Sam Rohrer:      Well, the results of Tuesday’s elections while now observable and known will produce future impacts and create a mystique and surprises that are unpredictable, and I’m going to go as far as saying everything but known. And such is the very quick resignation of the Attorney General Sessions and the outcry of Democrat leaders who fear the incessant and wandering expedition of the Mueller probe will come to a close. We’re going to give some comments from our team here today on the Sessions change and we’re going to discuss with our special guest, Constitutional Attorney David New, what will happen to further appointments to the Supreme Court if Justice Ginsberg or Breyer retire or step down or something happens to one of the other ones. Now, these are all things that we don’t know for sure what may happen, but we’re going to talk about what could.

And then we’re going to close the program today with some commentary surrounding the question of what does God think when people, the citizens, choose sin or vote for people who oppose God’s moral law and pursue ideologies which compete directly to the Constitution because there were votes for numerous people and on numerous policies across the country that did just that. We’re going to talk about that because that’s not insignificant. We’ll close out the program with that today. Well, all of that and more on Stand in the Gap Today. I’m Sam Rohrer and I’m going to be joined by Dr. Gary Dull and, again, as I referenced, our special guest today, Constitutional Attorney, Author, and Speaker David New.

Well, men, I want to get into this. There are a lot of places that we could go, but I want to talk just a bit about the resignation yesterday of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Now, for many people, as are weighing in on the Democrat side, they’re really angry, seem to be extraordinarily surprised and so forth. The press is taking that same bent. On the other hand, there were for many people who thought it was a welcome surprise and that it’s actually a good thing that this attorney general has stepped aside. Now, we’re going to get into some of that as we consider just briefly that the Interim Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, who was the chief of staff for General Jeff Sessions, will be taking his place for a period of time until a permanent replacement is nominated and then confirmed by the Senate. We’re going to talk about that.

David, let me start with you right now. You’re calling in, as you do, from the West Coast and you are on top of this issue. We’ve talked a lot about the matter of justice. We’re going to talk about the courts today and the implications of that, and I think we’ll be one of the programs that will be probably touching on this issue of the courts and the impact of the electing changes on Tuesday and probably one of the first ones to do it. I want to ask you a fundamental question here because some are insinuating that the President does not have the right. Does a sitting president have the constitutional right to ask for the resignation of any of these department heads of any agency including the attorney general that sits on top of the Department of Justice? Does he even have the right to do that? Let’s start there first and then we build up.

David New:       He has an absolute right to ask for the resignation. He doesn’t have to ask for the resignation. He can simply fire them.

Sam Rohrer:      All right. So there is not any issue that way?

David New:       No.

Sam Rohrer:      Let’s go here. Democrat congressional leaders are screaming foul, some of them, because they say this resignation is just a cover for ending the Mueller investigation. Well, the fact of the matter is Matthew Whitaker, who’s going to be filling in, he has already said that he does believe that the Mueller investigation has gone off mark. Now, does the Interim Director, Matthew Whitaker, who’s now filling in, does he have the authority to make limitations on the Mueller investigation? In other words, does he have the full authority of a actually confirmed attorney general in his temporary position of acting?

David New:       This individual that has that position now can hold it for about seven months after which he can’t hold it any longer. As acting attorney general, he definitely can. He can fire this individual. He does not have to recuse himself like Jeff Sessions had to. The reason why Sessions had to recuse himself, and I wish President Trump would understand this, but because Sessions was part of the campaign he had to and he was advised to by the department policy to do that. This individual was not part of the campaign. He does not have to recuse himself. He can run that probe and that Mueller probe he can tell them to shut it down, he can reduce their funding, he can reduce the amount of people they have, he can approve of all future things that they do. There’s an unlimited number of things that this individual can do and the fact that he has spoken against it does not mitigate his authority one bit to do anything he wants.

Gary Dull:         You know, David, I’m glad that you explained why Attorney General Sessions recused himself because a lot …

David New:       Yeah.

Gary Dull:         … of people are just …

David New:       They don’t know.

Gary Dull:         … thinking that he was a coward or whatever the case may be.

David New:       No.

Gary Dull:         But that’s a good explanation. You know, that just reminds me of how intricate and tied together and complex sometimes our government can become. That’s going to lead me into the question that I have and that is this. Establish for our listeners the linkage and the structure between the president, the Department of Justice, the attorney general, the FBI and how they work together within the constitutional duties of the executive branch of government, that being the White House, the president.

David New:       Well, Department of Justice and the attorney general, well the attorney attorney is a member of the president’s cabinet. He appoints him or appoints her. Now, there is a different rule for the Department of Justice. There is a different rule for the FBI. Although they work for the president and they were appointed by the president and the attorney general’s part of the cabinet, this particular branch of the federal government is sort of, it’s a hands off, the president needs to not put his fingerprints anywhere. At least that’s the way Washington prefers this to be administered. Presidents that try to get too close tend to get in trouble. But he can fire them and there’s no question about it. That was one of the big issues when President Andrew Johnson was being impeached back after President Lincoln was assassinated. That was the issue that was under impeachment. Can President Andrew Johnson fire the Secretary of War Stanton? The answer is yes. They almost got thrown out because of it.

Sam Rohrer:      David, you’ve established a linkage and we could go further into depth on that, but by and large what we’re talking about the President has a right to ask for Jeff Sessions resignation, the president though, by and large, tries to stay out of the inner workings of the Department of Justice and the FBI for a lot of basic reasons. So far, we’re on solid ground, and so we’re going to watch, ladies and gentlemen, as we go forward to see what Matthew Whitaker does and the decisions that he makes.

Well, another of the election results from this past Tuesday is not only a net increase of Republican senators but there is a conservative improvement of the senators who will be going there into 2019. When you consider that there are now very conservative replacements for John McCain, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake in particular who were very much establishment members and opposed to the President on a host of issues. Now, you have a larger Senate that are aligned with the President in numbers and in quality. Now, this should mean that when the President needs to nominate judges to the bench or to fill Supreme Court vacancies, such as may occur with retiring Justice Ginsberg or Breyer, that this process should move ahead more quickly. It does raise the question of what now could be the expected process. How will it actually go down if a Justice Ginsberg or Breyer would announce a retirement or something would happen to one of the other candidates?

As I’m looking at headline news right now as we talk about this, it’s very appropriate that Ruth Ginsberg, Supreme Court Justice, being reported she fell, she’s fractured three ribs, and already headline news is saying that, regarding her, this is just another in a series of health problems. Here’s another one that says already because of this there is high drama at the High Court. Here’s one, believe it or not, and I haven’t even actually opened this up to actually check on it, but evidently people, some people are so concerned that a Ruth Bader Ginsberg could announce retirement and give the President an opportunity to nominate a more conservative justice that they’re already, believe it or not, offering their ribs and their organs to replace them for Justice Ginsberg, so this commentary is very, very appropriate.

Dave New, I want to talk with you now about this because you have a particular concern for the Supreme Court. We’ve talked a lot about the court, the appointment there, and I want to ask you right now that with the increasing likelihood of a retirement of a Justice Ginsberg or Breyer, because of their health and their age, in such a case with the improvement in the quality and the quantity of Republican senators how do you foresee that such issues as religious liberty or voluntary prayer in school, Bible reading in schools, and other key conservative constitutional issues could possibly be affected by this?

David New:       Well, let’s look at this right here. If we had this court that we have right now, the one we’ve got right now, if this court existed in 2015 same-sex marriage would not be a nationwide constitutional right. Your states may have it, but it would not be mandated by the 14th Amendment with the court that we have in place right now. That’s how important these Supreme Court justices are. I don’t think Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going to be resigning anytime soon. She has no desire, none whatsoever, to resign. Neither does Breyer. They don’t want to step down while Mr. Trump is in the White House because they know that if they get a sixth vote things really start changing, my dreams start to become fulfilled. One of the things that I dream about is having these school prayer cases reversed and these Bible-reading cases reversed. We’ll be talking more about that in the third and fourth segment I believe.

The importance of this, one of the things that they’re going to do in the Trump Administration right now between now and the next election, and I don’t think it’s going to work, but they’re going to be asking Clarence Thomas to step down. He’s 70. Now, of course, he could argue he’s got … You know, Breyer is 80. Ginsberg is 85.

Sam Rohrer:      David, let me interrupt you right now. Who is likely to ask Clarence Thomas to step down?

David New:       Oh, the Trump Administration. They’re going to ask him because what they want to do is they want him to step down. He’s a conservative, a reliable conservative, a good one, but he’s 70. They want a Gorsuch, who’s 51, or another Kavanaugh, who’s 53. They want to put a 50-year-old in there. They want to replace a 70-year-old with a 50-year-old.

Sam Rohrer:      Okay.

David New:       They’re going to be putting pressure on him to do that. I suspect Clarence Thomas will not go along with it, but if Trump gets reelected he might at that point. If Trump gets reelected, then Ginsberg is definitely going to be in play because she is … You know, I don’t agree with her, she’s a former ACLU lawyer, and Dear Father in Jesus name we pray for her quick recovery, but nevertheless she will be at such an age to where I don’t think she’ll be able to make both terms in terms of being working.

Gary Dull:         You know, not only from the physical perspective but sometimes I wonder from the mental perspective. You know, once a person begins to deteriorate physically it reaches into every aspect of their life including their ability to think and think deeply as a Supreme Court justice has to do, so I just wonder what is really going to be taking place there.

Let me just go back to something that you mentioned a moment ago if you don’t mind, Dave, and that is the idea of Bible reading in schools. You seemingly believe that the potential of restoring Bible reading and prayer back into the public schools is out there. Why do you see that as a potential at this particular point? I mean, we’re living in a day and age, I mean we’ve gone, what, nearly 50 years without having it. We are living in a day and age when most people don’t even remember it, so why do you think it’s a potential to get it back and what really would it take to get it back into the public schools? I support it, but what are your thoughts on that?

David New:       Well, what it would take is for the Supreme Court to obey the Bill of Rights. The issue of prayer in the public schools or Bible reading in the public schools belongs under the 10th Amendment. That means states that don’t want to have it shouldn’t be forced to take it; states that want to have it can take it. There is broad political support for prayer and Bible reading in the public schools as of this day. When you go in certain states, it’s like in the 80th and 90th percentile. If you go out to California, the lands of fruits and nuts, it’s fairly low. If you go to the Peoples Republic of Vermont, it’s kind of low. But when you start hitting Tennessee, Colorado even, and Montana and those areas, the support is very broad, so under a 10th Amendment ruling these things could be restored and that would have a dramatic impact upon the culture.

Gary Dull:         David, in light of that do you think that groups like the American Pastors Network and other concerned citizens should maybe bring this to light these days?

David New:       Absolutely. President Trump is going to have a hard time being reelected because three states that were crucial in his election, three of them, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania went heavily Democratic. He’s got to take at least two of those three to get reelected I would think. He’s got to get them. They went heavily Democratic yesterday in the governor’s race and all this kind of stuff, so he’s got some problems. If the House tries to impeach Trump, or if the House tries to impeach Kavanaugh, then Trump is going to be reelected. They’ll do it, they’ll do it for him. If we can get six, what I’m worried about is Roberts, but if we can get six conservatives on this Supreme Court these things can be reversed.

Sam Rohrer:      Well, David, we’re going to talk about that a little bit more here now in the next segment. You’ve touched on prayer. We’re going to go in the next segment to the court case that really surrounds all this. You’re going to open it up and share some really tremendous information with people. Let’s just talk about prayer just a second right now. I know that there are some dramatic things that prayer have done, its affect on this nation’s capital. You’re a historian, you’re a constitutional attorney, and you always have a way of giving us some information that we don’t often hear about but need to know. Give us an example of impactful prayer in the nation’s capital. Can you do that?

David New:       Well, there’s one prayer that really changed America, changed the U.S. Capital, and it’s going to be the case that we’re going to be talking about in the next segment, the Engel versus Vitale case of 1962. That case had a prayer in it that was 22 words long and that case affected the House of Representatives. If you look where the House of Representatives, where the President holds the State of the Union Address, you look behind the President you see the Speaker of the House and the Vice President, and you look directly above them you will see in gold the words In God We Trust. Those words were installed in December 1962 as a direct result of the 1962 Engle versus Vitale case, which means that the first president who spoke with the golden words behind him was John F. Kennedy in January of 1963, and of course it was the only time for him because of the horrible assassination that following November.

Sam Rohrer:      Well, that is most interesting because there’s a history to everything that you see. In God We Trust, it is there. Ladies and gentlemen, next time you see or go to the Congress or perhaps see things even on TV from there …

David New:       Yes, even on TV you can see it.

Sam Rohrer:      … look at it because that is very significant. We’re going to talk now in the next segment about the court case that’s affected a tremendous amount of things across this country relative to prayer and as David just said was the cause, instigator of that change, those words there being added in the House there in Congress in D.C.

We’re going to talk here now further about impacts as a result of a more conservative Senate that the President’s going to be able to deal with and we touched on some of those things in the last segment, but when it comes to a more conservative Senate, a President who has demonstrated the willingness to tackle the hardest of challenges, and the very great potential to appoint more conservative members to the U.S. Supreme Court, the potential for good things, for good changes, it does increase and that’s a good thing. When it comes to the matter of turning back limitations on religious liberty in the United States, that time may be here. If changes are made by the court on matters of religious liberty, they will have to deal with a preexisting landmark court decision known as Engle versus Vitale from 1962. We’re going to talk about that right now, about why it was so important and how it would affect any potential changes going forward.

David, let me bring you back in. You’ve already referred to this, but what is the Engle versus Vitale case? Why did you cite it? Why is it so important when we consider religious liberty laws now, decisions by the court, and anything that may potentially go forward to return some religious liberty that’s been taken away from us?

David New:       In terms of religion in the United States, the Engel versus Vitale case of 1962 is a milestone for the bad. It is a turning point in America. If you want to wonder why the culture of America has gone south in so many ways, this is where you want to go. This is the case you want to go to. You can download a free copy of this case just by writing these numbers in Google, 370 U.S., for United States, U.S., 421. In most instances, your computer will automatically go straight to the Engle Vitale case. This is the case that changed America and for the worse.

Now, it came out in 1962 and the issue was prayer in the schools of New York. Here is the prayer that started this whole fight over religion in the public schools. Let me read the prayer to you. We’ll try to read it one more time over the air so that you can hear it again, but again you can get a free copy of it by downloading the case. Here’s the prayer: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Did you hear that? That’s the prayer that changed America, that was good for America, but this is the prayer that the Supreme Court ruled against that caused In God We Trust to be put in the well of a House of Representatives so that the members of the Supreme Court from that day on of December of 1962 will see those words above them in protest of what they did.

Gary Dull:         That’s very interesting, David, that you bring that up. I think that most of our listeners are not aware of that case and its impact and its affect. That case actually even had an impact upon another situation that took place in New York City back in 1952 that stated that the Bible should be read to the New York City students and their schools. Is that correct?

David New:       Well, it’s interesting that you bring that up. The case that you’re talking about I think is the [inaudible 00:22:33] case and that’s a New Jersey case …

Gary Dull:         Okay.

David New:       … as opposed to a New York case. I’m going to read something to you about what the New York City schools, the Board of Education for New York City in 1952, the year that you’re talking about, this is what they said about religion in the public schools. It’s absolutely fascinating. It says the educational affairs of the City of New York are under the general management and control of the … No, wait a minute. Wait a minute, this is the wrong quote. This is the wrong quote. What happened?

Sam Rohrer:      Well.

David New:       Hold on. Just hold on here.

Sam Rohrer:      The case there was that New York City had said, right, in 1952 that the students could read?

David New:       Yes. They said that religion belongs in the public schools of New York City. Here’s what it says. “The schools of the City of New York have always continuously and uninterruptedly had a portion of the Bible read to their students without comment. Historically this practice originated in Colonial times when the schools were all church schools. The practice continued through the 1800s when the idea of free public schools came under their control.” This is what the attitude was of the City of New York, not a Southern state. Here’s the first sentence. Another quote, “The American people have rightly expected the schools of this country to teach moral and spiritual values to the youth of the land. The schools in general and the public schools in New York City in particular have accepted this responsibility. By moral and spiritual values, we mean those values which when they abide in human behavior exalt and refine life and bring it into accord with the standards of conduct that are approved in our democratic culture.” Isn’t that beautiful?

Sam Rohrer:      It is.

Gary Dull:         It is, yeah.

David New:       You can’t do something like this in the schools of New York City and then teach sodomy at the same time. It just doesn’t fit.

Sam Rohrer:      And that’s why, David, it was so important that there was Bible reading in the school …

David New:       Yes.

Sam Rohrer:      … from way back. The Ten Commandments used to hang on the walls in the school for that very reason. So you take out those things, you cleanse those things, is it a wonder then that we teach what we teach and kids do what they do?

Now, let me go here and say that if there was a more conservative body in the court, as we’re talking about, a replacement perhaps of a Ginsberg or a Breyer or someone else and that majority in the court were to be changed, do you think that there is the will, do think that there is the motivation to actually pick this up and do something with that court to affect this Engle versus Vitale case? How would it go about? How would change be made?

David New:       There’s all kinds of ways to do it, and it would have to be Breyer or Ginsberg because Sotomayor’s 64, Kagan is 58. One of these two, Breyer, who’s 80, or Ginsberg, who’s 85. If we get a six member we can afford at that point to lose one conservative justice who would vote against us. There would be a solid five if we could get Amy Barrett on there. A six-member conservative Supreme Court would reverse this whole area. It’s very simple. Very simple. There’s two ways you can do it. Number one, the state legislature can pass a law to permit school prayer and that of course will be opposed by the ACLU and it’ll go right up to the U.S. Supreme Court and they can reverse Engle. They can reverse the 1963 case, Abington versus Schempp. Or you can have somebody like David New who can file an initiative and put it before the voters, like I tried to in Washington, D.C., and if that initiative gets approved it goes right up to the Supreme Court and you have a chance to have the case heard all over again, and all they have to do is say “Hey, this is a 10th Amendment issue. If California you don’t want prayer, fine, but if New York you want prayer that’s fine too.”

Gary Dull:         So anybody who’s under the sound of our voices here today, David, in any state of the union could do that actually to get the process going forward, correct?

David New:       Anybody who just loves the Lord and wants to see religious freedom restored to this country. You’re absolutely correct.

Sam Rohrer:      And David what you’re saying with the move to reverting things back to the state under the 10th Amendment that’s probably, you’d say, the politically safest as well as perhaps the most constitutionally consistent way of dealing with, be it this issue or Roe versus Wade as far as that goes or any other issues that are out there. Is that same principle not applicable to a number of these things?

David New:       Pro-life. If we can get six members on the U.S. Supreme Court, this country can turn around quickly.

Sam Rohrer:      Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is really something that you’re not hearing talked about on any other radio program right now. We’re ahead of the curb on this. But with, as I said earlier in the program, with Ruth Bader Ginsberg falling and breaking her ribs already, people are already getting all excited about what could happen to the court, so we’re just saying something is going to happen to the court. The Senate is more conservative than they were. These things we’re talking about here could in fact be achievable, so reason to be positive, reason to pray hard.

As we move now into the final segment, again our general theme for today is further election impacts. We’ve talked about the courts. We’ve talked a little bit about the Senate, conservative change, what it may mean, and really pretty positive, frankly, as we’ve talked about the potential things that it may do when it comes to the issues particularly of religious liberty.

Now, I want to talk about one other aspect here of this election and some impacts from it. You know, one of the other outcomes of this week’s election goes beyond, far beyond, in my opinion, just how many Republicans and Democrats were elected. It goes actually beyond just red or blue. It goes to the heart of the issue of whether or not the enemy ideologies to God and the Constitution and the rule of law as embraced by some elected candidates as well as other policies and laws that were on referendum within the states that some of these were actually passed by the citizens.

I’m going to say that some of these changes at the very least was very bad. At the most, they could be fatal to our freedom. The question is what’s the natural outcome? What is the predictable end goal or end result of a nation and a people who voluntarily choose constitutional enemies or policies that advance clear evil or sin as described by God himself? I’m going to give you an example. In Oregon voters overwhelming chose to oppose a measure that would limit public funding for abortions. The referendum was let’s reduce the amount of public taxpayer dollars used to kill babies in their womb. That was rejected almost two to one. Now, in Michigan voters on a referendum voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, not medicinal use, recreational. Go out and smoke it and do whatever you want to just like you may tobacco.

There were also two congressional districts, one in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, who elected devout Muslim women to Congress. Now, what’s the problem with that? Well, Islamic ideology is absolutely opposed to constitutional rule of law and the understanding of God and moral truth as incorporated within our Ten Commandments. These are big issues, but people weren’t forced to do these things. They did it, and I have not told you all of them. I’m just citing a couple of examples.

Gary, let me come to you right now and just get your reaction. What does God say about this? I mean, what’s happening when people voluntarily choose to kill babies as they did in Oregon, legalize drug usage as they did in Michigan, or a host of other things? What does that say, Gary? What is that telling us?

Gary Dull:         Well, it’s telling us that people have forgotten God and I think the passage of scripture in the book of Hosea chapter four and verse six that says when a people, when a nation forget God, God is going to forget them in a sense of withholding his blessing and even bringing his judgment. There’s also another principle brought out in the word of God that the nation that rejects God will fail. It will not stand. It will not be able to be established in a positive, productive way, so, you know, this concerns me. I tell you, it’s another one of the reasons why I think that as citizens across this nation who love God and love America should do what we can to bring prayer and Bible reading back into the public schools and back into the public square.

Deuteronomy 28 is a passage of scripture that I would encourage everybody to read because it gives a list of what God will bless and what God will curse. Whether we are talking about a nation or an individual, the principle is true that obedience to God’s word brings blessing, whereas disobedience will bring God’s cursing, God’s chastisement, whatever the case. And then of course that great verse in Proverbs 14:34 says that righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people. A person, a group, a nation that continues to choose to go down the sinful path is a person, group, or nation that will miss out on the blessing and the strength and the provision of Almighty God for sure.

Sam Rohrer:      Gary, I think that’s exactly what it says, and I kind of entitled this section When People Choose Sin.

You know, David, we’ve talked a lot about it here, about how the court, how the Supreme Court have in the past made unilateral decisions, be it about marriage and definition of marriage, about the protecting the lives of people and then choosing to allow the murder of babies, or the matter of prayer and Bible reading, what we’ve talked about in this program. Now, the court has done this, which makes the court very, very important and I think people understand, left and right, the power of the court. In these kind of cases that I’ve just cited here on Tuesday, and in Michigan congressional district and Wisconsin where people actually elected devout Muslim women who hold to a view of God and law and morality that is completely opposite to our Constitution, what does it say that we’ve moved to that point? How likely can we take and change these things around, David? What’s it say to you as a constitutional attorney?

David New:       It can be changed. In my wildest dreams in 2015 when the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right, I never thought we would be today in 2018 with a five conservative-member majority. Give me one more. Give me one more and a lot of this stuff, a lot of this garbage goes away. Here’s what the attorney generals of 22 states said about America in the Engle case of 1962 about this country. “The vast majority of our countrymen hold fast to the belief that America became a great nation and will remain freedom’s stronghold only if she remains true to her religious heritage and tradition. Our beloved country as we know it cannot survive as a Godless nation.” And then they went and quoted one of the most cases that the secular world hates, Holy Trinity Church versus the United States, the 1892 case.

Sam Rohrer:      What was that? What’d they quote?

David New:       The Holy Trinity Church? That’s the one where the Supreme Court gave the whole list of America’s spiritual heritage.

Sam Rohrer:      Okay.

David New:       You can download a free copy. Just write down 143 U.S. 457. That’s the most famous Supreme Court case to describe America’s Christian heritage.