Episode 307 - The Constitution and Shifting Language
Max talks about the constitution and shifts in the language with Christopher Nesbitt of citizensacademy.us.
Links
Transcript
Max: You're listening to the Local Maximum episode 307.
Narration: Time to expand your perspective. Welcome to the Local Maximum. Now here's your host, Max Sklar.
Max: Welcome, everyone, welcome. You have reached another Local Maximum. How's your winter going? My winter is going pretty well actually, I just got back from a ski trip in Colorado, very lucky to be able to do that. And to be able to get invited out there. It was, it was really nice, I don't get to do that very often. Conditions were great. And being out in the Rocky Mountains is really cool.
Something about being on a long plane ride is, I don't know about you, but it’s — I am a voracious reader, but it takes me a really long time to finish books. Sometimes I'm working on the same book for like months and months and months.
One of them is “The Fourth Turning is Here” by Neil Howe. I've talked about his previous book on the podcast a couple years ago — was a two-parter with Aaron. But this is his latest book on the fourth turning; very, very interesting.
But it's over 400 pages, I think it's 450 pages. So I kept on grinding and grinding, grinding, but those four hour plane rides really, really helped. And I finally got it finished. And I think that book was a really great explanation of our current social mood and what we can expect in the future. A lot of great pop culture references, including Hot Tub Time Machine. So I think that's, I think we could do a show on that, because that will just be a lot of fun.
So hopefully, I'll get the chance to discuss it here on the program in the coming weeks. Now, relevant to today's interview, go check out “The New Great Compromise” which is my proposal on how to update the Constitution of the United States.
First of all, you know, people don't seriously think we're about to pass an overhaul of the Constitution. But it's a really interesting thought exercise. And it goes into: what's wrong with our political system today, social choice theory, how should elections be structured.
And it's not just from the mathematical side, but also from the political side. Like why should we have bicameralism? Is that a good thing? I think it's a good thing, but not everyone does. And so definitely, if you're interested in this kind of stuff, read that toward new great compromise, localmaxradio.com/labs.
Now, there was something interesting about that. I got some great feedback. First of all, some people mistakenly think the Great Compromise was the one that was about slavery, which it's not. There are actually a lot of compromises in our history that were about slavery.
There was the Missouri Compromise, which said that you can't have slavery above the southern boundary of Missouri. Of course, Virginia was above the southern boundary of Missouri, but like, but going west, that was overturned in 1850, when they had another compromise, saying, basically, we're going to open up more lands for slavery, and we're going to including Texas, and we're going to have and we're going to have a fugitive slave law.
So you know, obviously, not great. And of course, there was the Three-Fifths Compromise that went into the Constitution. And I think that's the one that people mistake it for.
But The Great Compromise that I was talking about is the one that created bicameralism, that created a House of Representatives and a Senate, which is something that is common now in most Western and non-Western nations around the world.
So a lot of nations have decided to go with bicameralism, so if you think that's some kind of horrific thing, you have a lot of explaining to do, but willing to be open to hearing about it.
There are a lot of countries that have kind of a one and a half legislators where it's like, you know, you have you have your main one, your main Parliament, and then the other one, that’s the Senate or whatever — it's the House of Lords in the UK — it’s kind of just a confirmation, but okay, fair, fair enough.
But anyway, there's a lot of questions about what we should do with regards to gerrymandering also in The New Great Compromise. And I did get some feedback on like, well, I don't think your language in there is going to fix it. Although I haven't had a better proposal. So, “How do we do districting fairly?” is a very open question.
I've talked about gerrymandering a lot on the program. Gerrymandering is how to shape districts to get the political outcome that you want. There's a lot of good data science and sort of machine learning methods for coming up with some gerrymandered districts. I bet it's a lot of fun.
If you are in power in a particular state, it is in your interest to do that. I just don't think it's in the interest that it is allowed to be done across the country. It doesn't serve the democratic process very well.
But if you want to fix it, you have to have some kind of fair proposal to do it, where even if you're creating boards or whatever, those can't be subverted to some ends. It's very difficult thing to do for some reason.
So those are some constructive criticisms. For some reason, when I post this thing online, people get really mad. People don't get mad when I post stuff about, you know, machine learning or Bayesian inference. Even when I wade into the Bayesian versus Frequentists debate, people are mostly they'll make cracks, wisecracks, will make jokes.
But now people get physically upset, I feel. I can feel it from the writing when I post my constitutional project, a lot of criticisms are: How dare you spend your time on this? Or why should I listen to you? You're not, you know, you don't have any credentials.
It just seems like there's a bunch of people out there who don't want to have this discussion, or they kind of see it as kind of the, you know, it’s part of the current political environment, perhaps. And it's sort of wading into the political environment, even though it's not a very social issue type thing that might be more of a culture war issue.
But maybe it's interpreted that way. One thing Aaron told me that might be the case is that a bunch of people have their kind of ideal system that they want to set up that they have in their minds. And if your system is not that, then they figure out ways to disregard it. I certainly don't see my world that way when I see something very different from what I proposed, but maybe a lot of people, maybe a lot of people do that.
Anyway, I've enjoyed talking about the Constitution and constitutional law on the program. And I was actually approached by some folks at an organization, Citizens Academy, dedicated to constitutional education, to have them on the program and talk about it. And particularly in our discussion is about the changing nature of words in the Constitution.
So the way I think about it is, if you sign an employment contract, there could be vague stuff in there, you might want to worry about down the road, but you're not worried about the actual meaning of words changing in five years and ten years. But over decades, and especially over centuries, it starts to add up, it starts to make a big difference. And that's what we face when we write constitutions for nations.
And that's one of the challenges in it versus writing kind of a contract. That is, feels long term but in the span of history, is pretty short term. Okay.
My next guest is with citizensacademy.us and has over 35 years of experience as a professional speaker working with numerous organizations. His disappointment in the lack of results with modern education, prompted him to discover a new method of learning using effective and proven basics. Let's bring it up.
Christopher Nesbitt, you've reached the Local Maximum. Welcome to the show.
Christopher Nesbitt: Thank you, Max. I'm delighted to be on your show. Thanks for having me.
Max: So, but before we begin, tell us a little bit about, like, what is your background? Why did you become interested in the Constitution?
Chris: Well, I have a background in sales and insurance, but I specialized in having people really understand what they were getting into so they could make good choices on their insurance. And that spread a whole word of mouth on me being a problem solver.
So I've had people ask me to do consulting, or even marriage counseling, or workshops or seminars, all on the subject of enhancing people's understanding of things. And then when I learned about, from a person I really respect, the Citizens Academy US, I thought, wow, this is an opportunity to help people broadly in America understand properly. The most basic fundamental that they should know about is the constitution.
Max: So did you have an interest in politics or civics beforehand? Were you politically involved?
Chris: No, I did not have a big interest in politics or civics. It was not a passion for me. But helping people learn and understand was one and so when I saw wow, I should be more involved and more effective in helping people on a broad scale.
Not necessarily one political party or the other, but helping people understand their rights and the constitution did become super interesting to me.
Max: Was there some, like some event that happened or some, like observation that led you in that direction?
Chris: Yes, I saw more and more problems occurring in the country. And I thought, what might be a common denominator that would help solve these problems, broadly, that a heightened understanding could make people more united, more aligned and less argumentative, or even less likely to riot. For example, the Portland riots really had an adverse effect on me, I thought, boy, something really needs to be done about this at a grassroots level.
Max: I'm not really sure if it's a quote, or an idea that I'm remembering. So I might be misremembering, but there's something about, like, how, you know, violence is politics carried out through other means, or maybe it's the reverse of that or something. Whereas, you know, if you have a good political system, it can avoid more violence.
Chris: You know, that's a good point. I haven't heard of that exact quote, but I can see it.
Max: Yeah. And I'm not sure exactly. I know I'm thinking of something. But I can't look it up to the right on the spot here.
Chris: No problem. I would love to see it when you find it, but I can certainly see just academically that that would make sense that the better the system, the less violence, argumentation, conflict and problems.
Max: So I, before we get on, you said something interesting that I didn't know. You had a background in sales in insurance? And that the thing that went through my head, and forgive me, maybe this is not what you want me going through my head was: when I'm asked to sign these like long legal documents, whether it's like a lease or some some business arrangement, where sometimes I, as a normal person, am asked to sign things where I don't really know what they are. But there's like 40 pages. Is that the kind of thing that you're talking about?
Chris: Well, yes, to some degree. And I'm glad that you bring this up. Because it really dovetails with why I've gotten so interested in helping others with the Citizens Academy US.
But what I found when there's extensive legal documents, or even a proposal generated by a company, that there's words in the proposal, or in the legal document, or the agreement, that the person maybe knows, or has some superficial idea of but doesn't really know or understand in the context of the document.
And that causes terrific confusion and upset when the bills come in, or some unexpected development happens. All would have been predictable if they really understood what they were reading.
Max: I'll be honest. I'm fascinated when I read the Constitution and some other like foundational political documents, but when it comes to like, my own, my own legal documents, I just kind of, my eyes just kind of glaze over. It's kind of funny.
Chris: I understand completely. And that's, that's what, when I have a client starting to glaze over, I know and have studied enough about why that happens, that I can get to the cause of it, clear it up on the spot, and have them go, wow, why didn't somebody explain that to me earlier? And now they have clarity and can go forward without that anxiety of oh, my goodness, what am I getting into here?
Max: Yeah, yeah. So let's get into a little bit about Citizens Academy. We don’t have to get into the whole history of everything, but like, what does your organization do on the high level? And why did you decide to, well, did they reach out to you or vice versa? And why did you decide to work with them?
Chris: A person that I had followed for some time, who was excellent at coaching, communication and being a leader in business development in the subject of communication. Just really extraordinary and I had been to one of her workshops. She is the one that introduced me to the subject of the Citizens Academy US.
So because it was based on this one subject of the six purposes of the Constitution, and having them be completely clear and understood by anybody that would want to, we developed a study guide that clears up every key word in that paragraph that has the six purposes of the Constitution.
Each page is illustrated, it has the original meaning based on the 1828, Noah Webster's Dictionary, so that anybody could understand what our Founding Fathers had for the purposes of the Constitution.
And this is one specific piece of the whole document. But the more I've talked to people, they realize that this is the most important part because in any subject, if you don't know the purpose, you might know a lot of other things. But you're in trouble if you don't know what the purposes are.
Max: So this is — you're talking about the first paragraph that starts with, you know, “We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union..?”
Chris: That's exactly right. That is exactly it. But it's interesting that if you ask people, “Where are the purposes?” unless they know that the word preamble means, “the part of a document that covers its purposes, its intentions and what it's aiming to do” then they draw a blank. And they go, wow, where are those purposes? But you hit it right on the head.
Max: I don't know if I could necessarily recite word for word, the rest of the preamble, I just know the first part that- I'm actually going to bring it up now. I know, it's I know, it ends with, “in order to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” That's probably the last clause in there. But yeah, I guess there are probably six clauses in there.
Chris: There are. That's right. And you can go through them one at a time, like one of them is, “to form a more perfect union.”
Max: Right. Well, yeah. So that's an interesting one. What does that mean? Because I think that is kind of a phrase that, you know, I mean, more perfect to a lot of people, we just kind of think of it as better. What does that mean in your view?
Chris: Well, I will tell you, and if it's all right, give me just a second, I'm going to grab my copy of the study guide that was printed and developed by the Citizens Academy US. And I'll read you an example so you can see how understanding this one word “perfect” might shed more light on that purpose number one.
Max: Sure.
Chris: Give me just one moment. Yeah. Okay, so let's take the word perfect. I'm going to give you my history as a kid, when I first heard the preamble. And what I had been taught in various instances that nobody is perfect, perfect is really unattainable. It is just like an ideal that one might hope to attain someday, if you're lucky. But generally speaking, perfection is like an ideal dream that isn't going to be attainable. That was what had been foisted off on me in a couple of different ways.
Max: Sure. I mean, that sounds like, well, the language that we would use today.
Chris: Yeah, okay. Like nobody's perfect. Some one liner like that.
Max: That’s like what I said, it sounds like “better”. Hey, you know, we have a union. It's not doing that great right now. Or at least it seems to be from, from our perspective as the framers, we're going to improve it. So more perfect.
Chris: There you go. Okay. So now let's take a look from the guide page 31. “Perfect” in the context of this purpose, is to find as ideal, lacking nothing. The word “perfect” comes from the word “perficio”, which meant, “to complete, to carry to the end.”
And the sentence that's given is, “having you come will make our party even more perfect.” As you mentioned, in the paper you shared with me about the Constitution, there was a fair amount of debate about the Constitution, as it was coming down the pipe to be ratified, correct?
Max: Yeah, of course.
Chris: And so it's interesting that when they finally came to an agreement and ratified it, they had come to this completion point where they've now unified these colonies. So there was a point of completion there, like if you were sitting down for a meal at a restaurant, and you ordered a steak, but there's only a fork and a spoon and no steak knife, no knife of any kind. You don't have a perfect place setting.
It's incomplete. And the moment it's complete, oh, there's your steak knife. Now you can enjoy the steak. And maybe you get some steak sauce. And it's even more perfect. But the idea that perfection as a completion that is attainable. Every state coming into agreement under this one constitution was a completion point, and thus has achieved perfect in that context. And it could be more perfect later by following the rest of the purposes of the Constitution.
Max: So I guess they were kind of insinuating by saying that what they had currently, Articles of Confederation, were incomplete, you know, which were put together by thoughtful people, but put together you know, during war without, you know, without too much debate over the long term.
Chris: Yes, yeah. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, that things could still be improved. Even though we've made an accomplishment, we've got a completion point, to me is how I look at life like we could achieve a milestone or a goal. And that's a completion.
And we've got a point where we say, okay, you could do a podcast show, and while everything you wanted came true, it was perfect in the sense that you got what you wanted. We're done now, and you feel happy about airing it. That doesn't mean, the next one couldn't be better. But we did a good job on this one. And we did get something completed.
Max: Got it. So I actually do want to ask you about the critics of the Constitution in a little bit, even though I don't have it written down here. Because I think that's a big piece of the puzzle. But in your view, you've been going around teaching about this topic, what do you think is the biggest misconception about the Constitution that people come in with?
Chris: I think the biggest misconception is that people don't understand that in any document, or really any area of life, that there are purposes that have to be known and understood. And that purposes are more important than all the rest of the document.
Clearly, the Constitution with its sections has many, and its articles have many important things to say about how to govern and how to have the laws work. All these essentially what you could call rules of the game are important.
But in any game. The purpose to me always rings true as more important than everything else. If somebody doesn't know the purpose, say why the team that they're on is building a road. There, they're not going to be the worker you'd want to hire.
Max: Yeah. So what do you think is the goal of, you know, constitutional understanding or education among the public? Why do you think this is an important thing?
Chris: I will answer that. I also remember that you mentioned that there's people that we could say, are the naysayers that want to change or do away with the Constitution?
Max: Yeah, I mean, I'm gonna talk about — there's several different groups. I mean, there, you know, there are people who are critics of the actual Constitutional Convention in 1787, that said, hey, maybe we didn't need this, maybe we could have stuck with the Articles of Confederation, then there are people who think, who argued today that it, it doesn't matter because politicians violate it.
So maybe we could. Maybe we could address those two separately. But my first question is, I guess, why is it important for the average person to know about the Constitution? And then we could address those two things.
Chris: That's great. And I, to me, the answer to that is, one: to realize that from the general public's point of view, there's a lot of material to the Constitution. And not everybody has the depth to write a paper like you did, with over 17 citations and a suggested rewrite. I mean, that was impressive.
Max: That’s me citing other people, not other people citing me. Although, hopefully someday.
Chris: It was a great compilation.
Max: Yeah, yeah, it was a lot of fun to write. And I did take a constitutional law class as an undergrad when I went to Yale, but that was like a bunch of years ago now, but like, you know, I've always enjoyed this stuff. So it didn't take me too long to write it, but I had been thinking about it for a long time.
Chris: That’s fantastic. So, what I wanted to say is that the most important part of the Constitution that everybody could grasp, if they did our study guide, is the first section, the preamble. And when you first look at it, it looks like one paragraph. But when you read it carefully, it's actually one sentence.
Max: Probably seems like a run-on sentence to a lot of people.
Chris: It could seem like that. But when you see the, you know, to me the writing style of this preamble. And by the way, you may know that in your own studies, that there was fierce and hot debate and efforts to, not everybody was in agreement about the different portions of the Constitution.
Max: Yeah, yeah, exactly. I mean, one of my favorites, who I write about in the paper, is George Mason. I think he was not against the whole idea of it, but he had too many concerns to support it at first.
Chris: Okay. All right. So I follow that. So what I wanted to mention is, if broadly, and I mean, lots and lots of people understood this one sentence, as it was intended with the original meanings of the words fully highlighted in this guide. What happens is, they suddenly go, wow, I never knew that, that those were purposes.
And to me, the whole subject of purpose is fascinating. Because for me, purposely, when I had a purpose that I was forwarding and operating on, I felt more alive. I felt more awake and energized. And you could say, living is having and following a purpose. That's how I look at it.
Max: So what I mean, I don't know if we have time to go through like all six. But can you give another example besides the more perfect union thingy? Because that one? Yeah, that one seems too general to make a more perfect podcast episode, if you know what I mean.
Chris: Yes, sure, no problem. So one of them is let's take the word. And I just want you to know that I'm going to concentrate on what is in the book, because the words themselves, when, like a friend of mine just mentioned, while he was eating breakfast, he was reading the guide I had, he wanted to buy a copy of it from me.
So he was reading the guide. And he described to me wow, I didn't know that was the definition of blessings. And you remember in the preamble that the word blessings is there.
Max: Let's see. So it's to secure let's see, “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Yeah. So I would think in today's usage, it would just be “secure the good attributes of liberty that we get,” you know, or “when you live under a free society, good things happen.” Those are the blessings. But what is the meaning?
Chris: Now that, I can understand that, that has validity, but in the context of the Constitution as it was written, the definition right here on page 59, is “sources of happiness.” And the word blessings came from the word “bletsian” which meant "made holy, give thanks.” The sentences are, “You're a blessing in my life, my children are a blessing. I'm grateful for all my blessings. I wish you many blessings.”
But instead of it being something maybe conferred on somebody else, which is a definition that I had learned way early on, that it's a source of happiness, sources of happiness. And I've actually had two people in the last week that I've been reading my guide, say, wow, I didn't really have that complete understanding of blessings. And it made a lot more sense when they cleared this up and made sentences of their own, which is part of the instructions on how to study the guide.
Max: Right. Right. All right. So I do want to talk about critics and issues of the Constitution just for a little bit. You could kind of respond to this however you want but, you know, it's clear that sometimes politicians seem to violate the Constitution and there is some People who say, “Well, you know, the Constitution doesn't matter, because it just gets violated, you know, when when politicians, you know, can or feel like it.” So how do you feel about this issue of it not being self-enforcing?
Chris: Well, I think the answer to that, and there's two things you've asked me. So just the first one is that we have had an attorney that was a naysayer, just like you were saying that he disagreed with the Constitution, thought it was outmoded and should be scrapped, in so many words.
When he was taken through the guide, by my boss. And he fully understood all the words that made up these purposes, he turned around, and he was like, “Oh, well, that shouldn't be taken out. That's wonderful, that's beautiful.” And had a complete change of heart. Because his misunderstandings had been cleared up. And he saw that these purposes were not just of the Constitution, but were actually his too.
And I think that's an important part, just to pause and consider just for a moment is that when people really understand these purposes, as they were intended, with the original meanings, they go well, that's what I think, too. That hits home. That's what I want. And now we have alignment, on purpose, because it's understood and not lost in terms of meaning.
Max: What do you think are the biggest weaknesses of the Constitution as it stands today, you know, with the amendments, if you were to kind of turn it around and say, Well, what are the, what's the strongest argument that a critic might have?
Chris: Well, that's good. That gives me pause for thought. But I'd say the strongest argument that they might have, would stem from that they themselves likely don't understand what they've read on the very first paragraph.
So they could have all sorts of criticisms. And to me, I've dealt with many, many critical people. And strange as that may seem, you know, if they were critical about a legal document, critical about a health plan. They had words in it that they didn't understand. And when those were cleared up, their criticism ceased.
It was almost magical. I've seen it happen again and again. So the reason I bring this up is that the one thing that I would put in the Constitution, if I had a way of changing it is to — and answering your question about it being self-enforcing — would be that any law proposed for the legislature to vote on would have to outline which purpose or purposes of the Constitution was being forwarded by their particular proposal.
Max: Right. Right. Now, when I wrote that paper on the Constitution, last year, I focused more on you know, I'm more of like a, you know, I'm focused more on like the structure. Like, what are the different bodies gonna be, how are they going to interact with each other? And it seems to me that like, you know, we have had amendments that affect this.
We don't have to argue that every amendment was good. But I feel the original Constitution needed like- just to name one that was kind of obvious. I think it's the 12th Amendment where it was just changing how we elect the president after that whole Thomas Jefferson-Aaron Burr thing happens.
That was probably, you know, that was probably needed, because I don't think there’s anyone out there calling on repealing the 10th amendment.
So I feel like there could be some weaknesses in the structure, even if, you know, my proposal is not necessarily the answer. It goes too far. But I, but how do you think about the structure that they set up? I don't know, if you have any reaction to that?
Chris: You know, I don't have any real definite opinion one way or the other on that, so I can't really comment on that in any effective way. But I do think that when purposes are clarified, that all the other sections will tend to line up and make more sense.
And if another amendment needs to be made, I think it would be all in the direction of making sure that the purposes are understood as purposes and can be followed and adhered to because it's an interesting historical fact, as I understand, that the one piece of the Constitution that was not disagreed with, was not edited, and was agreed upon by all concerned, was the preamble.
Max: Yeah. And that's, I think in some countries, they would have a real difficult time. And probably in this country at certain periods of time, maybe today, if we were to sit down and write the preamble, it would be, it would be very difficult to do and very difficult to get consensus on.
Chris: I think you're exactly right. I think that's spot on.
Max: So what's interesting about what you’re saying, I mean, one thing that — I was explaining it in my paper which was more of like, a mathematical term, but it was a, it was a Schelling point or a focal point. And I think that's kind of getting into the idea of a purpose, where if you have an institution that has a clear purpose, and the purpose is known to everyone, and it makes sense to everyone, then it can work well.
It's hard to, it becomes harder to undermine that institution. It's almost like, everybody kind of knows, instinctually, what they should be doing. Because the stated purpose makes sense, and everything is aligned. And I think that's something that we should look at, not only in the Constitution, but like in all kinds of organizations or human endeavors.
Like you know, your company, like if you have a company, and they're telling you, we're all about this, but then nothing is set up to do X, like, we're all about X, but nothing is set up to do X, then everyone's confused, or maybe they don't say anything at all, and everyone's confused.
So, but then if you, you know, you work at a place where, okay, they have their purpose. It seems like everything is set up around that purpose, the end, and then it's like, okay, I kind of can come in here. I know what to do. I don't have to be forced.
Chris: Yes, yes. That they can be self determined on that purpose. May I comment on one thing you mentioned?
Max: Absolutely.
Chris: Okay. So you mentioned about things being undermined when it comes to purposes? So one thing that I've noticed is that since these purposes are stated in words, and words and their meanings sometimes get dropped out of people's understandings. I've noticed — and there's articles on this on the internet — about in schools, dictionaries being dropped out. Dictionary start being not used anymore.
Max: For digital, digital reasons?
Chris: Yeah, for digital reasons, or other reasons, but certain dictionaries that do have useful definitions. And by the way, the study guide that our Citizens Academy US has made is basing its definitions on Noah Webster's 1828, American Dictionary of the English language. He spent 26 years of his life compiling this big dictionary, where he went and researched 20 different languages to get the derivations properly.
Max: Yeah. So there's still dictionaries that do that, right?
Chris: Yes, absolutely.
Max: That still happens. Also, like they, you know, words change their meanings. And sometimes, you know, sometimes there could be political reasons for trying to change the name, change the meaning of a word or phrase, and I'm a digital native. Not only do I live and work on the internet, I mean, I, you know, I worked at a social media company for 10 years.
But I think, you know, I have walked in an old bookstore, and I'd be like, I better get something here because at least they're not going to change it on me.
Chris: That's right. Now that's I think that's exactly apropos. And what I wanted to mention myself, is that one of the ways that you can undermine a country is by renaming what words mean; redefining words as a propaganda point, you may recollect in 1984. This was mentioned, the book 1984.
Max: Right. Right. And that was in Orwell's world that was like, that was one of the main things. I think that was one of the main things the main character was doing, either he was editing news, or, or at least he was observing that, that, you know, words had to be redefined from time to time.
Chris: Yes, that's exactly it. So when a person is now, has lost track, or maybe never even learned the original meaning of the word, as used by the framers and writers of the Constitution, then their purpose is not understood. Because the purpose of the Constitution is really, when it’s really understood people go out there, we've not had anybody disagree with these purposes once they were understood based on the original meaning.
But because dictionaries have dropped out, and then people invent meanings, or they have a superficial idea, but not a complete full understanding, then what people think the purpose is, is not what it was originally intended to be. That causes the problems, that causes the conflict, the big arguments, and I'm certain to say, the violence that can erupt into a riot. I assure you people that really understood our guide and understood these six purposes, as they were intended, would not dream of being part of a riot.
Max: I think before we go, I'm wondering if you have another specific example of a word that has been redefined?
Chris: Well, yes, absolutely. Let's take the word liberty. And Max, here's a question that we asked people. You know, we're in a, we were at a Constitution Day in a local town where a park was set up with booths and speakers and myself and my co-spokesman, Karen were asked to speak.
And people came up to our booth. And what when we asked people, why did the people that wrote the Constitution use the word liberty, instead of the word freedom?
One for one, we got a blank stare, and they were speechless. And they were like, you know, like a kid caught when he can't answer the test question like they were, they were like frozen, and their wits were tangled up, because they had no idea of why this was the case.
So what I could do, if you like, is in this book on page 61, and 63 and 65, we have freedom defined. So you can see how it's different than liberty, and how it would apply to people being more peaceful, more inclined to help others rather than fight others, and be united, regardless of political party.
So page 60. So is that alright? If I read these?
Max: Yeah, go for it.
Chris: Okay, freedom is defined as absence of all restraint and all restrictions. The word freedom comes from “frēo”, which meant acting of one's own will. The animals in the forest enjoyed their freedom is the sentence that's provided.
So now, and if we were doing this guide, as a study assignment, we would talk about what does this mean? In your own words, we would do sentences and examples. But for now, is that definition clear?
Max: Yeah, yeah, freedom is just — means you could do it, without restraint.
Chris: Yeah, absence of all restraint and all restrictions. Now, here's liberty, from page 63 and 65.
And by the way, your listeners can download a free copy of this guide, by going to citizensacademy.us. And on that website, they can also order a soft or hard copy of the book if they like. But the free download shows all the beautiful illustrations and how nicely it's laid out.
But here's liberty, “the state of being free from oppressive restrictions from government on one on one's way of life, behavior, belief or political views.” Oppressive rules or regulations would be ones that are too severe, cruel, harsh, or that limit or restrict you too much.
And then page 65, liberty assumes restraints are essential control that you do agree with, that you consider reasonable, that you do consent to the word Liberty came from the word “liber”, which meant free. The people enjoyed their liberty after escaping the cruel king, or America is often called the land of liberty.
And the picture is shown of a street with a pedestrian sign with the yellow and the black people. They’re sketched down as walking across the street. So here's the crosswalk. You got to be careful, we're gonna follow the rule that you stop when you see the person holding the stop sign bringing the kids across the street.
But everybody can agree with that restraint. And the kids are going to be safe and happy and people are going to be able to get home as soon as everybody's safely across the street. But that would be liberty. And not just acting any way that you please and wanting to negate all rules or laws that a person should be able to follow and agree with if they're sane and sensible.
Max: Got it. Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to me All right. So, Christopher, thank you so much for coming on the show today, we're gonna wrap up. But before we go, maybe you could give us your last thoughts on this conversation today. And where people could go to find out more I know, you already told us, but one more time, and then I'll put it on the show notes page.
Chris: Great. If we can go three more minutes, the way I'd like to wind up is to read a success story that was written that if you can imagine the hundreds of thousands, if not more people that might have felt this way that he starts talking about himself at the beginning. And then what happened as a result of completing the full study of the guide.
I think this would be a beautiful way to wrap up this show that we're doing. All right. So this person says, “I've been living in the United States since 1988, and never wanted to become an American citizen. And suddenly studying the preamble, I realized why that is, and that it has nothing to do with America. It has to do with what people have made out of America.”
“So another side effect of reading this is that I, for the first time, want to become an American. Not the shabby substitute that has been created. But the original idea that you are promulgating and revitalizing. I must confess that while I had glanced at the Constitution a few times, and even read parts of it, it never became real. America's success in becoming the most powerful and free nation on earth was started with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”
“I believe there's a lot of power in what you're doing. You are revitalizing a huge arsenal of failed purposes of people who want to be and live a good life and agree with their fellows and be secure and friendly and able to defend themselves. I want to help on this project.”
Max: All right. Thank you, and where can we go to find out more just to round it up?
Chris: You can go to citizensacademy.us on the internet, and you'll be able to see more success stories, a full free download, and flipbook of the guide and ways of ordering it. And if you're interested in becoming a leader, there's a section on that too. So if you want to help in this grassroots movement, you can spread the word and help people learn these purposes for real, so they really get them.
Max: All right. Thank you for coming on the show.
Chris: Thank you very much for having me, Max, I wish you a great rest of the day.
Max: All right. As we approach the end of the year, I still need to get Aaron back on here. Definitely want to talk about the fourth turning on which I learned a lot. Definitely more AI news. So join us next time. Have a great week everyone.
That's the show. To support the Local Maximum, sign up for exclusive content at the online community at maximum.locals.com. A Local Maximum is available wherever podcasts are found. If you want to keep up. Remember to subscribe on your podcast app. Also, check out the website with show notes and additional materials at localmaxradio.com. If you want to contact me the host, send an email to localmaxradio@gmail.com. Have a great week.