The U.S. Constitution:
3 Common & Significant Misconceptions
April 24, 2025
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Co-host: Pastor Matt Recker
Guest: David New
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 4/24/25. 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 it’s also our bimonthly emphasis on the Constitution and American history with recurring guest constitutional attorney David New with me today again is also Pastor Matt Wrecker, pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Manhattan, New York City and he is here as co-host today with me as we get into our theme today. One of the things we know about the US Constitution, and I’m going to say constitutions generally, is that very few people really understand what the Constitution is, what the constitutional rule of law means, and no either but the Constitution, either of our federal government or the US Constitution or our various state constitutions. It’s sad to say that we are a constitutional republic, yet most people as an example, think for instance, that we are a democracy. Well, we’re not all those in office at any level of state or federal government.
Many people don’t know, but they have to take an oath to support and to defend this document, either state or the state and the federal, on federal level, the US Constitution. Yet a dismal percentage have actually ever read this document, which frankly makes them in violation of their oath upon taking their oath. How can you defend that which you don’t know. It’s a dangerous position for any nation to be in because as I just said, what you don’t understand, you simply can’t defend and what you don’t defend, as we’ve all heard, you will soon lose. Why is that? Well, because this document, the Constitution provides the unifying definition, purpose and structure of our frame of government. It provides the unifying framework for the predictable administration of justice, a prime function of government, the common understanding of rights and all of the foundational concepts which comprise our free nation and the implementation of the vision and concept of what is written on our very own Liberty Bell where the verse from the Old Testament, Leviticus 25, 10 states proclaim liberty throughout the land and to the inhabitants thereof.
Now in the midst of this incredible ignorance, and it really is of the constitution, be it our people generally, but I’m also going to say including those who make and enforce our laws, they’re ignorant too in Congress or in the courts or the executive branch. There are three in the midst of all of this. There may be more, but there are three major significant misconceptions that we’re going to discuss in today’s program. The title I’ve chosen for the program today is this, the US Constitution, three common and Significant Misconceptions. And with that, David, welcome back. It’s good to have you back.
David New:
It’s so nice to be with you and blessings to everyone that’s with us today.
Sam Rohrer:
David, let’s give a little bit of a foundational thing. I’ll share my experience. First I was in Pennsylvania House as people know, 18 years. I took the oath of Office nine times, but in my 18 years there being in the General Assembly, I was able to confirm, literally talk with most who were there and came and went and literally only a handful who had ever read the US or the Pennsylvania Constitution from the beginning to the end, most who said they had read it had actually gone to one segment to look up one little piece. And really all the members relied on staff and frankly, I never found any of them who I would term to be an authority of the Constitution and they relied on somebody else or who relied on somebody else to say what the Constitution meant. It was kind of interesting and only a minute remnant, David I ever saw took the time, for instance, to go back and research and read the thoughts and the arguments of those who actually wrote the document and adopted the documents, knew what the arguments were because they didn’t all agree on every point and why, what was there, how it got there.
So that’s my perspective of being inside. But from your perspective, David, as a constitutional attorney for instance, to what degree did the Constitution form an integral part of your law training and to what degree is careful instruction in the Constitution a part of modern law school training?
David New:
Well, I went to Georgetown Law School in Washington DC and I took Con Law one and Con Law two, and I was not happy with the courses because they taught the case method teaching where we studied the Constitution by learning what the Supreme Court has said about it over the years and how law developed over a period of time. I really did not learn the Constitution about the Constitution well until after I graduated from law school. I stayed in DC for quite a few years, and so I had access to Georgetown Law Library. That’s when I really learned the Constitution was at the law library by myself going through the texts, looking at each one of his words in it and what the various historians had to say and things like that. So when you look at the number of phrases that they covered in the class, very, very few, and I was not pleased at all with that part of it.
Matt Recker:
Well, that is so interesting. Thank you David for sharing. I’m just a preacher, so I’ve never studied law in the Constitution and thank you Sam for sharing your experience of elected officials and their basic ignorance of the Constitution. And so David, based on Sam’s experience and what you just said, it’s not hard to understand why people have so many wrong ideas of the Constitution. So just briefly from your perspective, how and why has the Constitution though such an important document in our history, how come it has become so unknown and untaught
David New:
When people don’t know and study the Constitution and know what it says and know what it means? What happens is is that in their minds, they write in the Constitution all the things that they think that are there, which in fact aren’t. So they fill in their own constitution basically. They create their own constitution. If you know the Constitution, you can’t do that, but if you don’t know the Constitution, that’s exactly what will happen
Sam Rohrer:
And David isn’t that very much, and Matt isn’t that very much what we’re seeing as we talk with George Barnes so much that we have this new religion in America called syncretism, which 94% of Americans, they make up what they want to believe. A little bit of this, a little bit of that and put it all together if you feel good about it, all of a sudden, ha, you’ve got a new religion and it’s your new authority. David, it’s very similar, is it not?
David New:
Yes, for us, our religion is based upon the Bible, but for secularists they drop the Bible in favor of the Constitution. So seculars treat the Constitution basically as their religion, and when you do that, when you don’t accept the Bible teachings, you’re going to come up with a real goofy interpretation of the Constitution in a lot of areas.
Sam Rohrer:
Absolutely. The
David New:
Constitution does have a biblical basis
Sam Rohrer:
And absolutely lady and gentlemen, what’s that? Bring us back to the truth. Why do we say go back to the word of God? Always. The truth does not change. The word of God is the basis for all authority. If you say, well, it’s only for some, well then you make up your own. The Constitution is our highest law. It either is or you make up your own, which is exactly what David said. Well, we’re beginning our second segment. If you’re just joining us, welcome aboard. Our theme today is this, the US Constitution, three common and significant misconceptions and special guest is always with us, the Lord willing, every other Thursday, which is a constitutional American history focus is constitutional attorney David New. Now David, before we move into identifying and discussing these three leading misconceptions about the US Constitution, let me ask you here perhaps an introductory question about a very frequently heard phrase, particularly in our current time when there are so many challenges on all levels occurring, particularly between the US Supreme Court or some district court perhaps and the Trump administration and the media, and that is this well-known phrase within the Constitution due process of law.
Now, you and I have talked about this before on other programs, but just as a quick refresher, what exactly is meant by the phrase due process of law?
David New:
Yes, we have talked about this phrase many, many times, many times before in this program, but for the benefit of those who are cannot remember or were not there with us, let’s talk about it very quickly. The term due process of law appears in two places in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights and in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. If we look at it, turn to it, it says, start with the very first sentence of the Fifth Amendment, which is the precursor to all the sentences in the Fifth Amendment. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The phrase due process of law is just a fancy way of saying there has to be a trial. That’s all it basically means, and it’s basically about criminal issues, although it’s not limited to criminal issues, criminal trials, but that’s basically what it’s about because what you’re trying to decide with the due process of law is when can the government take away your life by capital punishment?
No person shall be deprived of your life, capital, punishment, liberty that’s going to jail or property that’s getting a fine like a traffic violation without a fair trial. That’s all it means. It’s actually quite simple, but the phrase dates back to the Magna Carter of 1215 when the slaves, when we ended slavery in this country in 18 65, 3 years later, we passed the 14th Amendment and we had to write another due process of law clause in the 14th amendment that would apply to the state governments to make sure that they did not continue to discriminate against African-Americans. The Fifth Amendment refers to the federal government only the 14th Amendment refers to the state governments. That’s why it says Nor shall any state, Pennsylvania, New York, California deprive any person of life that’s capital, punishment, execution, liberty or property without due process of law. So a state has a constitutional right to perform executions right there with that word, life a state is not required to have executions if it chooses to do so, but if it does do so, it must be done according to due process of law, a fair trial.
Matt Recker:
Thank you David for that. So let’s now move into our focus today, which is misconceptions regarding the US Constitution and truly there are many personally, I think a big one, and perhaps I say this as a pastor, is that people have this idea that the phrase separation of church and state is in the Constitution, but there are many different misconceptions like that from your research, however and your experience, what would you identify as the first and perhaps the most common significant misconception or mistaken view that people have regarding the United States Constitution?
David New:
Yes sir. The one that we have for the very first one today is that the Constitution is about individuals, that it’s about people. Now, I know that the first three words say we the people, it’s beautiful. We never want to do anything to change that. But in fact, when you go in the Constitution and read it, you’re not going to see too much about you, yourself and I. What you’re going to find out about is institutions of government, the House of Representatives, the presidency, the Supreme Court. So the Constitution is not about individual persons, it’s basically about government. Now, there are some phrases in the Constitution that do refer to individual personal rights like the right of habeas corpus that’s in the Constitution in section nine of Article One. But after a few of those, you’re basically talking about the government, the institution of government. How do we the people set up a national government. This is a common misperception. People think the Constitution is about them individually, it is not. It is about government.
Sam Rohrer:
And David, that is a very, very important distinction and I hope all of you are listening right now. Maybe that was a new thought, but when you think about it, it does make sense, doesn’t it? The Constitution was to be a guide for those who are there making the law on the courts and all of that type of thing, and to restrict them. We often hear the phrase, limited government, where’s that come from? It comes right off the pages of scripture, but the Constitution helps to ensure that. Now Dave, let’s go to some application here in this matter of due process and considering people, individuals, let’s put it that way. As we talked, there is something that’s before the courts right now Trump administration is exporting, moving out, undocumented illegal aliens, non-citizens who have come here illegally and many and even some of the courts have saying you cannot do that without a trial due process. Alright, how does that apply?
David New:
Let’s look at our due process again, look at the Fifth Amendment and look at the first two words. No person. Look at the 14th amendment right in section one where it says, nor shall any state deprive any person. So what does that mean? It means you do not have to be a citizen. If you are a person, you have the right of due process of law, whether you’re a citizen of the United States or not.
Sam Rohrer:
Alright, if that’s all further you’re going to go, then I’m going to come back and ask you on that. So therefore someone is here on our soil, they came here illegally. They are not therefore here according to the law. Alright, now we have this circumstance, alright, you are now here not according to the law and while you’ve been here, you’ve also broken our laws as many have. Therefore we are going to send you back. Alright? Now, does the government have the right to send them back without again just what you stated. That is something to all persons, but does the Trump administration have a basis in the Constitution to send them away these illegals who have broken the law while they’re here some or must they be constrained by going before a court in a hearing? First,
David New:
The law that the President is using is that ancient law. I think of 1796. If you read the text of the law, it talks about due process of law. It talks about courts and trials, so even the law that he’s appealing to, but that law is about enemy aliens. And so how you define due process of law under that particular law may be a lot looser than a regular court trial. If I committed murder, I was accused of committing murder. The rules aren’t quite the same. The president has stated that if he has to go through the courts for these millions of people that are here, it would take him over 200 years to get him out of the country. So there shouldn’t be some mechanism where he can proceed quickly and efficiently having some form of due process of law, maybe a military commission and be able to give whoever’s going to be deported, an opportunity to say, I’m not this, I’m not that, or whatever, and have it done quickly so that they can be moved out. Because if they hold him to the same level as a criminal defendant, an everyday criminal defendant, then he just might as well shut down the whole process.
Sam Rohrer:
We’re about at the break. In reality, David and Matt, it’s in my opinion that part of the reason for taking and bringing in the millions as they did was because it actually produces a monumental problem that actually brings the process of law and justice and administration almost to a standstill because you have completely overwhelmed it. That was part of their thinking. And clearly you can see here as we’re talking ladies and gentlemen, the difficulty that it presents and it is presenting a major issue. But again, that’s not our primary focus right now, but it’s the misconceptions that people hold. Stay with us. When we come back, we will look at misconception number two, and I think this one will be probably of equal interest as the one we just covered. Well, welcome back to standard day after day. We’re actually exactly midpoint here right now.
Two segments passed, two segments yet to go. Special guest, recurring guest every other Thursday is constitutional attorney, David New. And on these focuses, we deal with something from headline news, something that’s actually happening around and about us that impacts the Constitution. And generally because of the nature of the Constitution, there’s always some element of American history as we are today. The US Constitution is a very unique document to the United States. It’s been copied in some degree or another by many countries around the world. Our constitution obviously is connected to our Declaration of Independence, which is more of a statement of the whole concept of freedom of God, the originator, the author of that which we construe and we talk about as human rights, those rights that come from God not government. The Constitution comes along as a guaranteeing document of that and puts limitations on government, who the Bible says has a very limited function to enact justice is what it does.
Romans 13. And they do that by protecting those who keep the law, uphold the law as defined by God and mirrored during our Constitution and bringing to justice, punishing those who break the law. That is the basis that is a limited government and the Constitution reflects that. Now, David, in addition to the common and mistaken view that the US Constitution is primarily about individuals, which we just talked about, let’s move on. There’s a second significant mistaken view, and that is, well I want you to say it. What is that second significant and common mistaken view that people hold regarding the Constitution?
David New:
The second one is that there are three equal branches within the federal government that the President and the Congress and the Supreme Court are co-equal branches of the government. Total nonsense. None of it’s true. The most powerful branch within the federal government is the Congress. Congress is Article one, the President is Article two, the Supreme Court is Article three. When you read Article one of the US Constitution, you have read 51% of the US Constitution. And there’s a reason it’s more than half of the Constitution. The Congress is the most powerful branch within the federal government and it’s real simple. The Congress can remove a president. The President can’t remove a Congress that tells you everything you need to know where the power is. Now the President is the most important person in terms of concentrated power. More power is concentrated in one person in the Article two presidency, but he is not, she is not more powerful than the Congress because they could take away a lot of power that the President has and a lot of the power that Congress has, they have delegated to the President now the weakest of the three branches of the federal government.
Alexander Hamilton told us which of the three is the weakest in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton said, the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power. So the courts are the weakest of the institutions. So there’s no such thing as co-equal branches of government. You hear it all the time and it’s complete nonsense. It’s the Congress and that’s why that power within Congress is distributed very broadly. So before Congress acts, you’ve got to have a lot of agreement.
Matt Recker:
Very interesting. I certainly have probably held to that misconception, David, so I thank you for that explanation. Very clear. And it is a powerful thought that the legislative branch can remove the president, but the President cannot do that to the legislature, so very good. Can you explain then a little bit further on these foundational concepts which these three branches of government come from and then explain a little bit further why it is important to understand this.
David New:
It is important to understand that they are not co-equal branches because you don’t understand the Constitution. If you think that way, it’s not meant to be like that. The Congress is where the power is. Modern presidents that we have today are a fairly recent development presidents except for Lincoln Presidents in the past and the 18th and 19th century did not wield nearly the kind of power that they do today. They started to get more power in the 20th century. It gradually grew and grew. And then of course when the world wars came along, the presidency took on even more power. But basically the Congress is where it’s at, and that’s how we limit. This is how we protect ourselves from the President becoming a dictator. He is not a dictator. He cannot dictate, he cannot do anything in many areas without the Congress. With him, the President is most powerful when he has the Congress and the courts behind him. The President is when he’s weakest, is when the Congress and the courts don’t support him.
Sam Rohrer:
David, that is a great point. And while the two of you were talking, I went to this passage in Isaiah chapter 33 in verse 22, and I’m just going to share that with our listeners right now. Ladies and gentlemen, these three branches of government, there are three branches of government, government meaning authority. So there are three branches of civil authority. It is the lawmaking Congress, the law, enforcing the executive and the decision making part of it when there’s a dispute. The judiciary in Isaiah 33 22, and our founders went here. They knew this here in Pennsylvania. William Penn identified this verse as an example, and he laid down the frame of government, which was instructed for our founding fathers who came after Is this first for the Lord is our judge, judiciary, the Lord is our law giver, congressional and the Lord is our king executive and said he will save us.
And I have a note, Matt and David, I wrote in my Bible long ago and I said, here, put this down. Only Jesus can rightly hold all three positions of authority. Only Jesus is king. And before all him as judge, all the world will come one day and law giver and I put down here, all others who try to condense these positions of authority are tyrants and really our founders. That’s what they wanted to do. So David, this is also called separation of powers in addition to these branches of government. And it was for the purpose that if the power was convinced into one hand, a person was all of these, it’s what we’d call today, a modern dictator or a tyrant. Any comments further on that, David?
David New:
Yes, you do not want the person, you want these groups to be separated. You want the person who makes the laws not be the same person who enforces the law, the President. And you don’t want the President and the Congress to be the same group that interprets the law that you want the judiciary. And if you look at article one, two and three, Congress, president courts, that is the progression of a law. Congress passes the law and Article one then comes article two where the president starts to enforce the law and somebody says, wait a minute, you can’t do that. That’s unconstitutional. Now steps in article three, the courts will interpret the constitution and say yay or nay. So you don’t want to have all three groups, all three activities in one person’s hands because that is what a dictator is.
Sam Rohrer:
And David, there is not only a fulfillment of doing the duty specified there, but it’s also a duty of each one of those branches not to go beyond and do what they are not permitted to do. That’s also there.
David New:
And not only that, but these three branches are teaching a very important lesson. We know that the people that wrote the US Constitution were religious people. They believed in the concept of sin. They knew that human beings are sinful and that’s why they separated the three roles of government because they wanted to protect. Even in a Christian nation like the United States, sometimes people do bad things no matter how religious they are, and that’s why they wanted to protect us because they know that we’re sinners and they don’t want to see too much concentration of power in one group.
Sam Rohrer:
And ladies and gentlemen, that is a biblical worldview, an application of which we talk about regularly. If we do not understand that all authority comes from God and that people are sinful and are always tend to abuse their authority, that’s a biblical worldview. Well then you would end up with a complete dictatorship. Ultimately, that’s what the antichrist will be all about. But until now, our constitution was put in place by people who knew there was a difference. We’ll conclude with misconception number three. Next, well just before we go into identifying this third misconception, just a reminder to all of you who were listening, thanks for being a part. Absolutely. But this program, this emphasis on the Constitution, as I described in American history is every other Thursday generally, and it follows that the Wednesday before yesterday is and has been for years. So I lay this out so it’ll help you if you go back and want to look at programs in archive form is our Israel Middle East and Biblical prophecy emphasis.
Yesterday, the Friends of Israel were with us. So if you are wanting to perhaps bring up and look at programs that focus on the Constitution, because we’re always dealing with something very practical like today, you can find that on Stand in the Gap radio.com or on our Stand in the Gap app. Both of those are easy to find, but where you find a Thursday program on this emphasis, two weeks before you will find another one and then so forth. And right next to that on a Wednesday, you’ll also find the emphasis on Israel, middle East and biblical prophecy. These two were both anchor focuses that were put into place when we first started this program many, many years ago. And it was because those were the areas that people were of continued interest in. So just a little bit of the fact that that is the case and help you may perhaps when you’re searching for past programs. Okay, David, let’s go into our third erroneous perception or significant misconception. We’re talking about it that exists regarding the US Constitution. What is this third one?
David New:
The third one is that people think the US Constitution and the state constitutions are basically the same thing. They are. They are radically different kinds of Constitution. It’s obvious that the US Constitution is a national constitution for a nation state constitutions are limited to only the jurisdiction of that one state. But let’s go further. If you notice on the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights don’t come until at the end and they didn’t come until years after the US Constitution was ratified. The US Constitution was written in 1787. It was ratified in 1788 with nine states with New Hampshire being the ninth State. Then the federal government comes into legal existence on March 4th, 1789. On March 3rd, 1789, the Continental Congress, the second continental Congress was the legal authority of the United States. The next day begins the federal government on March 4th. Then comes the So then comes the president.
He takes the oath of office on April 30th, 1789, and then they start working on the Bill of Rights starting in June of 1789. And they don’t get ratified until 1791. It’s at the end, and that is extremely significant. Again, state constitutions, which are about people unlike the US Constitution, which is about government, state constitutions, put their bill of rights upfront right at the beginning. That’s because their orientation is people orientation. Now of course, they do talk about the governor and the state legislature and the state courts, but they are orientated towards individual American citizens. So the federal government, which is not orientated towards individual American citizens, puts its Bill of Rights at the very end. The only reason why the Bill of Rights are there to begin with is people when they were ratifying the Constitution, they were saying, we’re not going to ratify this thing without a Bill of Rights.
That objection started in Massachusetts and the compromise was made. They said the federals, those who were trying to get the Constitution ratified. I’ll tell you what we’ll do. We will write a bill of rights if you will ratify this constitution. We will write a bill of rights right away after the Constitution gets ratified. That was the strategy. It was the minority groups who wanted a bill of rights. The majority of Federalists did not want a bill of rights. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist paper says, there’s no need to have a bill of rights for the federal government. None whatsoever. But the minority groups kept complaining and they said, we are not going to ratify this thing unless you start putting a bill of rights in there. And that was the compromise to get it passed. State constitutions like Pennsylvania, the home state of this ministry, their bill of Rights are right up front. A second way to see the difference between a state constitution and the federal go Constitution concerns amendments. It is real easy to pass an amendment at the state level. There are hundreds of them. It’s very difficult. It’s like pulling teeth from a shark to get an amendment passed in the federal constitution. Here’s the big difference between originalists conservatives and secularists. Secularists treat the US Constitution like it’s a state constitution and that is wrong.
Matt Recker:
Very interesting. Thank you David. And Sam and David, thank you for teaching the importance of the Constitution and these different misconceptions because there is obviously such a vast ignorance of the Constitution in our day. And just to review for our listeners, we’re talking about three misconceptions, mistaken views of the United States Constitution. The first one we talked about was that the US Constitution is about individual rights when it’s really about government. We talked about the equal branches of government. They’re not equal. The Congress is the most powerful. And then that the US and state constitutions are the same when they’re not. They’re different. As David just so beautifully explained. So David, now let’s finally ask, what are the practical consequences then of this ignorance of these misconceptions that we’re talking about? In other words, how has the constitutional republic been harmed by these misconceptions and how can this ignorance be countered?
David New:
There is great harm. Public schools do not teach civics, and that’s why the public dialogue about the Constitution is a complete and total mess. We need the ladies and gentlemen, go back to your local congressmen, go back to your governors, go back to your state senators, get civics back into your public schools.
Sam Rohrer:
And David, I’m going to stop it right there because of time and ladies and gentlemen and Matt, you are a preacher of the word of God. We must also clearly begin preaching and teaching the biblical principles as they come from God, because all of these things we have talked about, rights from God, not government, the branches of government, all of these things, these are biblical principles. Matt, we only have a little bit left. How about you closing this program in prayer because it really is a very important thing.
Matt Recker:
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. Oh, father God, we thank you for the opportunity to live in this great country with this amazing document that our founders gave to us, the United States Constitution. Help us as citizens of this country to be understanding of it, to abide by it, and Lord, to encourage others to read it and to understand it as well, and to take what the Constitution says in a literal way, just as we take what your word says in a literal way. Dear Father, and we thank you for the word of God, that even validates the Constitution with the three branches of government. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.
Sam Rohrer:
Amen. Amen. Thank you, Matt. Thank you David. New always practical, good instruction. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. And again, pick up this program. Listen to it again. Read the transcript, send it to a friend. Let them also be able to benefit by what you have gained today. God best will see you all tomorrow.
Recent Comments