You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Constitution’ tag.

I very recently posted about medical testing and more specifically about the shoddy reporting quality of a certain online publication called WorldNetDaily.

What the article was about was the whole Orwellian big-brother is going to own the DNA of all of our children if a bill is passed, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!  But it wasn’t true.  It was really a large exaggeration of what is going on and it is shameful that some groups feel they need to tell big lies like this to get attention.

What was completely missed in the article and the discussion was whether the government should even be in the business of regulating health care at all.  Answer: it shouldn’t, unless it was done at the local government level.  Like maybe the city or county level.

April 15th every year is an interesting day for people paying taxes.  Many  people wait until the last day and then only pay out of a vague fear of what will happen if they don’t.  This is a horrible state for people to be in and for many reasons not discussed here is more symptomatic of tyranny instead of freedom.

People should not fear their governments, governments should fear the people.

Comments Welcome


What do you think of the Constitution?  Is it a heaven inspired document or something that is now outdated and is not that  important when compared to the other issues we have to face?  How important is it for Latter Day Saints to try and support the Constitution?

Here are some quotes you may find illuminating.

“You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread. I do not know whether it is a thread, or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance.

I have said to you before, brethren, that to me the Constitution is a part of my religion. In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part. It is a part of my religion because it is one of those institutions which God has set up for His own purposes, and, as one of the brethren said today, set up so that this Church might be established, because under no other government in the world could the Church have been established as it has been established under this Government.

. . .

I suppose you brethren will all know, but I will recall it to your attention, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law for all of the Americas, or Zion, as it has been defined by the Lord.

You brethren from Canada know that, your great British North America Act, in its fundamental principles, is based upon our Constitution, and you know that in the courts of Canada, the reports of our Supreme Court, and our Federal courts generally, are just as persuasive as the decisions of the courts of England, and even more so, where questions of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation are involved.

You brethren also know that from the Rio Grande down to the Horn there is no constitutional government except those that are rounded primarily upon our own Constitution. In Mexico the revolutionary party which more than a century and a quarter ago rebelled against the king of Spain and established a republic, copied almost verbatim, and practically overnight, our Constitution, and made it their own. Neither Mexico nor the others to the South interpret their Constitutions as we interpret ours. They have different standards and different canons of interpretation, for their fundamental system is the civil law, while ours is the common law. But the great essentials of that document, the Constitution of the United States, which God Himself inspired, is the law of Zion, the Americas.

So, brethren, I wish you to understand that when we begin to tamper with the Constitution we begin to tamper with the law of Zion which God Himself set up, and no one may trifle with the word of God with impunity.”

J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report, October 1942, Evening Meeting pp. 58-59

I have often been taught that the Constitution was heaven inspired, but I have never really heard it taught that it is part of our religion and that it is also the “word of God”.

“President David O. McKay said on more than one occasion that the maintenance of constitutional principles was one of the most important tasks that members of the Church had before them. In an editorial in The Instructor in 1956, he said: ‘Next to being one in worshiping God there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States.'”

Gerald N. Lund, The Coming of the Lord [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971], 59.

The Church is unfortunately so very far from being united in “upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States”.  Perhaps the first thing would be to study it and learn what it means.

“If those who so carefully drafted the checks and balances into our Constitution could have looked into the future and seen what the Supreme Court of the United States would do to their masterpiece, they would have been dismayed. Through the process of supposedly “interpreting” the Constitution, the Court has twisted beyond recognition just about every conceivable clause to justify the transfer of all sovereignty from the states to the federal government, to broaden the powers of the federal government beyond any definable limit, and then to make it possible for all such powers to fall into the hands of the executive branch of government. We may still give lip service to the checks and balances of our constitutional republic, but the phrase is now quite hollow. (An Enemy Hath Done This, pp. 265-67.)

We, the people, have allowed the government to ignore one of the most fundamental stipulations of the Constitution-namely, the separation of powers. In recent years, we have allowed Congress to fund numerous federal agencies. While these agencies may provide some needed services and protection of rights, they also encroach significantly on our constitutional rights. The number of agencies seems to grow continually to regulate and control the lives of millions of citizens.

What many fail to realize is that most of these federal agencies are unconstitutional. Why are they unconstitutional? They are unconstitutional because they concentrate the functions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches under one head. They have, in other words, power to make rulings, enforce rulings, and adjudicate penalties when rulings are violated. They are unconstitutional because they represent an assumption of power not delegated to the executive branch by the people. They are also unconstitutional because the people have no power to recall administrative agency personnel by their vote. (The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner, pp. 25-26.)”

Ezra Taft Bensen, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Bensen [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 613.

Are you listening?  What should we be doing about this?  The Church very clearly observes political neutrality and encourages people to get involved in the political process.

There are mass meetings on March 25th this year for both the Democratic and Republican parties.  There are other parties as well such as the Constitution Party.

There has been a lot of criticism by members of the Church of one party or another that a “good” member of the church should not be a member of one party or the other.  This is garbage.  The party platform of any party is a collective vote of the party members.  How can you change the direction of any party if you categorically refuse to be involved with it?  If millions of Latter Day Saints or the Christian Coalition or other groups chose to join the Democratic party, it might be possible to change the party’s position on abortion or some other moral issue that people feel strongly about.

The important thing is to get involved and do what you can to uphold the Constitution.

Comments Welcome

An unconstitutional bill was in the House. It would give a representative in the U.S. House to Washington D.C. and another representative to Utah. The problem is that D.C. is not a State, and members of the House of Representatives must be elected from states.

Article I, Sec. 2 of the Constitution says the Representatives are elected by the people of the several states.

Article I, Sec. 4 of the Constitution requires States to choose the manner of electing Representatives and Senators.

Article I, Sec. 8 created the District of Columbia and gave Congress the power to regulate a 10 square mile area that is now the seat of our government.

No provision for the District of Columbia to have a voting member of Congress. Although the 23rd Amendment gave them the right to an Electoral Votes for President. They now have three electoral votes.

But that is not why the bill was defeated.

The bill was defeated for the very same reason why almost anything gets done in Washington D.C., politics. According to the Washington Times, some clever parliamentary action defeated the bill in committee. This is an example that is clever, enlightening, and sickening.

In a committee meeting, a Republican representative made a motion to amend the bill to not only allow D.C. and Utah to have one more representative, but that while we are respecting notions of fairness and a right to representation we should also respect the right to bear arms. The amendment would have repealed the very heavy handed ban on firearms in Washington D.C.

This put several of the Democrats on the committee in a difficult position. Some of them were elected on a promise that they would fight for gun rights. If they vote against the amendment to repeal the gun ban, then it looks like they are anti-gun. If the vote for the amendment to repeal the gun ban, it will make the bill impassable in the House.

They decided to postpone the vote on the amendment indefinitely. The bill is dead, and because of politics, not a desire to do what is right or to follow the right procedure, or even for respect of the constitution. A win is a win.

The Constitution should be amended if they want to give representation to Washington D.C.

Comments Welcome

(Note: many of the links contain bad words because they quote the President of the United States in an unedited fashion. They may also contain other bad words because of the lack of restraint of those authors and the passion these quotes invite.)

I had heard some vague rumblings about something like this, but it was not until today that I decided to find out if it was true and I found out that it is true. I tried to find some kind of rebuttal, denial, or some other kind of clarification, but after the first 40+ hits from this site not showing anything to mitigate the story, I gave up looking.

I also wanted to find out if this was true too, and it is.

These two things together are at the least mildly troubling and have also caused me to wonder what other people I have been mistaken about.

President Bush speaks Conservative. He speaks it very well. But when the Republicans were in control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, there really seemed to be no program or expense they didn’t like. In the words of President Reagan “we could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors.” (It has been noted that the President already swears like a sailor, mostly in private.)

What troubles me the most is the President’s attitude about the Constitution and his own role and power as President.

The first thing I refer to comes from a meeting in November of 2005. The President was in a meeting with Congressional leaders discussing renewal of the Patriot Act. There was some resistance from Congressional leaders concerned about the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act and also about political fallout. This was the President’s response according to this article (edited for your sensitivities and emphasis):

“I don’t give a [g-d-],” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a [g-d-] piece of paper!

The article claimed verification from three people at the meeting, at least one of which was an aide to the President.

This quote is disturbing because it shows the President’s attitude about the Constitution which he took an oath of office to uphold and protect. It also reveals a confusion about the role of the President. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Not the Commander-in-Chief of everything.

Another difficulty with the President’s attitude and choice of words that “It’s just a [g-d-] piece of paper”, is the conflict with LDS Doctrine that the Constitution is actually a God-Blessed and Inspired “piece of paper”.

The second thing was President’s attitude about Donald Rumsfeld, from CNN’s website:

“I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision,” he said. “And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He’s not only transforming the military, he’s fighting a war on terror. He’s helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld.

“I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.”

By itself, this is not a problem, but when added to his attitude about being the President and Commander-in-Chief, so “do it my way” it seems a little sinister. I have heard other leaders at least mention how they bear responsibility for their decisions, but President Bush only emphasizes his power to make decisions.

The combination of President Bush’s statement about the Constitution, how he is the Commander-in-Chief, and the Decider seems to indicate an attitude of Power without Responsibility. Not even a responsibility to follow the Constitution as opposed to being the Decider in Chief.

With regard to the President’s statement about the Constitution as just a piece of paper, The Idaho Observer noted:

President Bush even commented that Dick Cheney is one of his best friends because he doesn’t read about their private conversations in the press the next day.

The truth is that President Bush is right, in a practical sense: The Constitution is just a piece of paper that was superceded by the 14th Amendment and replaced by U.S. Code. However, blatant irreverence for that sacred document is unbecoming of a president.

If they mentioned the role of the Supreme Court I might be inclined to agree with that statement. As I mentioned in a previous post, the current U.S. Government bears very little resemblance to the Constitution.

President Bush is not a friend to the Constitution, even though he has sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution.

Your comments are welcome.


E-mail address:

July 2018
« Feb