Public Funding of Religious Schools, Deportation, Due Process, & The Constitution
June 5, 2025
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Guests: Att. David New
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 6/5/25. 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 bi-monthly focus on headline news as we view that through the lens of the constitution and American history. Today, constitutional attorney, author, and historian, David New joins me again as we consider today. Three, I’m going to say currently in the news issues that are of public importance in which have garnered court involvement either on the state or the federal levels or both. And there are more than these three that are out there, but we’ve chosen these three for their pertinence. Now, each of these three, I can say directly or indirectly affects you and your family. Me and my family each impacts some aspect of the constitution, which is why we’re looking at it. Each one impacts one or more applicable biblical principles of clear moral law because that also underpins everything that we discuss on this program that involves this.
And in addition to that, today we’re going to consider the recent tie decision. Tie decision meaning four to four, a tie decision by the US Supreme Court considering the state of Oklahoma’s law. We talked about this earlier on a program here where Oklahoma’s law permitting the appropriation of public tax funds to religious chartered schools there in Oklahoma. So it’s an Oklahoma State issue that’s made its way to the Supreme Court talk about that. In addition, there’s another similar case arising out of the state of Texas, which David believes will be approved by the Supreme Court and not end in a tie as the Oklahoma when he’s going to give his reasons why. The second issue we want to look at today concerns the very public matter of the Trump administration’s efforts to deport illegal entrance to our country and the matter of due process, something we also talked briefly about in a previous program.
Now the last issue though concerns past court and legislative decisions regarding the legitimization of homosexuality, bisexuality and gay marriage, and the latest research statistics of the American culture acceptance meaning some recent surveys have been done, which give indication of how the American public have come to embrace. And you’re going to be shocked at the numbers. There is much to discuss on today’s program, and so we’re going to get right to it. So thanks for joining us today. Our program title is this, public Funding of Religious Schools, deportation Due Process and The Constitution. So we’re going to do about all of these things. And with that, David, welcome back to the program. We do have a lot to cover and every one of these are singularly important, taken all together, they’re really important.
David New:
It’s so nice to be with you, Sam, and every one. Blessings to all.
Sam Rohrer:
David, before we get into these three issues, and I laid them out there so people know where we’re going to go, I’d like to get your perspective on, I’ll say a couple of underlying principles regarding our overall discussion today. The first is this. Every person who serves in government on either the state or local level or federal level, they take an oath called the constitutional oath, and it involves these words to support and to defend the constitution of either the federal government or the state. And for state officials it’s both. Now, here’s my question from an historical perspective, why did our founders put in place an oath? And what is the mechanism for accountability under that oath? In other words, if a person doesn’t keep the oath, does it make any difference? How is it to be kept? A little bit of history there please.
David New:
Well, the reason why the Constitution has the word oath in it is as John Adams, our second president, said, our constitution is made for a moral and religious people. It’s designed for nothing else but those kind of people, which means you’re going to have oaths. Now, the word oath in the US Constitution is extremely important. When you see that word oath, you might as well put the word GOD, because when you take an oath, legally defined, an oath is made to God. So our secular neighbors who believe that God is not mentioned in the Constitution are gravely in error. God is mentioned in the US Constitution not only in Article seven where it refers to our Lord, but also with the word oath. The word oath. If they wanted to keep God out of the Constitution, if the framers, if that was their real intent, which our secular friends claim that is the case, they never ever would’ve included the word oath in the US Constitution because that is a direct acknowledgement and that was so understood by the people who ratify the Constitution that that is an acknowledgement of God’s existence because you are making a oath to God.
Sam Rohrer:
And David, I’ll follow up on that. I have taken the oath, I’m sure you probably did as an attorney as well, but when I was in office, I took the oath nine times and the standard practice is you’re standing, you don’t sit when you take it, you stand, you have your left hand on the Bible, which reinforces exactly what you’re talking about. You lift your right hand, you take the oath, and in some cases it is so help me God. And in some cases, depending on what I be, it may not, but it reinforces exactly what you are talking about. An oath is not a contract that you sign in a contractual form and you can go in, invalidate it before the court. It’s an oath before God that you cannot invalidate here. It is not a question. You already touched on it a little bit, but the problem of it is we have people who are in office all across from the federal, down local and they take the oath, but they figure out ways to reinterpret. I mean judges those in office. They figure out ways to reinterpret what the Constitution says and somehow feel they can still maintain their oath. So what did our founders say about the ability to ensure a common interpretation of what it means to support and defend the constitution?
David New:
Well, first off, our secular friends and progressives and secular progressives do not like the Constitution, which means they’re going to play with it. They don’t like the Constitution because the US Constitution is about limited government. Secular progressives are about unlimited government. The framers of the Constitution believe the solutions to the problems of the nation were not to be found in government. They were to be found in we the people, our secular or progressives believe that the solutions to all our problems in America are in government, which means they’re not going to take their oath seriously or they’re going to redefine it so much that it gets watered down so much that it really means nothing.
Sam Rohrer:
And ladies and gentlemen, you can see it’s not where we are. We really are all across the board. It does come back to that matter of oath and ultimately comes back to one’s view of God, which then determines one’s view of the oath, which then allows them to whatever they think about the Constitution. When we come back, we’ll get into our first issue, and that is public funding for religious charter schools. If you’re just joining us today, this is our constitution and American history focus. We do it every other Thursday. Regular recurring guest is constitutional attorney, David New he and I are together today. And our theme, this is the title, it’s Public Funding of Religious Schools, which we’re going to talk about right now, deportation due process and the Constitution. That’ll be next segment. And then we’re going to conclude with something having to do about which we should not be proud, but that’s called pride month and the things that go into it.
We’ll fill in all those details on this matter of public funding for religious charter schools. A little bit of background here, the involvement of the federal government, either by act of Congress or involvement of the federal courts didn’t really exist in a modified form, but they didn’t call it a Department of Education. But what formed the total new creation of it, of the modern US Department of Education, that was in October of 1979 when President Jimmy Carter signed that into law. Now, prior to that, as I said, there did exist a bureau of Education. There were a couple names given to it, an office, very small, minimal employees with limited task, and part of it from originally it was to collect certain educational data. That was it. But that role expanded greatly with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. So Jimmy Carter put it into effect 1979, it grew significantly.
Actually was before that. I’m getting the dates confused here. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, that was signed by President Lyndon Johnson, and it was at that point that significant amount of funds, major infusion of funds for federal funds occurred then Jimmy Carter created the modern US Department of Education in 1979. Now at that point, just two years after that, you may recall that some of your older listeners, president Ronald Reagan ran on eliminating the Department of Education and he said this, we cannot only reduce the budget but ensure that local needs and preferences rather than the wishes of Washington determine the education of our children. Now, ultimately, Reagan abandoned his position ostensibly because there was too much entrenched support already there within Congress. Now we’re 44 years later, president Trump has again said the department would be eliminated and only time will tell because that entrenchment, I’m telling you is no less now than it was.
But without a doubt, the federal government, the courts and Congress still have a love affair with the federal government telling the states and parents how they should best educate their children and what they should be taught. Now that being the case, David, I thought I would share just a bit of that background because it does impact a recent decision here by the Oklahoma legislature and Commissioner of Education there regarding funding of Oklahoma State Chartered schools. But it was complicated by a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court. So tell us about that court case, what was involved in it?
David New:
Absolutely. The history that you gave was extremely important for people to know, and the reason why President Carter established the Department of Education was as part of to get the support of the public school teachers in their lobby. That was his promise to them to establish it. And basically when you’re talking about the US Department of Education, you’re basically talking about a giant teacher’s union within the government. That’s really what that department does. It protects the ideology that the teacher’s union wants in their public schools, and needless to say, they’re not entirely friendly to religion. Yes, the Supreme Court made a decision just a week or two ago in St. Isador versus Drummond, and they ruled four to four that they will not make a decision. They decided to just, they tied because Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the case. This was on May 22nd, and the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision, and this is all they said per curiam, the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court, and because when it says per curiam, it means that this is a decision by the court, but not by any individual specific judge.
So the vote was four to four. We can be fairly confident that three of those four that voted against this program was Justice Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor. We suspect possibly that the fourth vote came from Justice Roberts or somebody else. Nobody knows for sure. But anyway, justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate and what this does, this case was about trying to decide whether the government can give money to a religious charter school. You can give it to just about any kind of charter school you want, but you can’t do it to religious charter schools. So the issue is, is the establishment clause violated when state tax money goes directly to a religiously chartered school, that’s the issue. And does it violate the establishment clause? The other way to look at it is if you can’t give money to a religious chartered school, does that violate the free exercise clause? So you’ve got both clauses working here and tension with each other. Those two clauses have always been in tension with each other, which way to go? Establishment clause or free exercise clause. They always historically have been very much in tension with each other, and this case was supposed to decide that issue. It is really sad. I’m sad to say that Justice Barrett did not participate because I think had she participated, it would’ve been a five four decision in favor of letting this procedure go forward.
Sam Rohrer:
Well, David,
David New:
Even if the court had ruled five four in this case,
Sam Rohrer:
Yeah, well, okay.
David New:
The underlying case from Oklahoma violated the Oklahoma Constitution as well as the US Constitution. So if they wanted this to go forward, they would have to get a new interpretation of the Oklahoma constitution or change the Constitution itself.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay. I’m going to follow up on that a little bit. Obviously people would have the question, why did Justice Amy Barrett, why did she recuse herself and not vote, allowing this to basically end up in a tie? Do you have any ideas about why that might be?
David New:
The scuttlebutt is she knows those people, those lawyers that were behind this case, that were behind the establishment of this school in some fashion, this St. Ior school, she knew many of these people. They were from her alma mater at law school and they also worked together in many, many cases. So she was quite familiar with the people and because of that relationship she had, she felt that she should not participate.
Sam Rohrer:
All right. Just out of curiosity, judges sometimes do that. Oftentimes people will say, wait a minute, you shouldn’t vote on this because whatever. In reality, even if that might be true, what you’re saying is that the basis for actual recusal, is that legitimate or is she hiding?
David New:
I don’t think she’s hiding. I think she’s acting out of conscience. The thing to remember is there’s no hard and fast rule to guide the Supreme Court when a justice should or should not recuse himself or herself. This kind of thing is left up to the individual justice. So if she felt that way, then who am I to question her judgment on this?
Sam Rohrer:
I just
David New:
Wish she had gone forward.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, so this being the case, because it was a tie, what actually happens to the challenge there in Oklahoma since it was a tie, does it,
David New:
The rule is very simple. Whenever there’s a tie, the lower court decision stands,
Sam Rohrer:
So therefore the lower court decision basically said that Oklahoma could not provide public funding to the charter school. Is that correct?
David New:
That is correct, sir.
Sam Rohrer:
So
David New:
That means that the lower court decision against this procedure against funding with tax money to this religious chartered school, which basically is a virtual school, it’s not a brick and mortar type school, but that means that the lower court decision stands.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay. Alright. Now, I’d mentioned earlier about a case from Texas probably emanating finding its way up. I don’t think it’s actually been filed yet, but you’re thinking that it may come out of Texas and if that happens, the result may be different. Speak briefly about that.
David New:
Well, Texas is doing a lot of things in this area. They are trying to get chaplains into their public schools. That’s really quite interesting. They’ve also just recently passed something about the 10 Commandments being posted in their public schools. That’s good. And there is a lot of interest in Texas in something similar to what Oklahoma did. So there could be something percolating up through the legislative system of Texas that’ll end up in court and it could go before the US Supreme Court. We hope so. I will make a prediction right now. If we have something similar to what we had in Oklahoma coming from Texas, I think the vote will be five more in favor.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay. Amy Barrett likely will vote at that point and she would vote in favor. That’s the assumption. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, stay with us. We’ll be back. We’re going to move now to illegal immigration, immigrant deportation and due process. Right. If you’re just joining us right now, our theme today is we’re dealing with constitutional issues. We’ve chosen three constitutional attorney, David, new special guest today, recurring guest and myself are discussing three. We just talked about the US Supreme Court tied ruling relative to the choice or the decision by the state of Oklahoma to provide public funding for a religiously chartered school. Now we’re going to move into the area of illegal immigrants. I’m calling them illegal entrance, deportation and more’s. A little bit of background in an effort to erase lines of national sovereignty and change the ideological makeup of regional cultures and patriotic loyalties for those reasons.
The globalists, the one worlders have long tried and I must say been very successful in altering the historic Judeo-Christian underpinnings of primarily the West Europe and America in particular. The larger public is aware. I mean most people are aware of the problems which have been created by people entering illegally on its own. Face is a problem, illegal means illegal, but also being illegally subsidized by tax dollars. Some of this information has come out more abundantly from some of the efforts of the Doge efforts, but clearly illegally subsidized by tax dollars. These people encouraged to maintain their own culture, their own language, their own religion, but within our nation, all of those deadly the result, the seeds of destruction of the nation, of whatever nation that may be all across Europe, America is the same. The seeds are planted, they’ve been watered and they’re now coming to fruition in many different ways.
And this observation by Donald Trump is obvious, but as a populace, which is what he is a populous leader, even as some in Europe have been, he recognizes that because the nation’s legal citizens have been so concerned and he therefore has launched the promise part of the campaign, his last election was to deport all of those who are here illegally. And you’re talking about a lot of people now, millions, tens of millions within that effort. Numerous legal challenges have arisen some by people wanting to stop the effort, some by wanting to clarify the effort. But in any regard, we’ve discussed some of these points on earlier programs. David, I’d like your overall thoughts to the efforts being pursued by the president. We’ll get into more of the specifics here regarding what is termed mass deportations and that’s accurate word, but here’s my question. What is the constitutional or legal foundation for doing so? On one hand it sounds right, but it’s not like it’s a big deal and it’s being challenged, but what is the constitutional or legal foundation for doing such a thing?
David New:
Well, if you look at the preamble to it talks about national defense and of course protecting your border is part of being defending the country. I am sad to say that there are many members of Congress who believe in open borders and this is absolutely reckless. This is reckless behavior. It’s very immature. It doesn’t do anybody any good to have an open border policy because you’re basically going to wipe out the culture that’s there. It’s going to change, going to metamorphosis into something else that you may not like. Now, there are two principles, or basically there’s one principle that involves mass deportations of the illegal immigrants and that’s the due process clause. And because it’s the federal government is the actor doing this, there are two due process clauses in the US Constitution. There’s one in the Fifth Amendment that applies to the federal government and there’s one in the 14th amendment that applies to the state governments.
Now the one in the 14th Amendment is copied from the one in the Fifth Amendment. That’s where the words came from. Now a lot of people claim that the due process clause is possibly the most important part of the US Constitution. This is now being discussed, but what I’m sad to say is the President is skating on very thin ice when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants without any due process of law. He is in big, big trouble. He really can’t do that. And the signal the Supreme Court gave very clearly that they don’t like what he’s doing is when that fellow that was here and was sent to El Salvador and the Supreme Court came out and said, facilitate his return, that’s the signal from the US Supreme Court. Uhuh, we don’t like what you did. So he’s not going to win. What he needs to do is he needs to set up some kind of due process of law procedure, something stronger than what he has been doing.
I know the president said they are vetted, they are looked at to make sure they should be deported, but there needs to be a stronger procedure, maybe something set up by the President by executive order that can lay out the procedures. If he tries to use the regular immigration courts, you could forget it. You just might as well stay home because we’re talking about 20 million people. And the immigration courts cannot handle that. They never will be able to handle it. You can’t get enough of these people in the court system to be able to handle that many. What I think the president should consider is a military tribunal consisting of three members, at least one officer and maybe two enlisted personnel. And I think that if he sets up something like that by executive order, he might get enough votes to get a pass.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, but David, here’s the question I have that I think people would be thinking and say, alright, but I asked you the question, what does the Constitution say now if there’s a constitutional protection for due process, but you can just quickly get around it by an executive order, whether it be a military tribunal or some other form of whatever, that almost to me strikes as like, well that’s almost like getting around it. So the point is, does the Constitution guarantee due process for a person who is here illegally in violation of the law, whether that person could be an illegal person living now legally, or whether it’s an illegal person who could be perhaps an enemy combatant, a terrorist or somebody involved with human trafficking and of some worst sort. I mean, is there a difference?
David New:
The Constitution does provide for due process of law for just about everybody that’s here. The only exception that I will grant or agree that he doesn’t have to follow due process of law is when an immigrant comes directly over the border, right at the border, I have recommended that anybody who has been captured at the border can be returned immediately back to Mexico or whatever border they’re crossing in Canada without due process of law. They can be returned. I would extend that right or that issue to 50 miles within the United States. So an illegal immigrant caught at the border or within 50 miles within the territory of the United States. The United States government can deport that person immediately without any due process of law.
Sam Rohrer:
Alright? But if that person is, I mean like for instance the other day there were two individuals from China that were caught up in Michigan illegal, but they were here carrying perhaps a bio weapon, ag fungus. Okay? That’s a big deal. And they are known to have Chinese military age men who are here, military guys. Okay, now what a case by them because that actually they are absolute enemies of our nation that happen to worm their way in. Is the same protection should be granted to them or is there a legitimate way for the president to identify those individuals and at least lock them up?
David New:
Yes, I heard about this case, it was fascinating. It’s just unbelievable what’s going on, what China is up to. I assume that it probably was sponsored by the Chinese Communist Party in some fashion. In this case, I’m not interested in deportation. I want ’em locked up. And they do have a right to a trial. That’s what due process of law means. There has to be a fair trial and this is a criminal act. It is an attack upon the United States and these people should be locked up and put away.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, so what you’re saying is that those who are clearly enemies or threaten the health and security and all that are American people, the government protecting the people should lock them up at least, and then there would be some trial to convict them. That’s what you’re saying? Yes. Yes. Okay. And ladies and gentlemen, I think that makes sense, does it not? That is what the Constitution says. So all right, we could go much further into that, but I think you got the idea on that important area. It’s still being challenged in the court, what the president’s doing, and as David said, what is being done is on thin ice. He needs to work on that more. Anyways, we come back, we’re going to shift to the final side. Well, we’re going into our final segment now, and thanks for being with us. If you’ve been with us even a short time on today’s program, we’re glad that you are apart.
I would also encourage you during these summer months when life gets so busy, I know for all of us, some are taking vacations, some are, well, at least life has probably changed a little bit that in the midst of all of that that you do not put aside the program. And if you can’t listen to it during the normal time that you listen, that you pick it up and listen at a later time, perhaps off of the app that you can download. But don’t miss a program. And again, I encourage all of you who are faithful listeners of which there are so many, thank you for that. Your prayers are essential, your financial giving, and I know that we’re all being pressured on all sides with our own budgets. Costs are going up. We know that a lot of people being affected, but do not.
If you can prayerfully let your support out here of this ministry. A lot of programs that depend on people’s giving are being impacted, and we want to be able to remain on the air where you are. And it does require that there is assistance and participation by people who listen like you. So for those of you who are faithful in giving, thank you so very much for those who never have and think it’s not necessary, it is and just ask that you peripherally consider that and being a part. So with that being stated, let me just move right into our next theme. This is one that as you all know, this month, you’ve heard it, you’ve seen about it. June is designated as Gay and lesbian pride month generally called Pride month. Now here’s a little bit of history on this as well. It was officially designated as Gay and Lesbian Pride month by President Bill Clinton back in 1999 by a presidential proclamation official right from the White House.
Barack Obama expanded the official pride month in 2011 to include the whole of the LGBT community, not just gay and lesbian went broader. Donald Trump then in 2017 declined the offer of federal recognition, meaning he did not in his first term, though he did issue supportive public statements in a series of tweets. Two years after that, in 2019, Joe Biden recognized pride month after taking office in 2021, and he vowed to push for L-G-B-T-Q rights in the United States despite previously voting against same-sex marriage and school education of LGBT topics when he was in the Senate. Of course, that’s no surprise, right? Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, in February of this year, Google announced that Pride Month. Google announced that Pride Month a few months ago. They announced that they would no longer be highlighting by default on their Google calendar. So if you use your Gmail, you have Google Calendar and you’ll find dates are often on there.
They are saying that they’re no longer going to identify pride month anymore. They said because it was not any longer scalable or sustainable to continue adding basically letters and numbers and all of those kinds of things that keep growing with the LGBTQ plus and all these other things. Now, I find that interesting. Now, David, the emergence in official government recognition of homosexuality and extended variations of human sexual profundities, as I’ll call them, all called abominations by God himself. The fact that we have done that as a nation over a period of decades at the highest positions, it’s very sad and it’s a very dangerous rejection of God’s moral laws. And while nothing good ever comes out of violating God’s one man, one woman relationship, according to recent polling and research, there is a majority support for continuing to embrace and encourage such things. And some of these numbers are staggering. You have some statistics, share some of them, please.
David New:
It is absolutely horrifying to look at some of these statistics that were reported in the Newsmax magazine in the April, 2025 issue. And on page 10 of Newsmax magazine, they gave the results of a Gallup poll that listed the percentage of the population that is interested in being gay, LGBT and all this kind of thing. And it is absolutely shocking. Now, the dark side, when the Dark Prince wants to use and corrupt people, the primary target for individuals is sexual sin. That’s how he gets most individuals to do bad things and to become evil and to become wicked. The preferred method for the dark princes when not dealing with individuals, but dealing with masses of individuals, masses of millions of people, the primary method is government. So one sexual sin for the individual government, for the masses. And in this particular case, they’re both combined because we recall in 2003, Lawrence v Texas, the US Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality in Lawrence v Texas 2013, US versus Windsor, the Supreme Court declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
And then of course, two years later, in 2015, Feld v Hodges, same sex marriage became legal throughout the United States and the results have been catastrophic. For example, let’s take a look at some of these numbers. In 2012, approximately 3.5% of the US population identified with the LGBTQ plus lifestyle from 2013, it goes up a little bit. 2014, it goes to 3.7 2016, it goes to 4.1 2020 20, it goes to 5.6. Then from 2020 to 20 21, 1 year later it jumped to 7.1. This is horrible, all this 20 22, 7 0.2, then it goes to 2024, the most recent 9.3% of the US population, according to the survey of 14,000 adults taken by Gallup to find out their orientation, their interest, 9.3% are support and participate in the LGBTQ plus lifestyle. This is all because of government. Had the US Supreme Court left all these decisions alone and stayed out of the sex business, none of this would be happening, none of it. And this shows you how corrupt government can be and how wicked it can be. And of course, this also goes right along with the decline of the influence of Christianity in the United States, which the US Supreme Court has been doing everything possible to move away from our Christian heritage to a secular nation. And when you do that, all bets are off.
Sam Rohrer:
And David, boy, there are so much more information we would like to talk about on this issue, but we’re at the end of the program. But ladies and gentlemen, the point being as we God-fearing people, understand God’s law was first God’s moral law. From that came the principles of our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and all that we have. And from that comes the oath to support that. We’ve talked about that. But when you throw out God, you throw out everything else, and with it, you lose your nation and you incur God’s judgment. Think about that in light of the things we talk about today. It’s not just an opinion, it’s what’s happening. So anyways, with that in mind, you’re of God, keep his commandments. Thank for being with us today. God bless you all. We see you back to us.
Recent Comments