The Wisdom of State Constitutions: How They Shaped the U.S. Constitution

The Wisdom of State Constitutions: How They Shaped the U.S. Constitution

August 28, 2025

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: David New

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 8/28/25. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today. And this is also our bimonthly emphasis on the Constitution and American history. And when we go that direction, almost always it’s with the same individual or special guest, constitutional attorney, author and public speaker. David knew. Now a common question held by most Americans is about the history and the role and the influence of state constitutions. Now in reality, not enough people question that, but it is a common question for people who do think about constitutions and many wonder about the differences and or the similarities between the state constitutions of which every one of our 50 states has one and the US constitution, of which there is only one. Now, just how similar, how different are they? Those are questions people have are the state constitutions? Some would think inferior documents of perhaps lesser caliber or lesser wisdom.

How about this? When an issue is questioned is in question, does the state constitution or the US constitution prevail? Well, sometimes people even think that state constitutions are, well actually backwards compared to the US Constitution, but I’m going to submit that. Any of those kinds of things, I just asked that to be a big mistake if someone were to think that because it’s not true. Now, today we’re going to focus on state constitutions and their enormous wisdom and influence the tide life shows in de frame. Today’s conversation is this, the wisdom of state constitutions, how they shaped the US Constitution. And with that, David New. David, thanks for being back again. This is always a great focus when we’re on this focus with you every other Thursday.

David New:

Well, blessings to you. I’m so glad to be with you and blessings to everyone that’s listening to us today.

Sam Rohrer:

Yes indeed. And David, our focus today on state constitution, I know it’s going to be one of real interest and our listeners are going to really enjoy this conversation. We’ll go into more detail in the next segment. However, I want to go here just in a couple of words. What are two most descriptive adjectives? Put this way that you would choose to describe the writing and the content of our earliest state constitutions and why? Just briefly and then I want to go to another issue here.

David New:

The most important words that I would use to describe the state constitutions are individual people, individuals, people. And as a consequence, there are discussion about freedom. The federal constitution has very, very little to say about individuals and their freedom. It basically is about government. Of course it is about freedom, but the subject of the federal constitution is government. So one is about the individual and the other is about government.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, that’s excellent. So ladies and gentlemen, have you thought about that? Stay with us. We’ll explain and you’ll see how that’s just not a subjective determination that David made. It really is very true. Alright, Dave, let’s go into this now on the balance. The last time that we were together, it was two weeks ago, a week from today, the president had just announced his decision to nationalize the DC police and to place US soldiers, national Guards, and others on the ground there in DC. Now, when we met two weeks ago, it was announced and it was in the process of just being done. Well now it has been done and just a couple of days ago, I think the decision was made that now the soldiers there were actually going to be carrying weapons. At first they weren’t. So things are moving down the line.

Now there are also numerous statements of intent from the president and it’s also driving response from governors here in the last couple of weeks about where the president has said that he’s planning and doing the same thing in Baltimore. Next then he says Chicago. Then he said New York City LA’s also been mentioned, but the President Trump is also saying that the citizens of Chicago, as an example, are begging him to come in and save them. And he said he’s going to listen to them. So something, the ball is rolling. All right, here’s the question. What are your thoughts on moving federal troops into any city outside Washington DC which we know is an exception because it’s a whom rule and it’s run by Congress?

David New:

Well, Americans are pretty much very uncomfortable seeing soldiers and armored vehicles in their cities. They expect to see that sort of thing in El Salvador, Nicaragua, those kind of places. You expect to see soldiers everywhere with their big vehicles, not in the United States. So he can do this in DC with not too much constitutional liability, but the moment he goes into a state, he incurs enormous vulnerability. From a constitutional perspective, the South Chicago is an exception in some ways though, and very much so. We’ve had soldiers who fought in Iraq and come back to the United States for their tour of duty and get murdered in South Chicago. It’s just awful, but it’s something I would discourage and stay away from. There are other ways to do it besides using so many soldiers and things like that.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, David, just a thought here, and again, this is not the focus of today’s program, but let’s just stay on that for a minute because just this morning it was reported that the president is seeking official response from a military base close to Chicago to use it as a base of operations in Chicago, but making the nexus out of Homeland security and the rounding up of illegal immigrants that I’m thinking might just be the way that something may be done. Does that even rounding up illegal immigrants in your mind justify the use of federal troops in the States?

David New:

I would discourage it. The military is not trained. We have the Coma Posse Act in this country that was passed in 1878 and this law said that the military basically should stay out of it of civilian issues. They call me Posse act basically means of the sheriff of the county where the sheriff asked for a militia or deputies to come and help him get the bad guys. And that’s pretty much an article of freedom in this country. So using military, I really think that he may want to rethink that in state cities. It’s not a good idea.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, ladies and gentlemen, just an initial thought. There’s a lot more we could go into that because in reality it is very, very, very clear that the president and his administration is not just throwing out the idea, they’re putting things in effect so as to put military on the ground and as the president said, well they’re begging me to come. Is that the basis to do what the Constitution does not allow? I don’t think so, but again, that’s why David said be careful. Now when we come back, we’re going to move into our theme of the day, the wisdom of state constitutions, and we’re going to talk about the influence of one particular state if you’re just joining us today, thanks for being on board. David New is my guest again today. This is a constitution and American history focused program, which we do every other Thursday.

And David, I think we’ve done this for six or seven years now, but it’s amazing how many things that we can talk about related to the constitution. But this is one today ladies and gentlemen, I don’t think we’ve done before this particular theme and it’s that the wisdom of state constitutions and how they state constitutions shaped the US Constitution. You may never have thought about that, but we will get into this, but I think you’ll find it interesting as American history recounts according to, I’m just going to go one place here. I’m about an hour or so away from Philadelphia there in Philadelphia, you’ve been there, the National Constitution Center. And on their website, they say this, they say quote, during the American Revolution, the continental Congress called on the states to rate new constitutions. Generally speaking, these early state constitutions created governments led by strong legislatures, responsive to each state’s voters.

These state governments pushed for laws to relieve debtors and they set up trade barriers to protect their own businesses. From those in other states with the new US Constitution, the framers were looking in part to respond to the flaws of these state constitutions, especially their powerful legislatures. All right, now that’s what is on the National Constitution Center site, and that’s just a perspective that somebody’s put there together reflecting back on history and the relationship early on of the US Constitution to the state constitution. So David, it is the history and the impact of the earliest state constitutions that is little known. We’ve talked about it already that we want to pursue now and how they were to some degree, even as suggested here and what I just read from the National Constitution Center about the state constitutions actually in some respects creating templates that would become guiding documents from the various states, but models used in the creation of a later US constitution. Even that connection is probably not known to many people. But here’s my question. According to most historians, there is one state constitution that served as some would say the primary model for the US constitution. Which constitution is that and why?

David New:

Yes, by the way, in the last segment I had a senior moment, and I could not get the phrase out that I wanted to get. The phrase is Posse. Posse, the 1878 law, federal law that kept the military from doing local law enforcement acts. Now the constitution, the state constitution that modeled or served as a model the most for the federal constitution was 1780 Massachusetts Constitution. The main architect for that constitution was John Adams and the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution is the oldest still enforced constitution in the world. It’s number one, the US Constitution of 1787 is the oldest constitution still in force for a nation, a national government. But the 1780 Massachusetts constitution is the oldest for any government anywhere. Now, there are definite similarities between the Massachusetts constitution and the federal constitution. For example, there are three branches of government in the Massachusetts constitution, which influenced to some extent having a legislative executive and judicial branch in the federal constitution.

Also the Massachusetts constitution provided for checks and balances between the three branches. For example, the governor can write vetoes or can issue a veto over the legislative branch in the Massachusetts constitution, which is really nice. That also made its way into the US Constitution. Judges in the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 serve on the basis of good behavior and they were not elected as in many other states. Here in the federal constitution, they serve on the basis of good behavior. And of course they are not elected, they’re appointed by the president. And there’s an interesting phrase in the Massachusetts constitution of 1780, which I don’t know if it had an impact on the US Constitution’s preamble, but there is this phrase in the Massachusetts constitution that says, we therefore the people of Massachusetts acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the great legislator of the universe, now that we therefore of the people are we therefore the people of Massachusetts, you can’t help but be suspicious if that didn’t maybe possibly have some impact on the US preamble. By the way, when you see that phrase, great legislature, legislature of the universe, the Massachusetts Constitution is a very Jewish constitution. It’s probably the most Jewish one of all because it treats as a law giver. And here you can see the influence of the Puritans who are sometimes called Old Testament Christians. They were very, very interested in the Old Testament and in Hebrew law. And so here you’ve got this great legislature of the universe that is definitely mosaic and Jewish in its flavor and its coloring.

Sam Rohrer:

And David, that’s interesting because we’re endowed by our creator that was in the declaration that was a reference and multiple states. And even here in Pennsylvania, many of our founders referred to the great judge of the universe that is the other aspect and character trait of God as revealed in the Old Testament legislator, law giver, judge, and king. And so yes, I mean what that connection there I think was just really great. Let’s go on here because of time. Let’s go here in the Massachusetts constitution, you have said before that they have, there’s that one particular sentence in there that is extremely important to the broader concept of religious freedom in America and how Americans at that point saw the role of religion in our society. What does that sentence and what’s it say and why is it important?

David New:

There is a very important sentence in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, a very important sentence because this sentence defeats the idea that the US Constitution and the ideology of that period was secular. They wanted to, the secularists, our secular neighbors, say they wanted to create a constitution divorce from religion or not have the government influenced by religion and that religion should not be a source of legislation for the laws of the United States. Look, the 1780 Constitution of Massachusetts indicates this is only eight years earlier than the US Constitution. They identify the ideology of America and key way in this key way that religion has an important role in our lawmaking process. Let me read it. It’s Article three of the Massachusetts Constitution. Listen to this lady, listen carefully to what this says as quote as the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality. And as these cannot be generally disused through a community, but by the institution of the public, worship of God and of public instruction in piety, religion and moral.

This is a good paragraph to go to when somebody says that the US constitution should be secular. That is not true. That paragraph is the attitude of America in 1780, 1787, all the way up until the 20th century, they saw religion having a strategic role in influencing the government. Religion was used to keep America walking in the light. So this article three of the Massachusetts constitution is very, very similar to Article three in the Northwest ordinance, which our beloved friend, David Barton very effectively brought that to the public’s consciousness. So ladies and gentlemen, of those of you listening today who are secular and believe the constitution established a secular state, read that article three because that is the ideology of America during that entire decade and many decades later.

Sam Rohrer:

David, that is excellent and ladies and gentlemen, can I just recommend at this point advertised or we’ve mentioned it during some of the breaks, I’ve put together a book several years ago called America’s Roadmap to Renewal, America’s Roadmap to Renewal. You can find it on Amazon, just search for that. But it is built off of William Penn’s frame of government. That’s what it’s called, 1682. So about a hundred years before all of this is taking place, we talked about he’d laid down the principles that had to be put into a place if a free nation was ever going to rise. And from that came the things that David just talked about that were in the Massachusetts constitution and the Pennsylvania constitution we’ll talk about in the next segment. But it all started with God, the knowledge of who God is, the reality of sin, sinful men and what you had to do to protect all of that.

Alright, now in the last segment we talked about the influence of certain content principles that were inside or a part of the Massachusetts constitution from 1780. And all of these were put together, as I read earlier from the Constitution, had talked about the constitutional or the continental Congress called on the states during the American Revolution to do new constitutions or put ’em together and all of that was, none of that would’ve been possible had you not had people of a common world view. Historians, people were knowledgeable of human nature and God’s role in a new country. Creator, judge, law giver that we talked about that that’s all indications that people knew and they did. And what I cited with our book, America’s Roadmap to Renewal, which you can find on Amazon easily, just go there and you can find it. It comes off of the foundational principles, put together a frame of government by William Penn and I’ll say is that is why some of the founders that were a part of the constitution development, as we’re talking about in the 1780 timeframe, referred to William Penn as the father of the founders.

Now why did they do that? Well, because he went to the core of biblical principles and history and pulled out the principles that had to be in place in order for a country to rise, a nation to rise. And from that, because of the understanding of the nature of man are why states like Massachusetts and others said that there had to be a separation of powers as an example, breaking up all of that aspect. Anyways, I won’t get into all that, but saying that one generation has an impact on another choices in one generation impacts another, and what we have here today is a result of that and we will talk further about that, but let’s go back now the influence of the Pennsylvania constitution. Now the role of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania constitution was and has always been significant to the influence of the framing of the US Constitution.

For instance, from the Constitution Center, again, I’m going to read some of what they have there in historical perspective. They say this quote, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, which actually predates the Massachusetts one, but there’s reasons for that. The Constitution of 1776 they say was perhaps the most democratic and radical of state constitutions out of the box, radical, not terrorist, radical of the day, but out of the box of state constitutions, the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 it says, was filled with political newcomers influenced by the revolutionary thinking of the period as one Pennsylvania delegate explained. The convention was determined not to pay the least regard to former constitutions and was resolved to reject everything to clear away every part of the old rubbish and begin upon a clean foundation. And as a result, the convention center goes on to say, as a result, the Pennsylvania delegates experimented with new forms of Republican government representative government, including a powerful unicameral legislature, meaning that Pennsylvania’s legislature branch had only one house. The Pennsylvania constitution also led with an inspiring preamble and a robust declaration of rights. Alright, now again, you can see one builds upon another. David, do you have any comments on the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 and how it was in many respects, way ahead of its time?

David New:

Well, yes, and of course it’s 1776 because Pennsylvania subsequently adopted new constitutions. So the 1776 Constitution is not enforced, although many of the things in that constitution were carried over into future Pennsylvania constitutions.

David New:

One of the things in the Pennsylvania constitution that was extremely important and why it’s called the most democratic of them all is because it gave voting rights to all taxpayer males. Other constitutions only gave voting rights to males that owned property, owned land owned real estate. Pennsylvania did not do that. They didn’t limit it to land ownership. If you were a male and you were a taxpayer, you can vote too. Of course, the right of women to vote doesn’t come until much later. But this shows that the march towards making the right to vote broader and broader and broader is now being led by Pennsylvania, by giving it to women. I mean by giving it to men who are taxpayers. There is another feature that you almost never hear about that makes the Pennsylvania Constitution very, very special. It is the religion clause in the Pennsylvania constitution is the most popular religion clause in the United States.

Let me read the first sentence of that religion clause that all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciousness and understanding in the that sentence in different forms has been repeated over and over and over again in about 20 different state constitutions. Now, you look at how it differs from the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not about the individual. It does protect the individual, but only indirectly. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It’s about government. The Pennsylvania Constitution is different. It’s about people, individuals, that all men have a natural and unalienable, right? So you don’t have the subject of men, you don’t have the subject of natural and unalienable rights in the First Amendment, and you have no mission of God in the First Amendment. You have no mention of conscience and understanding in the First Amendment. All that’s cut out. That doesn’t mean that the First Amendment is inferior. The First Amendment was written with the designation of government. It approaches the freedom of religion from the point of view of government. The Pennsylvania Constitution, this is number one. This is the religion constant frame or clause that gave America its freedom of

Speaker 3:

Religion,

David New:

Not the First Amendment. That doesn’t come into play in American history in a big way until 1940 with Kawell versus Connecticut. Before 1940, the religion clauses and the state constitution’s dominated, and this one clause from Pennsylvania was the dominant one of the ball.

Sam Rohrer:

And David, go build off of that because you referenced it earlier on, but let’s talk about location, state constitutions, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, the federal, but the location of that section of Bills of Rights, where it talks about the individual rights, compare contrast there,

David New:

This is a big, you could see the difference between a federal constitution and a state constitution. The moment you open them up, where are the Bill of Rights? In most state constitutions, they’re right up front. They’re either in a preamble or they’re in Article one of the state. Where is the Bill of Rights in the federal Constitution at the end. At the end, the difference is strategic. That tells you that the primary focus of the federal Constitution is the role of government versus the state Constitution. The primary focus of having the Bill of Rights first tells you it’s about the individual. And ladies and gentlemen, this had a big impact on American history. Putting individual rights upfront in the very opening of the Constitution had an impact upon slavery in the United States. One of the reasons why the Civil War occurred was this constant agitation of freedom in the Bill of Rights upfront in the state constitutions attacking slavery.

For example, you take the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. If you’re pro-slavery, this is not a sentence you want to begin your bill of Rights. Let me read it to you all. Men are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights that is horrible. If you are for slavery, you don’t want that kind of sentence starting your constitution. Here’s a blemish on the Bill of Rights and the federal Constitution, those Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments were ratified. They were written in 1789. They were ratified in 1791, and those Bill of Rights were totally at ease with the concept of slavery. They don’t offer anything to discourage slavery,

Sam Rohrer:

Nothing. But ladies and gentlemen, we’re out of time, David. But ladies and gentlemen, the state constitutions, by their recognition of personal, individual rights led the way to the end of slavery. We come back, we’re going to conclude and talk about not what has the federal government done well as we go into our final segment. Now, I hope that you found today’s conversation to be informative so far. Probably if you’ve caught us or listened to us from the beginning, you’ve heard a lot of things that perhaps you never knew before or perhaps connected in a way that you’ve not done before because certainly there is not enough. I’m going to say revisiting history. One of the things that our founders did when they put together our constitutions is that they studied history of civilizations from way back. That’s what Penn did here in Pennsylvania with the frame of government.

1682. They went to the pages of scripture and said, what do we know from God’s word? That is something that most people wouldn’t do today. They went to history and they said, what can we learn? That’s what most people today don’t do because they think that we’re smarter than everybody was in the past, and that’s a mistake. But they took and put all of that together and said, now, all right, now, what kind of principles do we need to identify in order? As Penn said here in Pennsylvania to establish this holy experiment in freedom because it wasn’t, experiment hadn’t happened before, fusing the principles of God’s word with historical reality. But that’s exactly what was done.

And then our other founders that came along, even this period of time, 1780, were talking about when Massachusetts Constitution was there and then later the US Constitution. All of these things was a progression that developed, but then that happened. So you ended up with your state constitutions and then you ended up with your US constitution. Now to the constitutions, there have been amendments made. We know that. But the basic framework is in place. But David, I want to talk to you just a little bit here at this juncture because we were talking about the wisdom of the state constitutions, which I tried to give a little bit of a foundational why they were wise, but both content, we talked about that placement, the Bill of Rights upfront in states at the end of the US Constitution for the reasons we talked about. Yet we would be remiss, I think if we didn’t comment to some degree on how since that point, the US Federal Government and those who have been there in Washington over time has weakened and indirectly or directly shaped the power of the various states, which the constitutions were in place to assure their strength and autonomy.

But how these things have changed. So here, here’s my question to you. Can you name a few ways that things have happened coming out of the federal government, which was by design to be very limited, have in fact done things which have weakened and or compromised perhaps the autonomy and the strength of the states and the state constitutions?

David New:

Oh, there are a number of things to discuss about that. Very quickly though, I want to very briefly comment about the Federal Bill of Rights. I don’t mean to suggest ladies and gentlemen that it’s a bad document. What I’m saying is that the Federal Bill of Rights, since it was ratified in 1791 to 1865, it did not apply to slaves. And that means that the Federal Bill of Rights is comfortable. It can work alongside in a slave society. The Bill of Rights in the state constitutions in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, forget it. Those constitutions were as anti-slavery as they possibly could be. Now, what’s happened now is that today because of the 14th Amendment, lawyers, judges, historians are treating the US Constitution as if it’s a state constitution. It is not a state constitution. The US Constitution is a constitution with enumerated powers. State constitutions are not constitutions with enumerated powers. A state can go anywhere in its constitution, anywhere in any direction that people want to go. The federal Constitution is not like that. It’s meant to be limited. So there’s all kinds of areas, for example, that they have lessened the influence and power of the state. Constitutions take the subject of marriage. The subject of marriage is nowhere in the US Constitution. It is a state issue and a state issue only according to the 10th Amendment. But the federal government has taken it over completely and has totally corrupted it.

And just because the federal Constitution doesn’t say anything about marriage, it doesn’t mean that the framers didn’t think that marriage was unimportant or they weren’t interested in the subject of marriage because they obviously were, but they left it to the states. So treating the US Constitution like a state constitution is fundamentally a violation of American

Sam Rohrer:

Civics. David, that’s an excellent one. And you could go on, ladies and gentlemen, think about this prayer in schools, 10 Commandments hanging on the walls of our schools life, abortion. How many things have come out of the federal government that have attempted to impose from a biblical worldview perspective? I’m going to say it, to authorize sanction, that which God says is sin evil. In other words, sanctioning of evil activities that’s come from the federal government. And so David, yeah, I mean you could go on and on and you said there were many and there are, but that is how now, ladies and gentlemen, can I suggest as well that this could not have happened without the, I’m going to say it, the aid of those within the states. The states have had to give up some of their authority voluntarily. How do they do that?

Well, it’s a bribe system. I’ll just be blunt with it. Federal government’s figured out a way to give money to the states, providing the states give something back to the federal government. And that is some of their autonomy. But they didn’t take the money. The states, the federal government would have no leverage over the states. I can tell you that because I learned that in my 16 years on appropriations committee in Pennsylvania. I saw it happen all the time. And that’s the way it takes place. So the states have to give it up as well as those in the federal government have to covet that which does not belong to them. All right, so final words, David. What do we learn from that here today?

David New:

Well, what we’ve learned is that the federal government has used tax money that belongs to the state governments, took their tax money, took it, and then used it as a way to control the state governments. This could not have happened without the 16th amendment. And so it’s unbelievable that the federal government is threatening to withhold tax money from the states when that tax money probably belongs at the state level to begin with.

Sam Rohrer:

That’s a great point, and ladies and gentlemen, and we’re about at the end here, but David just reminds me of this all the way through. Our founders said this very, very, very, very clearly. Many of them said, alright, here’s this holy experiment that’s going to come about. Ultimately, it did. But they said it was not possible for this to come to being, unless the people and those in government voluntarily submitted themselves to God’s 10 commandments voluntarily submitted themselves to God’s ten commandments and did not do what they may have been inclined to do out of a natural duty depraved heart. That’s what Penn said. So the Constitution was there to be a framework, ladies and gentlemen. But if you don’t fear God, then why does your oath make any difference? And therefore, if your oath doesn’t make any difference, why not just do what you can do when you’re in office? And that’s what we’re seeing happening right now as we speak. All of that fights against everything we’re talking about with the state constitutions and then the purpose for the David New. Thank you so much for being a part of today’s program. Very, very, very interesting. Ladies and gentlemen. Hopefully it was informative and helpful to you. Go back and pick it up on our website, stand in the gap radio.com or on our app and pass it along to a friend. Let them know as well.