NOTE:  I am having hard time embedding this video.  If you cannot see it, you can watch it here or here.

Over 8000 people “like” this video on Facebook and it has nearly 9000 “shares.”   And read the comments on Facebook, people are just eating it all up:

David Barton has a way of explaining anything so even I can understand it. I just wish my brain worked as fast as his!!! 

 I now have a new wrinkle in my brain, as my mother used to say. Very interesting. Thank you Glenn and David for helping us understand how the laws in this country should work. Safe travels.

What I wouldn’t give just th go on a road trip and just listen to you guys talk about history, politics, law, etc., etc., etc.

Love David Barton’s knowledge & wisdom

I love David Barton, I love the way he explains history

Definitely an interesting perspective and I like the truth revealed here

Love David Barton. He came to our church years ago and explained the U.S. Government history. Have read several of his books

David Barton explains the differene between a Republic and a Democracy..and why God’s Law, under our Constitution, and Founding Fathers intent is always above “man’s law’ 

It is time that ordinary evangelicals learn that there are fellow believers who are offering a different way of understanding religion and the founding.

Hat tip to Jon Rowe.

Reader Interactions


  1. Tom Van Dyke says

    “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”–Blackstone

    It's not all that mysterious what he's trying to get at. We have rejected natural law for positive law these days, but we didn't always.

    Commentaries on the Law of England

    Sir William Blackstone

    Section 2

    Of the Nature of Laws in General

  2. John Fea says

    Tom: What does this have to do with the difference between a republic and a democracy and the difference between the United States and France and the way our government operates?

  3. Jimmy Dick says

    David Barton lies so much he actually believes what he says. He just makes stuff up as he goes along to suit his fanaticism. If we left government in the hands of people like Barton we would be living in a totalitarian theocracy as bad as Iran if not worse.

  4. MSC says

    We can all agree that Barton is wacky, but the fact remains that Davis' move is justifiable, not on grounds of religious liberty (her mistake) but on constitutional grounds. Thomas Jefferson feared a rogue federal judiciary. and correct me if I'm wrong, but Lincoln was partially elected due to his opposition to the Dred Scott decision. See for example here: Scalia seemed to anticipate and perhaps implicitly endorse such actions as Davis' in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

  5. Tom Van Dyke says

    Blogger John Fea said…
    Tom: What does this have to do with the difference between a republic and a democracy and the difference between the United States and France and the way our government operates?

    September 4, 2015 at 7:15 PM

    He's asserting that democracies such as France did not respect a higher law above man-made law. American anti-slavery advocates argued that there is, although as we see, it usually didn't work. But how much do we admire those who upheld slavery on the grounds of positive law?

    Review of “Justice Accused: Antislavery and the
    Judicial Process,” By Robert M. Cover

    To establish the intellectual background for this judicial dilemma,
    Cover considers at length the interplay between natural law and legal
    positivism. Noting the persistent resort to natural law theories by antislavery
    advocates, he points out that the very ambiguities of the concept
    made it “a tool for expressing moral doubt and concern about slave
    law”' 8 and “a device for expressing the gap between the law as it is
    and the law as it ought to be.”' 9 Under the influence of ideas expressed
    in the late 18th century by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Lord
    Mansfield, any possible justification for slavery based on natural law had
    disappeared. On the other hand, these same authorities acknowledged
    that, if sanctioned by positive law, slavery could rightfully exist. As
    this deference to positive law suggests, natural law occupied a lesser
    place in the judicial scale of values than constitutions, statutes, and
    precedents. Moreover, the decades following the American Revolution
    saw many commentators reject natural law as a vehicle for the
    formulation of social policy.20
    For all its practical limitations, the natural law tradition indicated that
    slavery was contrary to the inherent right to liberty. As Cover
    observes: “To speak of slavery as against natural law, even if the legal
    consequences of the statement were few and undramatic, was to admit
    the moral blemish on the system.”' 21 Yet the uses of natural law remained
    obscure. Was natural law simply a sort of residual body of authority,
    available only when other sources of law did not reach a given
    situation? To what extent could it be used in the interpretation of acts
    of positive law? Did natural law have any role when the positive
    law unmistakably established slavery?

  6. Jimmy Dick says

    Jefferson absolutely hated the idea of an independent judiciary. He wrote often about it and there is no doubt from his writing where he stood…in writing. The problem with Jefferson is that he would write one thing and then do something totally different, sometimes even the exact opposite of what he wrote. Part of the reason he disliked the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review is that he wanted it for himself as president.

    Jefferson's view on the federal government, its relationship to the states, and the Constitution differed quite a bit from many people. Even James Madison pointed out that Jefferson was not well versed in the meaning of the Constitution. Jefferson had his interpretation and he wanted it to be supreme. However, as history has shown us, Jefferson was wrong about the Constitution several times and was opposed by enough people that his interpretation was not the one that would be sustained over time.

  7. Tom Van Dyke says

    BTW, Barton refers to “4 types of law,” which is Aquinas. [Blackstone had 6, but they're similar.]

    Aquinas recognizes four main kinds of law: the eternal, the natural, the human, and the divine. The last three all depend on the first, but in different ways. Were we to arrange them in a hierarchy, eternal would be at the top, then natural, then human. Divine law is not in conflict with natural law, but it reaches human beings by a different route, revelation.

    David Barton usually has something substantive in mind, although what comes out is often a jumble. However, his point here could be whipped into shape.

    “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”—MLK

  8. Jimmy Dick says

    Barton only wants to support his ideology. His viewpoint is that the US is ruled by the law of God first and that the government should not be a secular one guaranteeing freedom of religion to all. He would have unjust law exist to serve his religious beliefs and justify it through biblical verse.

    Government by religion is a failure and leads to tyranny. I do believe the Founding Fathers had a major issue with allowing religion to run the country. Barton rejects that idea.

Leave a Reply