Latter-day Saint Constitutionalists have interpreted scripture pertaining to the Constitution of the United States in varying degrees. Some believe it itself is scripture, on par with the canonized Standard Works. Others have a looser (in my view correct) interpretation that only those parts “supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” are inspired. It is the purpose of this article to point out the major, foundational flaw in the Constitution that is overlooked by many Latter-day Saint Constitutionalists. It is also the purpose of this article to point out how we can honor the Lord’s justification “in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land.”
The Highest Degree
For argument sake, I will concede the highest degree of Latter-day Saint Constitutional interpretation that the Constitution should be regarded as scripture. This quote by the thirteenth President of the Church, Ezra Taft Benson, is an example of this belief, “I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed his stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land.” (“A Heavenly Banner”, 1986) This may or may not be a correct interpretation of President Benson’s words, but many have made the very same interpretation in defending the Constitution. In holding it up as the ideal, divinely sanctioned, standard of public government, they fail, however, in recognizing it’s major, real world, foundational flaw.
The Major Flaw
The United States Constitution is not a constitution to be implemented, enforced, amended, or preserved by angels. As James Madison, fourth President of the United States and one considered to be the “father of the Constitution,” said in the Federalist Papers, No. 51, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” And therein lies the Constitution’s flaw. It must be implemented, enforced, amended, and preserved by mere mortal men. Such a requirement is extremely likely to cause the Constitution to fail in it’s supposed purpose, to limit government to it’s proper role in preserving freedom. Indeed, this has been the case.
Conclusion
This major flaw notwithstanding, as Latter-day Saints and as citizens of the United States of America, we have on obligation to uphold the Constitution. How can we do this while still recognizing it’s real world application? By holding those who swear to defend the Constitution to their oath. The officers of our Federal Government promised to govern according to the rules set forth by the Constitution. For that we must make every effort to teach others what that means, and hold those officers to the promise that they made, thereby “befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land.”
I really enjoyed this article, just thought you should know :) Unfortunately there are not angels ( that we can see) around to help keep politicians honest when they agree to uphold the constitution. We the people must step up and do what we can to make sure that happens, for fear of a complete socialistic society.
You are correct in saying that this framework of government can only be fully utilized by a moral and righteous people. Any other will fail and fade into obscurity. We see this today with the United States.
The original intent of the Constitution is to protect life, liberty, and property. The ideals set forth are, I believe, in harmony with the principles of divine agency. Even God the Father refused to concede man’s potential agency in return for the guaranteed security of His children. It is contradictory that His earthly system of government would deviate in any way.
Scripture is any word or idea that man produces under the divine influence of the Holy Spirit. That’s what a prophet is. The founders were called to perform their work under the Lord’s direction and they acknowledged it. They may not have held the priesthood in this life, but as Wilford Woodruff said, they received it later vicariously in the St. George Temple. This, to me, says that the Constitution is scripture, or is very close to it, and should be held sacred.
The Constitution was framed in such a way as to make it a living document through the amendment process. Unfortunately, subversive usurpers throughout history have concocted vast schemes to either persuade the public to support unrighteous amendments, or side-step the process when the outcome doesn’t suit them.
For instance, I take serious issue with amendment sixteen. The income tax is a horrible mistake that only serves to inflate our already large federal government and enables it to operate in areas that in which it has no Constitutionally granted authority. A key victory for those who would subvert man’s agency through the legislative process. Seventeen put the election of Senators in the hands of the people. I think this too was a mistake. The citizens already had the ability to choose their representatives, hence the title, while the Governor would send state senators to represent the state and no one else. This spectacle of senators going to other states to campaign for their allies is sickening. The founders strongly cautioned us against using the amendment process lightly. Again, what you see today is the result.
Any idea that upholds man’s inalienable God-granted rights are in harmony with the Constitution and divine agency. The other side, however, will seek to remove these rights as long as they are able. Either through persuasion, legislative force, or eventually physical force as oppressive governments are want to do, and have done throughout history.
I saw a post on a conservative forum the other day where an Evangelical Christian was going off about Glenn Beck calling the Constitution an “inspired” document. Her position was that only the Bible was inspired. I think the term “inspired” can be interepreted in different ways.
To some people, “inspired” comes from the Greek word that means “breath” or “breathe.” They regard the Bible as “God-breathed.” That concept has been carried to extremes by Evangelicals who treat the Bible as if it was dictated by God in the same manner that Muslims say the Koran was recited by Muhammed. To these folks, to say the Constitution is inspired is to say that it is scripture, which obviously isn’t the case.
To others, inspiration is a broader term. One can be inspired by beautiful music, a sunset, a child’s laughter, etc. That kind of inspiration comes from God also, to uplift and edify, but it’s not scripture to the whole world.
I sometimes fear that the most militantly pro-Constitution LDS folks will have their allegiance to the kingdom of God tested one day by their fervent devotion to the Constitution. It is within the realm of possibility that they will waste their strength defending Babylon in the guise of standing for liberty.
The broad principles of the Constitution are in harmony with the Lord’s purposes and the establishment of Zion. If a time comes where the government’s interpretation of those principles may be turned against us, my loyalties are with the kingdom of God.
Considering that the United States is an “Elias,” a forerunner like John the Baptist, it would have been a mistake for the devoted disciples of John to not leave his side and follow Jesus. At some point, the Elias will fulfill its mission and fade away. John and Jesus espoused the same principles, but one had to diminish and the other increase. The same will occur when the United States has fulfilled its purpose and the kingdom of God is able to stand on its own.
The most important hedge to abuse by the government is not the checks and balances in the Constitution but on State rights. This has been evident with the growing power of the executive, and the failure of the Congress to reign the accumulation of that power. The Articles of Confederation in many ways was superior to the Constitution, because it did not give the government power to tax the states, or interfere with interstate commerce.
After the long train of abuses suffered by the Saints, who were repeatedly denied justice by the federal government, Brigham Young hoped to establish a separate territory, Deseret, outside of the US government influence. The Church’s exodus can at one level been seen as a form of secession from a corrupt government that was failing to uphold the Constitution. It makes an interesting “What if” scenario on what would have occurred if the US had not win it’s war with Mexico. Most likely, the Utah territory/Deseret would have remained independent form the US, and governed by a secular church authority instead.
A article in today’s LewRockwell covers how Hamilton tainted the Constitution with his insertion of the phrase “implied powers”. This became the wedge used by give power hungry politicians to justify accumulated more power unto themselves, in the name of benefiting the “General Welfare” of the country.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo182.html
What you point out as a major flaw in the Constitution, I think, is actually a flaw of men, not the Constitution.
It’s a bit circular actually. The Constitution requires mortal men to implement, enforce, and preserve it (It starts, as you know, “We the people”). Men are extremely likely, almost to the point of inevitability, to fail in this regard. (In the case of history, they have.) Therefore, the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because it requires implementation, enforcement, and preservation by agents that are extremely likely to fail.
Yes, men are flawed in that they won’t do this (haven’t done this). But it’s the flaw of the Constitution to be dependent on men. Such a flaw guaranteed it’s failure from the beginning. (I would say “almost guaranteed” because I don’t believe in inevitability where free will is involved, but as a matter of hindsight, it failed.)
Skyler, you have posted a rather risk less thought saying essentially the constitution, whether all or somewhat inspired, is subject to future problems of implementation because men are imperfect. That dodges the point: is the document inspired or not?
I propose a much more engaging and intellectually challenging approach and I hereby make you this offer: I will take the devils advocates viewpoint…I’ll write a series of critiques that support the theory that the constitution is the product of a secret plan of government takeover of a free people, planned and understood at the highest levels; I’ll offer specific provisions within the constitution that reveal the hidden game, and I’ll also tie in the other organic laws to help prove my points. I only request that you run the series of several articles (from 3 to six) each about 1000 words, all based strictly on the terminology of the constitution, and expose it to your readers for their commentary and edification. My articles will explain exactly why we find ourselves in the quandary we are in today.
What say you Skyler? Are you willing to pick up the gauntlet and fire some real and challenging substance into your Website in the full view of your objective readers?
Sincerely, Joel
It’s interesting to note that, in Section 101:77, the Lord states that He “suffered” the Constitution to be established, meaning that He allowed it to happen despite the many imperfections contained therein (continuing to allow slavery and the 3/5 clause for example). However the overall interpretations that it was written for a moral and religious people remain correct because it is an inspired document in the sense that it is overall based on gospel principles, most notably our free agency.
Skyler C. wrote:
“Such a flaw guaranteed it’s failure from the beginning. (I would say “almost guaranteed” because I don’t believe in inevitability where free will is involved, but as a matter of hindsight, it failed.)”
It bought just enough time for the kingdom of God to get established. In D&C Section 105, the Lord told the saints to essentially keep a low profile–don’t talk about judgments and apocalyptic events, be prayerful, obedient, etc.–until the army of Israel would become “very great.” He promised to soften the hearts of the people. Then at some point, the army of Israel would be “very great” and it would be a shock to the Gentiles.
I’m confident that, when the Lord sees that the time has come for the US to clear the stage for Zion, Zion will be ready to act the part.
Very good point, Greg.
Joel, I like your spirit! I sent you a private email.
I am what is considered by some to be an Extreme Constitutional Moderate of the type of Thomas Jefferson in Mormon form. I believe that if we were to abandon the Constitution, or the protection thereof, the void would be filled with a terrible Tyrannical government…maybe this needs to happen so that Satan can rule over his designated time on earth for a season prior to the millennium?
There is not enough righteousness in the world for the One World Government New World Order to rule in peace and goodness. Leaders of the world are unrighteous tyrants willing to enslave us for the cause of Satan.
The question arises then as to whether to fight the good fight to preserve or restore the Constitution, or to give up and allow Satan to have his time? I wish I new the answer! My gut tells me to stand tall and fight for freedom and liberty with the standard of the Constitution in hand but I admit I may be wrong.
Two things Skyler,
First, (and the author and I have discussed this elsewhere) this article contains a strawman. For any who may not be familiar with the term, its called a “strawman” when you pretend to adopt or agree to a position you don’t actually hold for the sake of defeating it in an argument. generally the idea is that you make your opponent’s points for him and then proceed to dismantle the opposing point of view and win the argument.
… but it’s a trick … the one setting up the strawman is actually arguing with himself and generally asserts the opposing argument in an incomplete or defective manner. The end result is that he appears to have defeated his opponent’s position when in fact he has only overturned his own defective copy of it.
The opening sentence of the second paragraph leaped off the page as a strawman before I even got to the end of the sentence… “For argument sake, I will concede …” blatant strawman.
Having communicated with the author already on this subject I must say that I don’t really think the use of a strawman was intended to be malicious here, it was just a piece of accidently defective argumentation. (live and learn right?)
… Besides which its a red herring (ie. its beside the point). Whether or not the constitution requires that “men be angels” is not relevant to whether the constitution should be treated as cannonized scripture or as graffiti on a restroom wall. He could have made his point about men and angels without bringing up the Benson quote at all. The way that he brought it up (saying in effect “even if this were true” right before pointing out supposed flaws) suggests that this piece was intended to reduce the spiritual weight that readers place on the constitution.
Second, I would submit that the the “flaw” pointed out here is in fact a feature … not a bug.
All forms of government (short of GENUINE theocracy obviously) must necessarily be set up and implemented by “mere mortal men”. The assertion that the Constitution is flawed because it’s implemented by “mere mortal men” is simply nonsensical, no matter who says it.
… and Madison definitely didn’t in Federalist 51. He was saying the exact opposite. Federalist 51 is an exposition on how the (at that time proposed) Constitution was structured to mitigate as much as possible against the flaws in “mere mortal men” (follow the author’s own link). The Madison quote, is completely out of context here and more than a little tortured.
What this author suggests is a “flaw” is in fact a feature… “mere mortal men” taking advantage of their God given opportunity to attempt a righteous self-government. I say “God given opportunity” but really Man has no control over whether or not God chooses to establish a genuine theocracy. And if God keeps mum then Man has no choice but to do the best he can with what he has got. … enter, the Constitution.
Is it perfect, I don’t think it is. Is it adequate, it certainly is, but only for a moral people, who have a working understanding of the principles upon which it is based, and who are alert to the fact that they, as well as all of their countrymen, are “mere mortal men”.
This requirement that a people be moral, educated, and cognizant of human nature is a second feature (again its specifically NOT a bug), and here is why.
If we can’t govern ourselves properly under a constitution like the one we have, then we deserve the consequences. which is that we slide to the bottom of the Book of Mormon’s “pride cycle” and be brought under tyranny, where we can be humbled and hopefully brought to remember our God so we can repent. God will then, true to scriptural form, liberate us, see also Israel in egypt, the people of Limhi, the people of Alma, etc. etc. etc. (of course if we are fully ripened in iniquity and don’t turn to him then we will be destroyed… but what can you do?)
In summary I would like to put forth that any form of government which Man might devise which could take an immoral, uneducated, and ignorant people out of the pride cycle (ie. prevent them from having an opportunity to turn back to God) would be a tool of the devil indeed.