New Headline:
Springboro School District to Allow Course in Constitution Featuring David Barton
Strictly accurate. Well done, Warren.

Christian Lawyer: “A prime example is his explanation of the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison…”
——-
Can you provide an actual quote from Barton on this?

It’s not strictly accurate: the school district is NOT offering the course, a private entity is.

I would certainly oppose it being offered directly by the district. I do believe that the headline and post give the impression the district is offering the course, which you confirm is not the case.
Perhaps you’ll suggest Hillsdale College’s Constitution course instead next time you speak with them.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/
😉
_____________________
“Our district makes every effort to be a full community partner in permitting and encouraging the responsible use of school facilities for purposes that serve the community,” school district officials said in a statement. “For example, the district has agreements with area churches, civic groups and sports organizations for facility use as well.”
This fits.

Tom – According to some media reports, the district will be evaluating the course for use in schools. I have contacted two school board members to address that part of the issue. One has not answered and the other has said she is looking into it.

So did I, and I thought to myself, Finally!

A large portion of what Barton “teaches” about the Constitution and about Constitutional law is either outright incorrect, false or misleading by material omission, or distorted by a combination of statements and omissions. A prime example is his explanation of the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, which confirmed that the Court has the power of judicial review. Among other problems, Barton makes it sound like Mr. Marbury won and actually states that Pres. Jefferson ignored the Court’s order to give Marbury the judicial commission to which Marbury claimed he was entitled. In fact, Marbury lost because the Court struck down as unconstitutional the portion of the federal statute that purported to give the Court authority to issue the order Marbury wanted. So, not only did the Court not order Jefferson to do anything, it ruled that it could not do so.
I’ve seen (and replayed) the episode of Barton’s American Heritage series (that he still sells) that discusses Marbury and listened to (and replayed) a youtube video of his (entire) presentation to a Tennessee judicial “reform” conference last year where he also discussed Marbury. I’ve also read the discussion of Marbury in his book 1996 Original Intent, which makes some of the same points, although his written presentation is less bad. What’s so bizarre is that each version has different errors, including bits that are (somewhat more) correct in Original Intent that he later misstates in the two more recent video presentations. (Unless the 2010 copyright version I have made corrections to earlier versions that are not acknowledged.)
This is just one example, and even within this example, the errors are legion. It isn’t a matter of simply differing interpretations or analysis. It’s a matter of untruths and distortions. I find that offensive.

A course on the Constitution is to be ‘taught’ by a man who is on record numerous times as saying that the both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution contains word for word, direct quotations from the bible.
For example, the concept of the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) originated from the bible. Isaiah 33:22, a passage that more explicitly implies all three branches being controlled by the same authority, not three independently operating equals.
And did you also know that the separation of powers as written in the constitution was inspired, not by witnessing the abuse of power by the British authorities of the time, but by Jeremiah 17:9? “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”
The offense comes from this guy passing his own constitutional illiteracy onto children who do not know better, and are likely to believe him.

Oh! I don’t think the title needs editing at all!

Thank you for that well-presented background.