An Inspired Constitution

In his address The Doctrine of and Inspired Constitution, Gary Marshall argues that it is easier to defend the inspired nature of the Constitution if we understand its supporting principles. I was asked to answer this question:

How does your understanding of the supporting principles enhance your ability to explain the "just and holy principles" embodied in the Constitution?

I have listed the six supporting principles which he discussed and a brief outline of what is included in each principle. My responses are in blue.

1.       The Supreme Law of the Land must be set forth in a Written Constitution

a.       The Rule of Law must be the underlying premise of the entire constitutional system.

b.       The power of government must be limited and constrained by a written constitution.

c.       Civil governments are ordained of God and instituted by Him for the benefit of all the people and for the protection of their basic, inalienable rights.

d.       The content of the Constitution must be subject to change by an amendment process.

If laws weren’t written, they would be unfixed and changeable based on people’s memory. They must be written to remain stable. If it is to be written, there must be guidelines detailed. This is what the supporting principles do—detail guidelines for the written law of the land. It must give power but limit it. It must be stable, but have the ability to be changed. It must protect freedoms and rights, so the rule of law is the only way that it will work.

2.       The power to make law and to govern in a civil society must arise from the popular will and sovereign power of the people. (popular sovereignty)

a.       A true understanding of man’s nature – of both man’s capacity for virtue and man’s natural propensity to vice and corruption – must be the foundation of a government which derives its power from the people.

b.       Popular government must generally follow the will of the majority.

c.       A republic is the best form of popular government.

d.       The people have the right to choose those who govern in open and fair elections.

e.       The terms of office for those who govern must be fixed and reasonable for the purposes of their offices.

People have the right to make and execute the laws to which they are subject. If you give the power to the people, you must understand their nature and plan for both virtue and vice. Allowing the people to elect those who will govern, with limitations on service, will keep the power with the people, but not so completely that their lesser natures will take over.

3.       Governments must secure and protect the basic, inalienable rights of the people.

a.       Freedom of conscience must be protected as the most inherent and inalienable right of man.

b.       The great rights of free speech, freedom of the press, and of assembling and petitioning the government must be secured and protected.

c.       Prosecutions, accusations of wrongdoing, and judgments against the people must be based on principles of fairness, equity, justice, and due process of law.

If the people vote leaders to govern them, the governance must protect the rights of the people. There are certain rights which are endowed to us by God and no government has the right to limit them.

4.       The legislative power (to make the law), the executive power (to administer and enforce the law), and the judicial power (to apply and interpret the law) must reside in separate branches or departments of the government.

a.       Each of the three branches of government must have some check on the power of the other branches.

b.       The legislative power, which tends to predominate in a republic, must be further divided.

To “help control the corrupting influence of power and the tendency to tyranny,” each of the three branches must be able to check the power of the other two. This way the government can still survive if the people and leaders don’t remain virtuous and it lessens the negative effect of “immediate passions and shortsighted interests of the people.”

5.       The powers to govern ought to be further divided by national and local interests.

a.       The powers given to any level of government should be based in moderation and justice, and should engender confidence and trust in the people.

b.       The powers given to the national government should be specifically delegated, enumerated, and limited.

c.       The state governments should exercise the powers to regulate the health, welfare, safety, education, and moral behavior of the people.

The governance of the people should stay close to the people. The national government should be limited in scope and handle higher level issues such as national security and defense. Things more related to individuals should stay at the local level.

6.       The principles of economic freedom should be preserved and protected.

Government should encourage hard work, commerce, frugality and virtue; promote science and the arts and invention. This will help preserve and protect the economic future of the people.

The Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation, introduced in 1777 and ratified in 1781 created a weak “League of Friendship” amongst the states. A decentralized confederation based on state sovereignty. 

Each state sent delegates to serve in the Congress of Confederation. Each of the states had an equal vote on any proposed legislation, legislation required unanimous support in order to pass, and once passed the national government had no authority to enforce the legislation with in a state.

The purpose was to prevent certain states from having control of the legislature to pass laws that weren’t fair to other states. The control was kept at the state level and they were joined together to assist one another for mutual and general welfare.

States began using their power to levy tariffs, but they weren’t levied equally, so low tariff states like Rhode Island started receiving more trade. This led other states to levy retaliatory tariffs against the goods that were favored by the low-tariff states. There was also a lot of dispute over who controlled rivers and ports. 

The high taxes in this difficult economy led to a high number of mortgage foreclosures. Debtors turned to mob action against their state legislatures. Shays Rebellion was one such action used to prevent the government from taking away farms. 

Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government had no power to intervene on behalf of the states. Each state was self-governed and there wasn’t a rule of law applied that would govern everyone equally. It was pretty much chaos and every one feared that what they had fought for was on the brink of destruction.

These are the historical events which led people like James Madison to call for a revision of the Articles of Confederation.

A More Perfect Union

We watched the video A More Perfect Union for American Foundations. It is a movie depicting the Continental Congress and what went into the creation of the Constitution.

I was surprised at how tenuous of an experience it was to get passed. There were many times it almost failed.

Something else that I was amazed by was how men stood up and voted against what they personally wanted because it was the right thing to do for America. One example is the discussion about slavery. The man who suggested doing away with it within a certain period of time was a slave owner and relied on that labor for his lively hood. He was willing to put God and Country ahead of his own personal wants and needs.

It was amazing how many times divine providence, prayer, our maker, and statements like that were made. Such a stark difference from what we see today.

You could literally see the hand of God working over this gathering of men. 

How Would I Amend the Constitution?

I was asked to answer this question:

Article 5 of the Constitution allows the states to convene another constitutional convention.  If such a meeting were held, and you were asked to be a delegate, what changes would you propose to the existing constitutional structure?

I would propose term limits on Senators and Congressmen. We have people who have served in those positions for 30 years. Yes, there is some benefit to longevity, however, they are out of touch with reality. They worried about a President becoming like a monarchy, I believe this has happened in some form with these lifetime senators and congressmen.

I would also propose that all Senators, Congressmen, President and Vice President, etc. must abide by any law passed by Congress. This means they would pay the same taxes and have the same healthcare as the people they pass the laws for.

I would also propose that Congress cannot vote themselves a raise. Those should be voted on by the people. None of us can vote ourselves a raise. They are supposed to be working for us. We should determine if they are doing a job worth getting a raise or not.

Along the Road to Independence

The Patriot Philosophers had a positive outlook on mankind when determining the principles and structures of good government. They believed that True Liberty, which was the balance between absolute freedom (anarchy) and absolute order (tyranny), was possible through the Virtue of the People. They believed that certain positive qualities and characteristic had been implanted in the human soul and would lead the people to be able to exercise self-restraint to achieve True Liberty.

They espoused principles of both schools of thought: the Democratic principles of participation in government and protection of the people, and the Republican principle of representation where decision making authority is given to representatives of the people to make laws on their behalf.

They also believed in Natural Law – the will of God and His “higher law.” These concepts justified resistance and rebellion and their belief in the basic right to govern themselves.

The Colonists had a love, pride, and affection for Britain. After the war, a “pernicious project” adopted by Parliament to directly tax the colonists started the discontent. They felt their rights were being taken away. They weren’t consulted on taxes; their petitions for redress went ignored. After revolting the Stamp Act, Parliament made things worse with the Declaratory Act and the Coercive Acts in response to the Boston Tea Party. The Colonists still had the spirit of reconciliation in the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, but Britain wasn’t listening. They actually sent out troops to destroy militia munitions and arrest the patriot leaders, leading to the battles at Lexington and Concord. This brought them to the Declaration for the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, which by the way has some most excellent language, if not a bit of drama. The Colonists felt they had to choose between unconditional submission to “the tyranny of irritated ministers” or resistance by force.  They resolved to “die free men rather than to live as slaves.”

Prior to Common Sense, independence wasn’t really discussed openly – it was still considered treason. Common Sense pointed out why rule by king and monarchy was basically a ridiculous idea. Because it was accessible to everyone, the common working folk and not just the upper class, it became a widely accepted topic of conversation. It said what everyone was feeling; “that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still,” and got the people talking about it.

The Declaration of Independence was basically an indictment of the King and Parliament listing all of their offenses and violations of the “inalienable rights” of the Colonists. It then showed that based on those things, the Colonists were rightfully declaring their independence from Britain.

True Liberty

We talk about liberty in this country, but how did the Founding Fathers define True Liberty? 

True Liberty is the middle ground between absolute freedom and complete control. On the one hand, with absolute freedom - there is anarchy, on the other, with complete control -  there is tyranny. 

They believed that when the people are living honest and virtuous lives, less control has to be exerted over them. This is True Liberty. The less honest and virtuous people are, the more control has to be put in place and liberty is lost.

This comes full circle back to agency and accountability. When people use their agency well and are accountable for their actions, they have liberty. 

Popular Sovereignty

Popular Sovereignty is the concept that the government will act based on the will of the people. 

This is a basic tenet of The Constitution. 

The power comes from the base of the people up to the government, not down from on high such as with a monarchy. 

I believe that this base of power has become flipped over. 

Under the guise of protection, better education, better health, etc., the government is pushing things down on the people. The government has become corrupt and beholden to special interest groups and a few people in power who want to change the face of America.

Agency vs. Freedom

Agency and accountability are words with which members of the Church are familiar. It is interesting to be discussing them in an American Foundations class. They really are, though, at the heart of what happened when the colonists began to revolt.

Given agency by our Creator, it is an innate desire of all men. We want to make choices for ourselves. Accountability comes into play when our agency to choose interferes with another person’s rights. All choices have consequences, good or bad. When we exercise our agency, we must be accountable and deal with whatever the consequences are. Laws are put in place to force some people to be accountable for their choices because they won’t do so otherwise.

I really appreciated how Dallin H. Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court Judge, distinguished between Agency and Freedom. 

Agency is how we exercise our will and our power to choose. 

Freedom is the privilege to carry out our choices.  

Everyone has agency. Most people in the world don’t have freedom.

---------

Reference:

Dallin H. Oaks, “Free Agency and Freedom,” 1987

How to Make Colonists Revolt, 101

Coming to America as a colonist offered a lot of economic opportunity for people of every class. Land was so plentiful that there was more opportunity to own land, which in turn would give them the right to vote. This automatically elevated their status.

If people couldn’t afford to make the voyage to America, they could obtain passage as an indentured servant. Even though indentured servitude limited their opportunities in the beginning, once their debt had been paid, the opportunities were still there. Hard work and industry were rewarded.

Although there were many freedoms of ownership and business, there were also restrictions placed upon the colonists meant to insure that wealth would funnel back to Britain. Exclusive trading rights were awarded to just a few companies, creating a monopoly on things such as tobacco and lumber. Because of the limitations, come people found ways to get around those restrictions. As a result, smuggling became prevalent.

Before 1763, the British colonists were proud to be subjects of the crown. They had, as Benjamin Franklin said, “an affection for Great Britain; for its laws, its customs, and manners, and even … its fashions.”

Because the war left Great Britain with so much debt, they took two measures to recoup some of the loss.  First was the Proclamation of 1763 which prohibited migration past the Appalachian Mountains into Ohio, to save administrative costs. The Colonists thought this would eventually loosen up and weren’t so concerned with this.

Second, a direct tax was levied on the colonies. In 1764 the Sugar Act was enacted. This was to be a tighter enforcement of the Navigation Acts, which funneled money through to Britain by taxing certain goods. The colonists weren’t very happy about this, boycotted certain goods, and the act ended up costing Britain more than it brought in. Parliament repealed the act.

In another attempt to raise money through taxes, Parliament enacted the Stamp Act of 1765. The colonists were not consulted on this tax and were less than thrilled. Violence erupted, property was destroyed, and “Stamp Men” were forced to resign due to intimidation and property damage.

Not only were they not consulted about this, but their attempts to petition Parliament went ignored. They felt their rights as British citizens, and the government’s commitment to the rule of law, were being taken away, not only economically, but also their right to trials by jury. The colonists felt they had to do something before things got worse and more of their economic freedoms and basic rights were taken away.