The U.S. Constitution: Revisiting the 1787-1788 Prophetic Ratification Concerns
August 14, 2025
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Guest: David New
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 8/14/25. 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 Stand In the Gap Today and also our bimonthly emphasis here today on the Constitution, US history. We combine those two on this bimonthly emphasis and always with us when we get on this theme as constitutional attorney, historian, author and public speaker, David New Now across America. Today as we speak, we’re perhaps more divided on nearly every issue it seems than perhaps at any time in history. Our leaders and people generally are divided on the most basic things, starting with the definition of truth and justice and morality. Our educators are divided on matters of curriculum and purpose for an education, and the role of the parent versus the role of the government of religious leaders are divided on key matters of truth. Even debating the authority of scripture and its relevance in our lives. It’s amazing our presidents have become well, they’ve tended to become polarizing.
Our politicians are divided by party and personality and procedure with all sides seeking to well demonize the other side to refuse accountability and take responsibility for what is done. And rather than seeking unity, they seem to spend more time in ways to try to avoid the things which are needed to unify a nation. And that is in fact to talk about God’s moral law and its role in a civilized nation and the Constitution as our nation’s highest civil law, giving lip service only if and if at all to God truth and the Constitution giving up service to those things, God, truth and the Constitution, they become points of controversy and the vision rather than unity. And as a result, most don’t even know what a true representative republic is, what their constitutional oath means or why it was even implemented. And as a result in reality, they have long yielded to the temptation to view the US Federal government not as a limited entity to do only those basic things the states could not do for themselves, but more as a corporate behemoth and functioning more as a monolithic oligarchy run by a few elite more as an empire in their minds desiring the global status perhaps of the most recent British empire which we succeeded or perhaps other past empires.
Now today, we’re going to focus on just of the big issues that deeply divide America, and that is the Constitution. Democrats tend to claim the Republicans don’t follow the Constitution. Republicans claim the Democrats certainly don’t follow the Constitution. And within the academic community and on the US Supreme Court, there are constant fights about how to interpret the Constitution. Some argue for well, for an original intent approach. While others seem to find that well, anything that they want, they can read into the Constitution. America is filled with endless fights and controversies concerning that document, our civil law, high civil law constitution. So today we’re going to revisit what we’re going to say is the nearly prophetic concerns evidenced by those who debated the Constitution in 17 87, 17 88, and some of the concerns voiced by some who voted to ratify and those who voted against it. But those concerns were there and it’s interesting as we get into them, I think today’s conversation will be both edifying and enlightening. The title I’ve chosen to frame today’s program is this, the US Constitution revisiting the 17 87 17 88 Prophetic Ratification Concerns. And with that, David, new David, welcome back to the program.
David New:
It’s nice to be with you and blessings to everyone listening to the program today.
Sam Rohrer:
David, before we get into that, and I want all of you listening to stay with us because we’re going to get into the bulk of that and the balance of the program. I think you’re going to find it most interesting, and David and I have already been talking about the fact that neither one of us have heard any real discussion on what we’re presenting today, but I think again, you’ll find it. We use the word prophetic. I think you’ll find out why that is. But David, let’s go here first because the president from a headline news perspective, president Trump’s decision to federalize the DC police, turning them effectively over to the control of US Attorney General, Pam Bondi and calling in the National Guard to round up what he says, round up the homeless and the drug dealers and other lawbreakers and get them out of dc calling it Liberation Day. I think it was on Tuesday of this week. It that is a big deal. What are your thoughts on this decision regarding the constitutionality of the decision? And I’m going to say also the wisdom of that decision. What are your thoughts?
David New:
Well, I lived in DC for quite a period of time. I went to law school there from 86 to 89 in Georgetown Law School. And I came very close to death in the decade or so that I lived there two times. One time I had a case in Boston and I had to fly back and forth from Washington to Boston about eight times in one year. And one night I went to Union Station where the military is now or the National Guard is rather. And all of a sudden I wanted to buy dinner. I was tired and I was standing in front of this long counter and some guy was running and another guy came after him tackled him down and within about 15 inches of my foot, he pulled out a Beretta and blew this other guy’s brains out. And you talking about frightening, that is a very frightening experience.
I felt bad about it because I didn’t say anything, but it happened so fast and I called the police and they told me, they said, David, if you had said something, he would’ve popped you for interfering the second close death situation. I was out late walking just a block from my place. I lived right next to Georgetown, a very good neighborhood. I don’t know how it happened, but some guy was in the darkness because it was around 10 or 11 at night. He came right up and face to face and he wanted directions right at 10 o’clock. He wants directions.
Speaker 3:
I
David New:
Knew this guy was a dangerous, but somehow the Holy Spirit told me, don’t show fear. And because I believe that’s the reason I survived that night. I believe angels were guarding me. Now they keep talking about the crime rate going down in dc Well, that’s kind of relative. Let me give you some statistics very quickly.
Sam Rohrer:
Got to make a quick, we’re running out of time. Go ahead.
David New:
There are more murders in DC than in the following nations. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Switzerland, and that one city. In all of those nations, there are more murders in
Sam Rohrer:
Dc. Alright, David, you gave your examples there, ladies and gentlemen. The bottom line is that it can be done what the president has done, and certainly as David and this gave witness, there is a wide degree of lawlessness in that city. Stay with us. We’ll come back and we’ll get into this issue of our, well, if you’re just joining us today, we’re just beginning. The program actually gave an introduction just a few minutes ago when we started. This is an hour program and we’re in and out pretty quickly, so stay with us as we go through this today. But this is our bimonthly emphasis on the US Constitution and American history Constitutional attorney, David New joins me regularly for these emphasized programs on this theme because of the importance and it’s one of the things that as I listen, as I hear from listeners across the country, you may be one of them who have written and said you really like this program with David New and I do too as well because even though I’ve been in office and I know a lot of history because of being there, I always learn a little bit too.
So David, let’s get into it again. Our theme today here is the US Constitution revisiting the 1787- 1788 Prophetic ratification. Concerns, ladies and gentlemen, we’re talking about the concerns that were voiced about our constitution and you’re going to find out that they are amazing in their accuracy. That’s the reason for the use of the word prophetic in that title. But David, it’s impossible to rightly consider the US Constitution without considering its authors because there are people who wrote it and signed it, the context surrounding the writing as well as the adoption and the debate of the Constitution. And this includes as well as the revisiting of the debate and the comments of those who were alive then and carefully considering the pros and the cons of ratification because in those days they had genuine debates more than we have today. I can say that I can attest to that personally. Very few really substantive debates now when things come to a vote, but they had it back then. So give some of the background help to set up this discussion today.
David New:
Well, there were 39 people that signed the US Constitution with George Washington and Madison 39 signed it, but the people who made the Constitution, the supreme law of the land were delegates from 13 states and that population was 1,647. Now these people, you don’t ever hear from them, but this 1,647 people, they actually made the document, the Supreme Law, the land, and they voted for and against the Constitution, the vote came out 65% for the Constitution and 35% against the Constitution. Though some state delegations had less than 60 people. Some state delegations like Massachusetts had over 300 delegates. But basically these are the people and they’re basically ignored in some ways. These 1,647 people may be considered just as important as the 39 signers. What is fascinating about this 35% group that voted no, that voted nay, they sound like prophets. They sound like prophets today because their objections to the us. Now, believe me, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have ratify the US Constitution. I love the US Constitution, but it is interesting how these people had the foresight to see what was going to happen in the 20th and 21st century.
Let’s take a look at some of these people. Let’s start with a guy by the name of Noah Webster. Noah Webster, you know him Webster’s Dictionary. Now, he was a strong supporter of the Constitution. In fact, if you were against the Constitution, you were on his list. Now he listed nine principle objections to the US constitutions, these 35% people, this 35% group, had he said, such are the principle objections that have been made by the enemies of the new Constitution. Now this is this Yale University graduate. He listed number one. Number one, the new government will be too expensive.
Has that ever been true? The United States government is very expensive. They’re leading us to destruction financially. The gross domestic product for the United States of America is $30.34 trillion per year. For China, it’s 19 point $54 trillion per year. The third largest economy is Germany at $14.92 trillion per year. We just passed the national debt at $37 trillion. You couldn’t do more damage to the United States than having a debt like that, but that’s what the federal government has done. His second concern was Congress should not be divided into two branches. We’re not going to spend too much of that because everybody pretty much understands where that’s wrong. The third concern is the federal government will annihilate the several legislatures that effectively has happened because when the Congress can withhold federal money, they can run rough shots over the states and
Sam Rohrer:
David
David New:
Make so much tax money from the American people, they basically can control them with their own money.
Sam Rohrer:
And David, let me throw in there I can attest by being in office for nearly 20 years is that that’s exactly what’s happened across the country and it has happened because of the money which ultimately becomes an enticement from the standpoint of the federal government who wants to always get bigger and the states who always want more money to spend. So it’s a tremendous bribe system that is set up and the states have been lured and tempted into actually giving up their rights. But those who voiced that concern, boy how right they were.
David New:
Yes sir, absolutely. The fourth objection by Noah Webster, he’s listing those who objected to what he stands for. He was for the Constitution and he’s telling us what those who are against that are saying the fourth ones that liberty the President not guaranteed by the new Constitution. That’s where the Bill of Rights come in under the First Amendment. So that’s been solved. His fifth objection, the taxing power of Congress is too great. The taxing power of Congress is too great. Now in 1789 all the way up to the 18 hundreds and later, the main source of income for the federal government was tariffs, custom duties, excise taxes on whiskey and things like that. Well, what happened? The 16th Amendment happened. What did that do That made the government, the federal government, a super powerful government. It was the Bill of Rights for the United States Federal government because it allowed the federal government to tax people in their income.
And the moment that happened, the federal government now knows just about anything you do with your life. They know every time you buy a car, they know every how many homes you own. They know where you send your kids to school. They know how much money you make, they know where you work and how long you’ve been there. This made the federal government a super state and that gave Congress taxing power over the American people. That was just frightening. These people who voted for the Constitution, even those who voted for it, would’ve never ever been dumb enough to ratify the 16th Amendment. The seventh objection was that the trial by jury is abolished in all civil cases that was solved by the Bill of Rights. The eighth objection was that the federal courts will absorb the judiciaries of the several states.
Has that ever been true? Look at the 14th Amendment. Nobody ever saw what was going to happen with the 14th Amendment. Basically, the US Supreme Court can tell any state court, whether it’s the Supreme Court or not, what it wants them to do because it can declare their behavior as unconstitutional. For example, the US Constitution says nothing about marriage, nothing. Why does it say nothing about marriage? Why doesn’t the Constitution talk about marriage? Because they wanted that issue to be left to the States. That’s why under the 10th Amendment, that’s where the issue belongs. But what does the Supreme Court do? They use the 14th Amendment, reinterpret it to make it a federal marriage amendment, and they forced same-sex marriage on the United States, even though 30 states voted against it. They trashed all those votes and forced it on the American people. So here, these people who objected to the US Constitution were prophets.
They foresaw what was going to happen. They didn’t know how it was going to happen. They never could see the 14th Amendment, but they knew it was going to happen and it did. His last one is the slave trade should not be protected by the Constitution. For 21 years, the Slave Tribe and the text of the Constitution was allowed to continue for 21 more years to get Georgia and South Carolina in the Union. Without it, they would not have voted for the Constitution. Well, are we still in the slave business? You bet we are. There are 300,000 children who have come south of the border into this country. We don’t know where they are. The government doesn’t know what they’re doing, but we are very fearful. The government is very fearful that they are being used in the select sex slave business.
Sam Rohrer:
Absolutely. David and ladies and gentlemen, was that an eyeopener or what? Think about it. Now we’re going to build those out more. We’re going to talk about some other concerns, other people in the next segment and they’re going to say, now, where has all of this gone? Alright, David, let’s go further. Now, you mentioned the concerns raised by Noah Webster back at the 1787- 1788 Philadelphia Convention where the US Constitution was debated and it was remarkable. I use the word prophetic. You use the word prophetic because lo and behold, every one of those that you said have come true. And the next segment we’re going to talk a little bit about perhaps how they knew, but we will get into that. But there were others that raised some of these concerns that are worth noting as well. So identify now some of those other notable people who expressed concerns similar to what Noah Webster did and what concerns they expressed.
David New:
Yes. And another one is a gentleman by the name of William Findley of Pennsylvania. He wrote Objections to the Constitution under the title, an officer in the Continental Army, William Finley was born in Ireland in 1741. He dies in 1821. He listed 23 objections to the Constitution. Now, he eventually, after the Constitution came in force and the House of Representatives was set up, he eventually joined the House of Representatives and he served from 1803 to 1817 for a long time. Now, this is his third objection to the US Constitution. The sovereignty of the states is destroyed. How true has that become to be right now? The state governments are little more than administrative agencies to dole out federal money.
Sam Rohrer:
Yep, you’re right, David.
David New:
That’s basically where they are. They really don’t have the power that they used to have before the 14th Amendment. Here’s the number 10. This is the one that I think is going to surprise a lot of people. This was a big, big objection to the US Constitution. Number 10, the dangers of a standing army, the dangers of a standing army. A lot of people did not like. What he’s basically saying is the federal government could become too powerful if it has a standing army, which the Constitution allows. It can become too powerful and overthrow the whole nation. Before you had a standing army in times of peace, you basically had militias, citizenship, militias coming up, fighting the wars. Of course, during the Revolutionary War there was the continental army, but these armies were expected to disband like George Washington did. And here the Constitution is creating a standing army. You’re talking about big. If you had to put something on the top three objections to the US Constitution, top three, top five, very high up, you would want to put a standing army. They’re afraid of the federal government. His number 18 annual elections are abolished. There are no annual year after year elections in the US Constitution at most every two years.
Now people say, why do they want annual elections? Why do they want them every year? And the reason is simple, the more elections you have, the more control you have over the government. So if you don’t like something going on right now, this year, next year, I can boot you out. Well, the US Constitution says the house, okay, we’ll make them every two years, but the Senate is every six years and that would’ve horrified a lot of these people.
Here again, number 20, he listed that the slave trade is allowed to continue until 1808. For 21 years, Jefferson said, please pass the law to end the slave trade. Effective January 1st, 1808, the Congress did it. And so on the beginning of 1808, the slave trade was illegal. You can’t import slaves. One state can sell slaves to another state and things like that, but you can’t bring them in anymore. Now, here’s what Finley said. If we allow that to continue that slavery will probably come back in Pennsylvania. He was from Pennsylvania and he was afraid that if you allow the slave trade to continue, it will come back in Pennsylvania. Interesting point of view. Let’s see. Let’s talk about Mercy. Otis Warren, very interesting lady. She had a lot of things to say about the world and she was definitely against the US Constitution. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if you had to pick one reason above all others, why did that 35% vote no on the US Constitution? Give me the number one reason.
It would be that the US federal Constitution does not have a bill of rights. That was the principle objection. When the states came back and ratified the US Constitution, what they also did is send in messages to the Congress, the continental Congress saying This Constitution needs a bill of Rights. And it was Jefferson influencing James Madison to change his mind and say, James Madison, we need a Bill of Rights. And James Madison proposed it on June 8th, 1789. That is the birthday of the Bill of Rights. He proposed the Bill of Rights at that time. Oh, look what Mercy Otis Warren had to say in her 16th objection to the new constitution. This is what she said, the new constitution will destroy the state governments. Did she know what was going to happen or not?
Sam Rohrer:
And David, it’s remarkable on one hand that these concerns were raised because in some respects it was, well, they weren’t making it up. You could see it coming by the change of the structure. And of course, time has proven them to be totally correct. So now as you say, we have a government that is a behemoth. We have a government that spends more than, it brings in 37 trillion in debt. We have a government that’s about to collapse economically because it can’t continue to pay even the interest on the debt. You have state governments, as you say, that exist really as vassals of the federal government, which was totally opposite. And we have a government that’s actually become so large that it’s well, it’s all over the world. And we’ll talk about that in the next segment just a little bit, ladies and gentlemen. But it is so big. Boy, they couldn’t have imagined how big. Now, David, you started the program talking about decision to bring up, well, actually to nationalize the police department in Washington dc And you gave the reasons why it was justified because there is so much lawlessness, but the president’s also calling in the National Guard. The National Guard was really the state militia. But it has been, well, it’s been federalized. So the federal government can call it up pretty much at will that would’ve concerned the folks who were concerned about a standing army. Don’t you think?
David New:
Well, I’ll tell you, not only would concern them, you’re absolutely right. But it concerns me. I think President Trump needs to proceed with extreme caution because what he’s doing in dc, DC is not a state. So he can get away with a lot of things in this jurisdiction, but when he does it to a state government, that’s a problem, a big problem. And he better watch out because there’s an election coming up,
Sam Rohrer:
And I agree with you, David, but it has already been mentioned. So I just raised this in the context of the concern of 17 87, 17 88, and where we are now. Because in fact, lawlessness does exist. It does. But already in the context of the DC circumstance, the other states have already been identified. Other cities have been identified as places that also need to be cleaned up, including places like Chicago and LA and all of that. And that’s where I share the concern. I hope it does not go there because whereas you can make the case that there’s lawlessness, the federal government fixing the problem becomes the problem of these that voiced these concerns back many years ago.
David New:
Yes. I mean, it’s a dangerous path that he’s taking. I agree that a lot of these cities and states are sanctuary places and they are just protecting all kinds. They will not even cooperate. They will not even cooperate with ice. When the person is a criminal and has a criminal record, they let them walk. This is insane, absolute insane. But nevertheless, he is bound President Trump. He is bound by the US Constitution. The people that even voted for the Constitution, the 65% would be horrified at some of the things that’s going on. I agree with a lot of things President Trump does every time he’s been on the ballot. I voted for him. One of the things I like, he got rid of public broadcasting, defunded them, he got,
Sam Rohrer:
Alright, David, we agree with you, but time’s up, ladies and gentlemen, stay with us. We’ll be back in just a moment as we conclude this in saying, all right, these concerns have ended up well. We’ll talk about it. Well, as we go into our final segment. Now, again, if you’ve been with us from the beginning, thank you much for that and hopefully you have heard things that well making you think perhaps confirm many things that you have been thinking and did help us to reflect upon. Well, I’m going to say there was great wisdom exercised by those that in God’s providential plan helped to lay the foundation for our constitutional republic. There were a lot of things that went into laying down the worldview that permitted the Declaration of Independence to come about, of which we’ve talked much on this program. Then leading into the Constitution and all the things that we’re talking about now, none of that was by accident.
God permitted all of that. And now a long time later, here we are as a nation and what we look like now is, well, a lot different than what those who debated there in Philadelphia, 1787, seventh to 1788, what they were thinking, they could not have imagined what this country would be like today, but some did look down the corridors of time and predict certain things. And that’s some of the concerns that we talked about. And here are just a couple of things I wrote down. It’s a summary of what David shared and these concerns voiced. One was they thought the federal government would become too big, would tax too much and become too expensive. Check. That’s one. They thought that they would control too much, even to the point of controlling individuals’ lives. Well check. But from that came the Bill of rights, as we know, was clearly needed.
They thought that it would have the power and would ultimately destroy state sovereignty. Check that one off. Also, they were concerned that it would control the power of the state courts and make them subservient to the federal courts. Well check that one off. Also, they also thought that by not doing away immediately with slavery, that it would encourage perhaps some later slavery. And David mentioned that is well, in reality there is a sex trade, traffic slave women, others that have been apart, major. It’s happening. Nothing’s being done about it. So they were right there too. And David, I was thinking something, you and I were talking at the beginning of the program, just about how large and expansive our government has become. And I use the word that it really has gone from a limited government with big states, limited federal government. Then it actually has become in effect, an empire.
And I think it has. The world is using the word about the United States as an empire. Many there in our federal government, they like the idea that we are an empire. And they may not use that word, but a lot of people are using that word. And one way just to measure it, David, you and I, again, you and I are talking about it, but here’s a substantive number. For instance, today, right now as we’re speaking, there are 800, that’s the number, 800 US military bases around the world today, 800 in 128 countries. Wow. And on those bases are between 150 and 200,000 military personnel. Wow. 128 of 190 countries in the world. We have military bases there with some extraordinary 120 in Japan, 119 in Germany, 73 in South Korea, 54 in Guam, 44 in Italy. David, I just cite that because no matter how you look at it, that is a description of an empire. Here’s my question to you. What major areas, in addition to what I said, do you see the most prophetic concerns? And more importantly, why do you think it was that these people who raised these concerns to them, it was visible? How did they have any idea that that would be the outcome,
David New:
These 35% that voted against the Constitution and all their objections to it? It’s shocking. I mean, I was floored when I first read this stuff and the debates about the US Constitution, I was floored. I could not believe these people had that kind of foresight. That generation that wrote the Constitution was a very special generation of Americans without question whether they were for or against it. They knew they could think further ahead than most anybody. You could not have all those military bases, which is somewhat insane to have that many in other places. You couldn’t have that number of bases without the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment was a license for the federal government to go on a drunken spree and just buy and spend like crazy. When the US government used to be President, Trump has the right idea about tariffs. The US federal government was funded by tariffs, custom duties, excise taxes for generations. When that 16th amendment that went away and national income, individual income replaced it, and that gave the federal government the power to go crazy. And these people and the Congress, they’re on a drug spending money is a drug to these people.
Sam Rohrer:
It is David. And I would say it’s interesting, and we’re not here to talk about tariffs necessarily, but I’ve stated, and you’ve stated before, tariffs have a historical basis, but I do have a concern is that what we’re doing is adding on tariffs onto the tax without eliminating the income tax. And so actually you have two revenue streams that are coming in, and unfortunately the spending has not been cut. And so, oh boy. So it is like a drug. It is like a drug. 22 billion a day being spent in this country. Dave, that’s the number. Now, ladies and gentlemen, here’s a thought. Here’s my thought on why these individuals perceive these concerns. I won’t get into all the detail, but here’s some. In the book that I wrote and put together called America’s Roadmap to Renewal, the answer to past prayers and the hope for the future.
It’s built off of some of the thoughts of William Penn here in Pennsylvania, but others that agreed with the foundational approach, a biblical worldview. And here’s what they said, and this is why many of these viewed as a problem, because they said, unless we view God as creator and being accountable to him, man, because of his sinful, depraved nature will ultimately do what he wants and will be driven by a covetousness and a desire for control. And with that undisciplined and unlimited or limited, not limited by the 10 Commandments, the moral law of God, they would become totalitarian and tyrannical in their view, but just creatively explain their way out of it. That’s where we are. That’s how they knew that. How can we predict that government will get bigger and bigger just because the nature of man? How do we know that we get it from the word of God.
That’s why when we talk here, we talk about biblical worldview and the Constitution, because taken together, you can have a free, well operated representative republic. Without those two together, you end up well realizing and becoming the concerns of those there. 1787, 1788. Okay. Hopefully some of these put these things together for you. David knew always, always a tremendous presentation of history and a consideration of the Constitution. That very seldom gets discussion. But boy, how relevant could it be than what you have shared here today? Thank you. Thank you, brother. God bless you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. And until we meet again, stand in the gap for truth.
Recent Comments