this has to be said too. I do think the post civil war and a hundred years before civil rights is really addressed has a lot to do with the view that people have with the federal government. And I understand it. When you go from the end of the war to reconstruction for 12 years, and now it's like, ⁓ South, just go back and be the South again. Pretty much. Go ahead and put your Jim Crow laws in, go ahead and take a huge portion of your population in the South and pretty much treat them as second-class citizens. So the view was, if you're leaving it to Mississippi and Arkansas to fix this, they're not going to. Fair? Right. So you have generations of people that kind of look at it like, ⁓ it's not until the federal government steps up and says, no, you are going to follow this through federal legislation or enactments of the federal government or

Charles: Yes.

Moore To Consider: You know, president sending troops into places to make sure that black children can go to school. I could see where people would be like, I mean, do really think the South comes around on its own? It wasn't showing any history of it. Right.

Charles: Yeah. Well, I think in this, this is another subject I would love for them to, to talk about or to be exposed to everybody being free and there, there not being any slavery any longer. I think honestly, that would be one of the ones that they will be most receptive to.

Moore To Consider: You're talking about the founders. Clearly, they wrote it. Yeah, I think that's clear. Yeah.

Charles: Yeah, the founders. Yeah. So what was happening in Mississippi or Alabama or whatever, after reconstruction and up until probably mid 20th century, that they would say, wait a minute here. There were rules and laws that were in place. You guys did amend the constitution. That's what we put in there for you to do. You did it. And then there are other, there are states that are not abiding by it. I believe that they would say that's wrong. You're supposed to abide by it. was passed via the amendment process and you have to abide by it.

Moore To Consider: Well, I don't think there was a problem with 13th amendment ended slavery 14th minute, you know, was this whole definition of citizenship. Okay. And then the 15th amendment was voting rights as it related to race. But what did they do? They found ways. you know, everyone knows the grandfather clause. It was basically the illiterate white soldier who had a grandfather that could vote legally, who may have fought in the civil war as an illiterate white. He got to vote because his grandfather could vote. Then, know, poll taxes, literacy tests, everything was used as an impediment to black voting. So it didn't have anything, I mean, I guess it really has something to do with the 15th amendment in a sense, because it says no longer will your right to vote be abridged according to race. Didn't say black or white, it said according to race. It's like the 19th amendment didn't say anything about other than won't be abridged with regard to sex. So once the 15th amendment's ratified.

Charles: Mm-hmm. Right.

Moore To Consider: This kind of backdoor. I got one. Okay. If we don't want the blacks to vote, we won't exclude them at the polling place because the race will say, fill out this form and show us you can read or write. And you're taking a group of people that has been recently freed and you're to run a literacy test by and say, what about the white guy over there? Where's grandfather voted? I mean, it's literally what happened. So it's still a problem that

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: You're right. The founders could come back and go, okay, now, now play nice and follow this amendment that's post civil war. But they, they didn't really violate for me. What I'm saying is they're not violating the 15th amendment. It's to say, well, you can't vote because of your race anymore. They're finding other ways to keep said race from voting fair. I mean, that's what's happening. Right. So yeah, but yeah, I could see a founder maybe looking at that, but then again,

Charles: Yes. Yes.

Moore To Consider: I don't know what the founders would have thought was the solution or the answer or where they would have gone with the question of what do you do post slavery? I don't know. You know, if you'd asked Washington or Jefferson, those people were clearly saying, well, Jefferson was clearly writing. ⁓ and people will think that that makes them, but, ⁓ not two-faced, but, what am I saying? Duplicitous, huh? Hypocritical, right? That he's writing in a sense.

Charles: Hypocritical? Hypocritical?

Moore To Consider: that he's talking about the ills and he throws it at George the third in the declaration. Like it's your fault that we have this problem, but I don't know where he would have been on what, what did you do post-war? Are we going to be a country where we're really expecting to see everyone treated equally or will there be, you know, some move to move slaves away from country? I don't know. I don't know what those founders would have thought.

Charles: Mm-hmm. I I don't, I don't know either, but I would, I would say that I don't think that they will be very surprised as to how things turned out.

Moore To Consider: No, no, I don't think it would have been surprise at all.

Charles: No, they put the provisions in there for it to happen. ⁓ And that specific subject, the reason I say that, don't think that it would be surprised because, well, it was the federal government that did it. They would be more surprised at things that the federal government shouldn't have done.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles: Or shouldn't be doing, I should say. Yeah, it shouldn't be doing. That's, yeah, that in my personal opinion, that's where they would have the most fit. ⁓ Yeah. What are you doing with the money? ⁓ What is up with all these entangling alliances? We kind of warned you about that. ⁓ We're fighting wars for, for what? ⁓ How does this benefit Americans? Why are Americans dying?

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah.

Charles: for things that don't benefit us or for again these entangling alliances we can't we can't continue to do this somebody needs to answer for this that's ⁓

Moore To Consider: Well, you know, I did see a thing the other day popped up on YouTube and it was interesting. And it really was a guy says, I know you've heard this again. This almost becomes like bumper sticker slogan, know, sloganeering, guess the guy was like, Hey, they're dumping the tea and the Boston Harbor over 2%. It was 2 % like they're pissed off and talking about overthrowing the most powerful, not overthrowing.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: But making a break away from the most powerful nation in the world over 2 % taxes. And then the guy said, here's your average person from California and it's bang federal bang state bang this bang that. Californians are like literally losing 70 % of their income. Yeah. It's crazy. Like, and this is the gas prices, the rest, and they keep voting for it. I mean, at least some group of them. Well, we can get into the whole question of who's voting for it, but yeah, talk to me.

Charles: ⁓ this is gonna sound terrible. But you know what? Okay. That's where the illiteracy test comes in. You got a bunch of dummies that are voting.

Moore To Consider: So you're for testing people before they vote.

Charles: Man, I've said this and I know I'm going to catch hell for this. I think this should be a test on every ballot and it should be a civics test on every ballot. And the questions need to be random. And if you fail the civics test on the ballot, then your vote doesn't count. Simple as that.

Moore To Consider: I don't have a position. I think voting is way over emphasized, but I think it's because what it's become is the 51 % after the, basically the property and or value of whatever the 49 % have or the 14, whatever it is. And I, that's what happens with democracy. It's the two wolves in one sheep, whatever other Like bumper sticker slogan we have for it. It is true. If you allow a percentage of people to realize they can buy vote, have a bunch of whores in Washington or their city government or their state house, if they can have these people aligned to take from a group of people and get a real good cut in portion of it on the way to trying to enrich supposedly enriching the masses. I was watching something the other day. It was a George Carlin clip and he is like bringing home all the receipts. And this is like 1991 or something. He's on a talk show and somebody throws up their hand that's in government. He goes, no, no, no, no, no, no. You're either we're not. It was the talk he gave about there's an it or there's a group and you're not it. You know, it's like, you're right. And, I heard another guy the other day make a really good point. He goes, most of the politicians are.

Charles: Yes.

Moore To Consider: in league with or other things with the pilot, the politicians are in league with the billionaires, the billionaires that run the businesses, blah, blah, blah. They're all getting rich and what are they doing by either the dimension of race or at some level, maybe economics. They're getting people to piss and moan and fight amongst themselves. And this is nothing new. mean, we've all heard this. And I've also heard a lot of the, heard Dave Smith talk about this, avalanche of language that followed when the tea party. and Occupy Wall Street hit at about the same time. And they were people from different stripes of political philosophy, but they were both going after the quote 1%. They were going after the apparatus. And it was almost like, okay, we can't have that. We can't have people that lean conservative, go to church on Sunday and the rest with some kids out there with purple hair in the streets that are fighting the man. And they're kind of aligning that the whole system screw in everybody. You can't have that. Yeah.

Charles: Right, Tim Poole talks about it, he talks about it also. ⁓

Moore To Consider: Yeah. And I know that they did like a search of certain terms as it related to what became hot topics on culture, cultural issues. They were never said. was like 1991 said once, then a blip of nothing, you know, until 1999 never mentioned. And then it was like 2012, bam, you know, it just, goes through the roof and all of a sudden we're talking about things we've never talked about before. And it's becoming a life or death struggle over issues that never mattered. Who's introducing that into the equation and why? It would seem like if you keep, like I said, it's very obvious, but yeah, my, my bigger fear about the whole voting thing is, is that people think, well, you you hear commentators say it all the time. I wish people would take more consideration in what it's going to take to earn the vote of the politician. It's like, what are you going to pay me for my vote? You hear that all the time.

Charles: Right. . Yeah. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Like you should be making economic decisions. know, what's that politician bringing home to you? That's a function of a representative government is what the guy's guy, the gal that's bringing you.

Charles: Well, technically, yes. Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

Moore To Consider: No, I don't think so at all. No, think, well, I mean, I, no, no, no, I don't think that's the role. I don't think that's the role. If you asked me what the role of a Congress person should be, it should be to swear no to the constitution and vote on matters that matter like declaring war. That's a biggie. ⁓ but I don't think it's all this money stream stuff. I don't think it's the, no, but it has turned into that.

Charles: They're not supposed to keep as much of the tax dollars that come from their district in the district. Well, yes. Nah, I agree with you. Yes it has.

Moore To Consider: It's when I watched that, ⁓ when I watched the, Eugene Jurecki 2004, when he did why we fight documentary, he had a CIA type on there. Guy was like 15 years in CIA. He goes, have you ever noticed that any named one of the largest aircraft flown in United States military history had a part, a part or more made in all 50 states? And he goes, there's a reason for that because of Congress, people are going to go in there. Hey, we're going to keep that plant going. And we're going to keep that manufacturing base going. And it was like, yeah, save my job. And then the plane ain't never going to get voted out of existence. It's not going to happen. So whoever that manufacturer is, they're pretty happy. They got the federal government, they got the contractors, they got the Pentagon and what happens? Well, if you make a lot of things that go boom, what must you look for?

Charles: things to make go boom. I mean, yeah, that's what you have to do. Yeah. Yes.

Moore To Consider: Yes. Places, in conflicts, right? So it all becomes about places and conflicts to make things go boom. Sell it to people, you know, and it's, it's again, another line from Dave Smith's opening about if you want to know who America's next enemy is going to be, look at who we're funding now. And there's some serious history of that. We're giving money, we're giving arms, we're giving up, you know, 20 years later, we're in a major conflict with those same people.

Charles: Yes, unfortunately.

Moore To Consider: Cause that's the, that's the whole Alliance thing. All right. You had brought up taxes. And again, I think the amount of tax, ⁓ and one other, this thing, you know, I was thinking about, ⁓ Monrovia, right? That was an 18th. I was just looking up 1822 was named for James Monroe. That was an idea of moving people out of country if slavery had ended. So that's not that far removed from the framers. And I think there was already some ideas. So there would be. Back to that thing about race and the end of slavery. do think it would be interesting to think what would, because didn't Lincoln also say the same thing? Didn't Lincoln say something along the line of, okay, if we can end this conflict and end slavery, I'm not opposed to basically en masse moving people who had been slaves out of the country because of questions of how was this all going to play out? All right. So you brought up. ⁓

Charles: Yes.

Moore To Consider: We're looking at gun laws and I think you're absolutely right. I think there's a real argument to be made that the second amendment would pretty much preclude the federal government. guess, I don't know. The whole thing about the state lines and the mass movement of weapons of certain types across the state line, I think they're pretty hard and fast that they're going to still think that that's federal jurisdiction. Wars? Yeah.

Charles: Yeah, yeah, but again, these are the founders and they would say, why are you putting restrictions on machine guns? Doesn't the army have them?

Moore To Consider: They're going to believe it. Those in power are definitely going to believe it.

Charles: That's what they were saying. Yeah. So I don't think they were, they were finding an issue with it. I just don't. Yeah. Okay.

Moore To Consider: Oh, absolutely. No, I agree with you. I agree with you there. I agree with you there. I don't know. I definitely, I definitely agree with you. And I've seen this argument made to like, I have a friend of mine, highly educated lawyer went to a really, really great, quote unquote law school. And he told me one time, goes, okay, okay. I'll accept your vision of the second amendment. That means everybody can have a musket. And I'm like, it said firearm. And ordinances was a term used for like bombs and things like that. So there was definitely terms of art that were used. And if I'm not mistaken, 1791, at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, there were already repeating rifles. They were dabbling. think they were highly expensive. I've been there. think cartridges and gunpowder within a cartridge and around was not out of the concept. They weren't far from it.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: If not already in, so machine gun would not have gone, what are you talking about? That's space alien stuff. They would have had a concept of a repeating firearm.

Charles: But I don't think that was the standard. The standard was what the military had.

Moore To Consider: Well, don't think they really, other than, okay, other than the language of well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, I think what that setup was, states regulate the firearms and make sure that your state is armed and safe. And we're not going to screw with it. We're not coming around and taking firearms. Because, a friend of mine made this point, there were, out of all the proposed, this is really important, out of all the proposed amendment, it came down to 12.

Charles: Okay. ⁓

Moore To Consider: The first two in sequence that were voted on didn't get in. And one of them was ratified 202 years later. And that was you can't get a gain. Congress cannot get an increase in salary until they've made it through another election cycle. That was literally ratified 202 years later in the 1990s when it didn't make it. And the other one was Madison's view on how you would increase the number of members of the house as the population grew. It was kind of unwieldy and he was brilliant. Nobody really understood it. So it didn't get passed.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: So the first amendment was the third in sequence. wasn't like everyone's like, ⁓ my gosh, they even made it the first. They didn't really make it the first amendment. It was the first one to be ratified. But you know the freedoms. But then what's the second amendment? Can't take my firearm. What's the third amendment? You can't come in my house, quartering it. What's the fourth amendment? You can't seize my stuff. You can't seize me or whatever without due process or probable cause. I'm sorry, due process, fifth amendment. But you can't have a probable cause. You got to go before somebody neutral to get a search warrant.

Charles: Mm.

Moore To Consider: And why? Because the British went house to house, took their guns and slept in their beds. So you can understand, and I've said this many times, you can understand a people of a certain religion, race, ethnicity, background, generally English, going, okay, new leaders of our new formed country. How the hell do we know you won't come around and go door to door like General Gage did in New York and New Jersey and take our weapons? And how do you know we're not going to kick down our door and tell us who you're going to sleep in the bed? the soldiers are going to sleep in my kid's bed.

Charles: All right. All right.

Moore To Consider: That's why they wrote that stuff. It's like, it's not hard to understand why they weren't trying to get the leaders to say, no, no, no, we won't do that. And here's something to enshrine that. So again, I think all they were saying is we're not screwing with the weapons, but I still think the Commonwealth Virginia had every authority to regulate firearms any way they wanted under, the second amendment. Okay. We're on the same page on that. All right. So we've got, all right. So slavery, you, you bring up slavery.

Charles: Yes. Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: We've kind of touched on it, taxes, slavery. All right. Anything else you want to say on that as a topic, how they would see it?

Charles: Yeah, we talked about it. Or Congress. See slavery? No, it no. No, really, I think they will be looking at their fellow politicians with disgust. There, you know, what what our politicians have degraded to ⁓ is not what they

Moore To Consider: How? Okay. ⁓

Charles: would envision as someone who is a representative of people, not just a district or a state or whatever, just people in general. I think they would have an issue with that. I really do. And these people are there, so they get these positions and some of them stay in there for 40 and 50 years. That's not what we intended. No.

Moore To Consider: Well... Well, well, and I, but I also think that clearly somebody that could do the time travel from 1791 to 2026. If we stop one of these guys, they were all men at the time, but if we stop one of these guys on the street and said, Hey, hey, get this, get this. What? We got people going into Congress. They got a net worth of a 472,000. Yeah. They're leaving 20 years later. They're worth 40 million. I'm sorry. What?

Charles: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. And they're making 174,000 a year. So let me, let let me get this straight again. They're, they're working as a member of the house, making 174 K and in 20 years, they're worth 40 million. Is that what you said? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they're spending millions to get the gig.

Charles: Yeah. The first question they would ask would be, you're telling me they're there for 20 years? That will be the first question. Yeah. And then it's like, well, yeah, they're there for 20 years. Wait a second. Hey, James. Hey, Madison. Yeah. Can you please put that in there where there are term limits? So this doesn't happen because we can see where this is going. Yeah, we can definitely see. And we don't want this.

Moore To Consider: You're right. Well, yeah, yeah, that too. Yeah. Do you, well, let me, all right, let me ask you that. Cause I remember Washington didn't, Washington term limited himself and that became precedent that, yeah, he served two terms to get the hell out of town. I don't know that he wanted to serve the second one, you know, and he died not long after he ended his second term. He died in 1799. Okay. So that being said, do you think, I don't know, I don't know if it was ever discussed. It probably, I know the duration. of time served was talked about a lot, four years, seven years, eight, whatever the president was going to serve. I mean, they come to two years with the members of the house and six years with the Senate. But that would be an interesting question for the framer fast forwarded in a time travel to the day. Hey, what do you think about term limits? I I'm sorry, what I think they would say, they would understand the concept, but I wonder. if they would be pushed over the edge by the present day and go, ⁓ yeah, yeah, you need to stop those people from serving that long.

Charles: Well, think of it this way. ⁓ When it comes to federal offices, the only one that has a limit is the president. And I think that the reason for that is, is that Congress has to vote on it. And they're never going to vote themselves to term limits. They're never going to do that.

Moore To Consider: Right. No, right. That's been argued a lot. Yeah.

Charles: But the founders, I think the reason that they didn't put it in there was because they're like, they couldn't imagine that somebody would do that. They would think that this is going to be a lifelong thing for them. That people would have more, I don't know, common sense not to do that.

Moore To Consider: Well, so we think, but we think of today, a modern day politician, and we see people entering the stream of that trajectory into that kind of career pretty early. They're, they're onto something. mean, like it's, it's a career path. That's what it's become. What was Washington? He was a planter and a soldier.

Charles: Mm-hmm. and the richest pretty much the richest man in the country.

Moore To Consider: Oh yeah. I saw the book about 20 years ago where in constant dollars, was worth like, he was like two or 3 billion. think it was, he was like the 22nd richest person in the American history. Given the dollars of his time versus today, you know, the whole constant dollar. Yeah. He was like crazy wealthy and Jefferson died a hundred, $9,000 in debt. So he had the great mind was totally impractical and he lived off of credit, you know, and this is part of the argument and it's true. People don't like to hear it.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: But part of the reason he probably didn't do more to free people's like, he's hypocritical. talked all the time about ending slavery. It was an evil. Well, basically all of his creditors own the interest in the slaves. couldn't free him if he wanted to. Because of how impractical and I know somebody's going to write it. That's not an excuse. I'm like, whatever. I'm just saying Jefferson wrote a lot of flowery things about the state of man and the rest, but he had absolutely no discipline as it came to financial affairs. Yes. And Washington was less educated was just the opposites by point. Yeah.

Charles: What would have happened? What would have happened if, let's just say for instance, Jefferson and Washington said, you know what, I'm going to free my slaves. See you later. You're free. can go do whatever you want. What would have happened to them?

Moore To Consider: ⁓ they probably would have stayed there and found some way to work on the plan.

Charles: Not the slaves, what would have happened to Jefferson in Washington?

Moore To Consider: ⁓ the public pressure that might have come to bear.

Charles: No, it was against the law. You couldn't do that. You didn't know that? Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Well, know that Washington made provisions in his will to free slaves and give them education and the like.

Charles: You all You could not, it was against the law to free your slaves while you were alive.

Moore To Consider: All right. have to research. I wasn't aware, cause I know that there were free blacks. I mean, there were people who had some point been in servitude and were not. So I don't, I don't, I didn't know, I didn't know of a law against it. Okay. All right. I'll look at it. But is it not true? I thought it was, was that Washington died in 1799. I thought that he'd put provisions in his will.

Charles: Yeah. Yes. Yeah. There was a law against it. they No, you couldn't do it while you were alive. You could put in your will that they were. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So that's why I asked the question the way that I asked it, what would have happened if they had freed their slaves? It was against the law.

Moore To Consider: ⁓ okay. Okay. So you could do it. Okay. Cause Jefferson did the same thing, but I think it affected only like five slaves with Jefferson. What would be the penalty? I don't know.

Charles: I, that, I couldn't tell you what it was. That I don't know. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Okay. That's an interesting point because I know, I know it with Jefferson. I was at Monticello and they were doing a lot of like dancing around the issue of some things about Jefferson, you know, and then not dancing around. They seemed to want to make a big deal about him and slavery because it's out there. And certainly the Sally Hemings story was a big part of it as well. So one of the people there, they're well-educated in the subject of Jefferson. They didn't know this though. I told them, said, Hey, Wasn't Jefferson in France when he came up with the design for the state Capitol in Richmond? I don't think so. Is that right? And, I knew damn well it was because the model that he brought back from France is in the Capitol. So I played a little hook, you know, I played a little better to get you, to dump the chump with him, but they made the point that in the end, and I think it was an argument that Sally Hemings, while in France could have walked, she like legally could have walked, but she worked out things with Jefferson.

Charles: Yes. All right.

Moore To Consider: to protect other family members at the time of his death. you're rolling your eyes, right? What are you saying?

Charles: What about, I always bring this up all the time. What about Jefferson's brother, Randolph?

Moore To Consider: What about him? What about him?

Charles: who was known around the state. A lot of people didn't like it. He liked to bang slaves.

Moore To Consider: Well, I think it was a pretty common period. Sally Hemings' father was Jefferson's father-in-law.

Charles: Well, no, but this guy... Now understood, but I'm specifically talking about Jefferson's brother. He liked to bang slaves and he was known, especially around that part of the state. They didn't like him because this is what he was doing. He was pretty much a deadbeat. And the whole story of ⁓ the guy who was the editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch, who was promised a postmaster general a job from Adams. Adams lose their election.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah.

Charles: He goes to Jefferson's like, Hey man, so what about the job? He's like, that was Adam's promise that to you, not me. You can go kick rocks. And he.

Moore To Consider: Wait a minute. If you're talking about Marbury versus Madison that went to the Supreme court, there was another, you're talking about somebody that's just supposed to be a postmaster general or something? ⁓ okay.

Charles: No, I'm specifically talking about, specifically. Yes. He was promised a job by, by, by James, James, John Adams while he was president. Cause John, I guess he thought he was going win the next election. And when he lost, he, this guy went to Jefferson again, he was the editor of the Richmond time dispatch went right down the street from Charlottesville. They, Hey man, so what about the job? I'm sorry. I didn't make that promise to you. Adams did. He lost. I won. I'm not giving you a job. Well, I think you should give it to me. Why I didn't, I didn't promise you the job.

Moore To Consider: Right.

Charles: Well, fine. I'll go and do something about this. And next thing you know, it is a story in the Richmond Times Dispatch that Jefferson is banging his slave, Sally. When really, because all the, the evidence, it's amazing I'm even defending this, but all the evidence just says A Jefferson. It doesn't say which one. Strengthen enough, his brother has his reputation for banging other people's slaves. He has his reputation for

Moore To Consider: Right. No, I'm looking at it right now, kind of a story on it. What you're saying is some people think that Sally Hemmings children by a Jefferson was not Thomas Jefferson. was Randolph. Yeah. Yeah. And they said DNA testing has kind of suggested that. Yeah.

Charles: Exactly. Yes. Because Randolph had done this around that part. Yeah. But Jefferson Thomas gets the, gets the, the bad rap for it. Now, is it possible that he did it? Yeah, it is possible, but I tell you, was more likely his brother did it because he did it around that part of the state. He was known for it. This isn't, this isn't anything.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. I'm seeing that exact, that thing here in an article. Yeah. That's saying that this is a dispute. Um, I don't know. mean, Jefferson. I think the guy was clearly brilliant. He wasn't a man of great physical courage. Like he never did the military thing that others did, you know, and he was kind of running from Williamsburg, I think during the war because the British were coming kind of thing. Hmm. Yeah. You know, this, you know, the whole argument about university, why he found the university of Virginia, right?

Charles: He hated Williamsburg. He hated Williamsburg. He called it a malarial swamp. No.

Moore To Consider: There's a shirt they wear at William & Mary and it says Jefferson founded the university of Virginia because his kids couldn't get into William & Mary. It's pretty good though, right? Cause Jefferson went to William & Mary. Okay. But, but my point is I was making that sort of comparison contrast between Washington and Jefferson. do find it fascinating that Jefferson, Washington was crudely educated, I guess. I mean, he came from prominent family for sure.

Charles: ⁓ gosh, That's in. Right.

Moore To Consider: But he didn't do the William and Mary and the law degree or, you know, didn't do that level of education. And he becomes this billionaire in today's dollars, but certainly one of the richest. And Jefferson's clearly not disciplined is one thing I said, and he doesn't seem to be very practical, but he writes incredibly insightful images of what man's role is with each other, the government, cetera. And I think Washington was just Joe practical. He was practical guy. Bullets fire. They go down range to hit people. We, end wars. You, you better hope for stay out of other people's business. All that kind of stuff. I think it was very practical. And I think, you know, Samuel Adams was clearly a firebrand and I guess John had a tinge of that. And I just think Alexander Hamilton was an elitist who came from a background when he was with the bastard child. Right. mean, but he.

Charles: Hmm? Yes.

Moore To Consider: But he came from elite background. He went to Columbia unit with Kings college. went to Columbia university. I once saw what the entrance was, what you needed, what was required to entrance into. I believe it was Kings college before, or was it Queen? I guess it was Queens college before it was Kings. Okay. Kings college became Columbia university. Right. So as he went in, you had to be like fluent, write and speak in like five languages. And it was just crazy. ⁓ yeah. You know,

Charles: King Salish. It was Kings. It was Kings. Wow.

Moore To Consider: All of these different, you know, the Latin and all the rest, but you had to write, speak and write in five languages. It was all these other requirements that seem insane today. That's what it took to just get into school. So Hamilton was sharp. I mean, I don't know if some people think he was as sharp as anything we've ever had in that position. ⁓ that, that is one of those trick questions that who's the president on the $10 bill. People go, it's Hamilton, right? Well, except he was never president.

Charles: Yes. Right

Moore To Consider: I wonder if he could have ever been president if he hadn't been taken out the way he was. That's right. He wasn't born in the United States. You're right. Yeah, but.

Charles: No, well, he wasn't born in the United, he wasn't even born on our soil. Well, well, well, actually none of them were born in the United States, technically. But he wasn't born, he wasn't even born technically on the continent. I think he was born in the Bahamas. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: I was gonna say, did that matter? Yeah. I think you're right. Well, but that's a good question though. Would that have mattered then since they did kind of quote unquote grandfather, whatever you want to call it, because they were born in the land, which now has become the United States except for Hamilton. But what, I don't know if Hamilton, I don't know. I never really heard. Yeah.

Charles: Right. Except for Hamilton. That's a really interesting question. because if the, well, well, no, I don't think so. And the reason I say that is because the United States at that time, all the land, let's say the 13 colonies were actually freed. If you want to call it that are independent from British rule. The Bahamas was not.

Moore To Consider: Okay. So it's even more ammunition to say he wouldn't qualify because he wasn't born of American stock, basically. Yeah. That's interesting. Yeah.

Charles: It was still part of Britain. Yes. Right. He, yeah. Yeah, at least that would be my argument. It's still property of Great Britain. mean, then you would have to make the argument, say that, well, if he was born in London, he would qualify also. Well, I mean, technically, yeah, if you want to say that the Bahamas qualifies.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. You know, and we'll, we'll start to close up because the other topic that you had mentioned was Congress and you touched on term limits, anything else you want to say on Congress and what the framers would probably scream at the top of their lungs about and seeing Congress people today.

Charles: Yeah, I think that they would have an issue with how little the congressman either knew about the constitution itself or would be, or care. Yes, exactly right. That's where I was going to go with this. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: or cared. Alright, have you been in settings where you've been around Senator Mark Warner?

Charles: Fortunately, no.

Moore To Consider: Okay. I have, and I'm not saying I know the guy at all, but I mean, I used to see him at the radio station and I've seen him in some other settings. He strikes me as incredibly intelligent. Like he's really, really smart. I know he's a Harvard graduate and then I think he went out into, made his money. And I think like the cellular phone industry, right? Yeah. So he's a bright guy, but there's a famous clip.

Charles: Mm-hmm. Cell phones. Yep. Yep.

Moore To Consider: during Obamacare arguments and some guy at a town hall basically confronts him with and says, Hey, show me there in the constitution where you get to any of this. goes, dude, don't, don't even start the constitution crap. None of the stuff we do is constitutional. Like he comes back and he starts going through a litany of things. The constitution might ask just, you know, come on, calm down. What's in the constitution about this and that and all the other. And I do remember. One time in the studio, another US Senator at the end of a run about how much he loved children and that we needed to fully educate the kids with federal dollars and the right, said radio host said, when the mics were off, and I heard this directly, I was five feet away. ⁓ where do you find the constitution, all this federal jurisdiction or authority and education? And that Senator chuckled and he goes, come on. sad host, if we followed the constitution, we'd never get anything done. And I think he was serious. I don't think that was just jokingly sad. If we followed the constitution, we would get nothing done.

Charles: that strangely enough, that was the point. That was the point. So him saying what he's saying, that's what I would have said to him. Yeah, that's the point. Because we don't want you guys doing all the crazy stuff that you've been doing. Because you need to follow the Constitution.

Moore To Consider: Well, but see, also think there's an argument that you and I, because I know we're of like mind on a lot of this stuff politically, but you and I may look at something that Congress wants to do. Maybe I find it highly unlikely, but maybe we might look at something and go, okay, okay. If that all played out at cost. You know, that they're, they're claiming or whatever. Maybe there would be some good from that, but we would still say the jurisdiction is to do it's not there. We wouldn't care about the end result. Now, as it turns out, there's always this law of unintended consequences where they try to do one thing and it's horribly bad. know, and Thomas Sowell, God bless him. He will be 96 this year, more 1930. But you know, Thomas Sowell's whole story about how I became a conservative.

Charles: Yes.

Moore To Consider: or libertarian or whatever he is from his Marxist roots was the summer he's interning and he's interning with the department of labor. And he starts to realize how many people are being put out of work because of the minimum wage. And he goes to a guy and says, Hey, have you ever seen this? And the guy goes, shut up, shut up. We all know that, but this is our jobs. We can't go and tell some federal officials that this doesn't work. We'd be out of work. And he goes, ⁓ I get it. They have their financial interests in, they don't care if it's actually adversely affecting the very people they say it's going to save. And the fact that people can't understand that labor is just a cost. It's a cost of doing business. And if you artificially inflate wages, you're either putting people out of worth, you're cutting their hours, you're going to do something that in the end, if you're paying them more, Then the position would naturally find its level. Then you're going to do harm to the work, the very people you say you're helping. I don't get why people can't understand that. It's going to be reflected in something higher prices, whatever. So that's the kind of stuff that bothers me too is not only are they sometimes crazy schemes, but they're clearly not jurisdictional. should, they shouldn't have any business do it in the first place. Um, that's why I always bring up my, uh, department of Feng Shui.

Charles: Agra. Togger.

Moore To Consider: Like I've said to people, like, okay, what if the government could come in and rearrange your furniture better than you could? Well, they have no, why shouldn't they have authority to kick in your door if you refuse and move your furniture? Well, that's the dumbest thing. But why, but why? If the government could move your furniture to better locations, do better stylish things, feng shui, whatever, why can't they come in and do it? You're being ridiculous. I'm like, they don't have any more jurisdiction to do that than anything else they do. I think they should be a department of moving your furniture.

Charles: Exactly. Yeah, yeah, sometimes you have to go to, you know, use a ridiculous example to get people to understand. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Are you for that? or clean the garage. Department of Clean Your Garage would always be another one. All right, so what other thing do you want to go crazy about as we go out?

Charles: Yes. Well, the question always comes up. So how do we fix this?

Moore To Consider: Yeah.

Charles: We might be past the point of no return. I've been thinking about this for quite, ⁓ by the way, I need to say this real quick. You were talking about, ⁓ you know, how politicians, the two senators that you were talking about, you know, how, you know, they seem to be the smartest people, you know, really smart people and stuff like that. You know, one of the greatest political orators that I can remember that we've had at least my lifetime was Barack Obama. Honestly.

Moore To Consider: Mm.

Charles: The guy, his speeches were fantastic. They just were.

Moore To Consider: Let me just say something real quick and then I'll let you roll with it. But one thing that's come up as a criticism, and I know it's from people that just don't like him a lot of times, but I do wonder, I have seen him in situations where he's kind of on the stump and it's not a teleprompter type of, ⁓ he can deliver a canned speech like nobody's business. I will agree. But I have seen him in moments off script where he doesn't look comfortable at all. So I don't know.

Charles: Well, that's pretty much anybody though. ⁓

Moore To Consider: Well, Trump just ad libs everything like it or not. Trump can be funny ad libin and Trump doesn't get tongue tied. Trump's going to let it go. It's going to be what it's going to be. And you can go, it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. But he's real. I mean, Trump, you know, is going to say what he's going to say. He doesn't have moments where he's searching for the next word, but go ahead.

Charles: Yeah, true, but he's But Trump is no Obama when it comes to his ability to speak. Just isn't. And it's not even close. But here's the problem. the way that Obama spoke, he was saying things essentially in a different language than most people understood. And if you understood the language that he was speaking, you would say, ⁓ that's BS. And I know it. But you're playing to people who don't know, and you're really good at it. You're really, really good at it. So These other politicians, I think the vast majority of them are like that. Whereas they just say the thing that sounds so good, know, pine and sky and all this other good stuff. But then there's the people like me is like, Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey, you can't do that. And this is why you can't do that. You can make this promise all day long, but you can't do that. But nobody's going to pay attention to me. They can, the politician is going to pay attention to the other 99 % out there. that he could just say whatever makes them feel good. And then they give them his vote. That's the problem that we have right now. And that's on both sides. Not just Democrats, the Republicans do the same thing too. They throw out buzzwords and they get their base riled up and it's like, ⁓ my gosh, I got to vote for this guy. Yeah. But what you really need to understand is both of them are the same. They really are. And again, the question I asked, don't, well, how are we going to fix this problem?

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah.

Charles: Bro, I don't know man. I'll be honest with you, I don't know.

Moore To Consider: Well, I think the problem is, is the breadth of the voting. It's the fact that it's so accessible. The things, I mean, honestly, like I said earlier, if you look at article two, it doesn't say anything about like a popular vote for president clearly is an electoral college. And that was so when they argued this, you know, people keep saying it's remnants of slavery and whatever, but it's really bad. I think, and I think it's pretty clear in the writings is that it was about they wanted to sell to the states, the larger, the smaller and everything in between. was truly a president of the states. It wasn't a president of one particular region because, you know, Virginia, 32 of the first 36 years of the country's existence post-constitution, or in the time the constitution is being ratified, are Virginians. Why is that?

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: Cause a lot of the founding documents came from Virginians and it was the most heavily populated state. Not now, but it was then. And like no politician in Virginia now that you can hardly find is from Virginia. It's a different era. Virginia is a state. It's pretty much run by outsiders now. mean, people can take whatever value judgment they want on that. But at the time of the founding of the country, all these major political figures and war heroes, they were Virginians. It was pretty much Virginia and Massachusetts.

Charles: Right.

Moore To Consider: Sprinkle in Pennsylvania, New York, but I mean, you know, the impact when it came seriously, all the stuff that's written is from Virginians. And that's why you have that impact with, with the presidents coming from Virginia. ⁓ and that's way it should be. Right. We need to, we need to return those times. Yeah.

Charles: Mm-hmm. Right. Yes, I agree. Well, I would like the last thing I'll say about this. I would love to see the states come up with a law that says that their governors have to have been born in that state.

Moore To Consider: That's an interesting thing to say. Well, I mean, it would mirror what happened with the founding of the country as far as, yeah, I mean, yeah. And I'm sure the argument was, I think it's in the founding doc or it's in the writings supporting the founding documents. They didn't want some outsider with influence from other countries, et cetera. So think the same thing could be said about, I think it's an interesting point. Same thing could be said about governor.

Charles: I would look why not? I mean. Yes. Yeah. Why not? Exactly.

Moore To Consider: How do you know that special interests or people in big places won't say, Hey, that person from say New Jersey was born in New Jersey. Can't send them down to Virginia to become the governor or wherever they're else they're from.

Charles: All right. I Okay.

Moore To Consider: All right, in closing, rant, final rant.

Charles: No, no rants other than, ⁓ you know, Asteroid 2028. The usual.

Moore To Consider: The asteroid is not, it's going, is it not forecast to fall out in middle of ocean somewhere?

Charles: If it does, that's fine.

Moore To Consider: But it's going to create like tsunamis. Basically, I mean, it's going to be like waves of water. Cause I think it's. Yeah.

Charles: Well, I'm kind of hoping I'm kind of hoping more for an EMP than than than tidal waves or tsunamis. Yeah, I just want to EMP. Yeah, just cut out the power for about six months.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Well, yeah, still got to try to find that, that perfect place to live where we can get away from it all kind of thing. ⁓ last thing I'll say, and I want your reaction to this. think one thing that's shocking to me, the more, the more distance I move away from certain events where we now live with this an incredible, and we have an incredible amount of recordings of things. So it changes our perspective.

Charles: Good luck. Okay.

Moore To Consider: In the time I'm growing up, if I look to a person that lived a hundred years ago, I could maybe find a recording from some time before my birth of the oldest of the people that might be pushing a hundred years of age, talking about what they remembered about growing up in another century and things like that. It would be recollections in their nineties about what it was like to be in 1870. But now we're in a time that people have lived their whole lives in, ⁓ In a time where recordings of both video and audio were available and you get kind of in a real time sense what they're seeing and what I'm driving at is, and I've said this on many shows, the night that JFK was assassinated, November 22nd, 1963, there was a Boston talk show and there's a, there's a guy on YouTube that puts everything available from the Kennedy assassination weekend. But here's my point. This talk show guy was on with an entertainer. The guy was like a singer, something, you know, He was an entertainer whose show got canceled that night and he was in new, it was in Boston. So he goes to this guy's studio and all they're talking about, they're using terms like hate speech, the rhetoric in the South. Of course he got killed in Texas because there's so much hate and division in the country. And Hey, it's now approaching it's 62 plus years now from that time. I swear to you. And I've said this before, it's so spooky because the audio is so clear. It's like you're sitting right beside these two guys and you're like 62 years have passed since they had this conversation. And if I played it for you, you'd be like, that kind of sounds like today. And the other one I'll tell you real quick. I watched the 1948 Democrat national convention, which I'd never seen film of until a few years ago on YouTube. And what do you think Harry S. Truman is banging the gavel and going crazy over?

Charles: Mm-hmm. All right. ⁓ wow.

Moore To Consider: Universal healthcare. And I didn't realize that. I didn't realize that was that much. I've seen Kennedy speak on it after he was elected in 60, but Truman's like, and I will have a day when you'll be able to walk into any medical office and you'll be a government care. I'm like, they were talking about that in 48. Now, of course, you know, social security, you know, comes just before that with the war and the depression who comes before world war two. But it's my point is. When we talk about being able to bring these guys back from 1791 and fast forward them in the, lamp in the, ⁓ the DeLorean, get them in the DeLorean and bring them here to this time. I don't know that they would be as shocked over, think they would be shocked by technology and how stupid people are with the technology. Now, wait a minute, you're walking around with a phone that has the history of the world and everything there is to know on a phone. Yeah. And you can't read or write or you can't think you can't cross the street without running into the bus because you have a phone in your hand.

Charles: Yes.

Moore To Consider: I think they might be shocked at how dependent we become on the phone, but I don't think they would be shocked about the arguments. Cause I think it's all human nature. It's all the question of who gets what and how and might makes right and all the rest. It's just the plight of man since the beginning of time. So I don't think, yeah, but technology changes everything. Okay. All right. So we want people who watch our show here, Jack and Chuck here on more to consider.

Charles: Yeah, I'm saying. Yes, it does. It always will. ⁓

Moore To Consider: Please like, subscribe, comment, and share. And we won't read any of the comments because they make you mad, just me mad.

Charles: and share. Yes. Makes you mad. I don't mind, but I just stay away from them.

Moore To Consider: I stopped looking, but yeah. So we're telling you to make comments that we won't look now we'll look, we'll look at the comments. All right. Charles is always love you, brother. Uh, we're going to do this again real soon and we'll try to bring Lauren and really stir the pot by bringing her in, bringing in a female voice. All right. Take care. Bye bye now.

Charles: It will work out. Yeah, we just do. I'll be hearing. Yes. Hmm, okay. All right, you too.