Following your line of thought, you might be interested in this paper that I am refining to submit to different academic journals: http://libertarianthink.blogspot.com/2009/12/natural-law-positivism-civil.html

We know that all “experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”, but what is that point when we finally know when enough is enough? http://libertarianthink.blogspot.com/2010/03/few-years-ago-reporter-asked-well-known.html

Ezra Taft Benson (Stand Up for Freedom):

Another recent development has been the call for national unity. I believe there needs to be a unity in our land. But it must not be blind, senseless, irresponsible unity. It should not be a unity just for the sake of unity. It needs to be a unity built on sound principles… by all means let us return to a program of sound Constitutional principles on which we can unite.

9th & 10th Amendments to US Constitution:

9) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Joseph Smith (Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution):

Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!…The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself.

Declaration of Independence:

…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

D&C 134:5

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected…

Ezra Taft Benson (The Proper Role of Government):

Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.

History has repeatedly taught us that our government continues to give little to no regard to uniting under Constitutional principles. One might argue that the federal government has already seceded from the Constitution and therefore the people who wish to continue a Constitutional form of government aren’t actually advocating leaving the Republic but in restoring it. From this perspective—who are the rebels? Who are the law breakers? Who are the extremists? Who has caused disunity? Who has committed treason?

When we read the 12th Article of Faith, we often assume the coordinating conjunction ‘and’; however, ‘and’ is not actually in the 12 Article of Faith. What does this mean?

Most members read the 12 AoF as follows: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, AND in obeying honoring and sustaining the law.” This context says that there are two clauses that we believe in: (1) being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, and (2) in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. This isn’t how the 12 AoF is actually written though.

The 12 AoF states: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.” Notice that the coordinating conjunction is missing? What does this do to the sentence? It changes “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” from being a separate clause of our belief to a conditional statement associated to the actions of our “kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates”. How the 12th Article of Faith can read — to be consistent with the English language and D&C 134:5 — is that “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in THEIR obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

Lest we believe then that we’re not under obligation to obey the Constitutional law of the land — that law that keeps vouchsafe the freedom and liberty of the people (contra the law of man that does not) (D&C 98) — the Lord tells us that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected in their inherent and inalienable rights (D&C 134:5).

While I don’t think 9-11 was necessarily an inside job, I was amazed at how quickly government moved to put this into law.

Now for something truly creepy; I am a military spouse. My husband is retired. However, he was on active duty in 2001, and we were stationed at Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

During the spring of 2001, there were messages going out to all the military bases with a heightened alert. FLW was an open base. That means you could drive on. No sticker needed. Part of the reason was it was a shortcut to southern MO and also many people lived off the base and commuted.

That started to change. By August, guard shacks had been put up and the federal police were manning them. checking IDs and searching our vehicles. You have to understand something basic about this; the military installation is under martial law at all times. You surrender your rights when the base is ‘closed,’ or requiring a pass, orders, a sticker or all three to get on.

So, they knew something was in the wind. The dreck going around was that a terror strike was being anticipated but no one knew where.

My husband called me from the battalion briefing room on the morning of September 11, and he told me to turn the idiot box on. That was one of three times I have had cable.

He said “You will not believe this. Planes have flown into the WTC and hundreds of people have been killed in one strike. We are now in a state of war.”

I asked him if this was what all the buzz was about earlier. He said ‘If it was, there will be he** to pay.’ So, something was KNOWN even BEFORE the strike, but whether or not it was an inside job is still up in the air. Based on what I have read and heard, I tend to sit out those discussions, because there are still too many unanswered questions.

I asked him that because I thought it utterly ridiculous that 800+ pages of legislation could be written between the date of 9/11/2001 and five weeks later when it was passed. The Congress didn’t even have a chance to read it before voting on it. I therefore believe it was written well in advance of 9/11/2001.

But Hatch’s letter back to me stated that the Act was passed on X date with almost total approval of Congress.

I wrote back again, and asked him to answer the two questions, not tell me when it was passed, but who wrote it and when.

His second reply back to me was equally evading and dodgy, answering neither of my questions.

When politicians can’t answer simple questions like this, we must assume they have something to hide. Hatch is not to be trusted at all.

Yes, Kerry was a bonesman, like Bush I and Bush II. Skull and Bones is one of those very same Secret Combinations that Mormon warned us to watch for in the last days.

Just my two cents as a military spouse…

How would you go about trying to restore Constitutional law?

What form of law would you say we are currently following?

Do you believe revolutions are a last resort?

How long would you say we should wait to see if we were correct in our decision to wait?

Check out the holdings of Rupert Murdoch. Forbes Magazine ranked him the 4th most powerful billionaire in the world. Last I read, he owned the Fox News Channel, T.V. Guide, and 24 other magazines including The Weekly Standard that promoted war with Iraq. He owns 20th Century Fox, Fox Broadcasting, and Harper Collins Publishing. He also owns the largest group of T.V. stations in the U.S. and 130 English-language news papers including the London Times and the New York Post. He also has ownership or major interest in satellite systems that cover the globe. He uses his power to influence politicians world wide and any politician who would challenge him is destroyed by his media. That is raw power used for personal gain. (If you would like to find out more about right wing radicals and their conspiracy, check out Al Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. It is a well documented book researched by 14 students from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. The book will give you a different view and a better understanding of some of the Kingmen who are destroying our government from the top down).

My concern is if a revolution were used to try to restore Constitutional law, the revolutionaries would be joined by those who want to destroy it and form a world government. Once a fight began and the order of law no longer existed, we could not control the outcome of the battle to our favor. I believe that the one of the reasons the Lord wants us to work within the framework of government is that it give us more control over the outcome. If Connor educates people about the Constitution without seeming radical, others will join him. Talk of justifiable treason and revolution will drive others away.

The Kingmen used war to usurp the power of the government, and they were attempting to destroy a governmental body which had been accepted by the people, and their efforts were not lawful. They were doing so from the bottom up. Conversely, the Kingmen of our time are attempting to destroy the Constitutional powers vested in the people through usurpation from the top down. What they are doing is likewise, not lawful.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints covers the entire earth, and is currently led by a Prophet called of God to lead the body of the church. and It just so happens that the Prophet is also a citizen of the United States of America. That may or may not always be the case.

The people are not considering revoltionary tactics to destroy the law, but rather to restore the law. The people do not want to destroy the government, but many in the government want to destroy the peoples voice which is the law.

In the fall of 1981 Elder Bruce R. McConkie was called by “The Brethren,” meaning the first presidency of the church, to go to BYU and call erring teachers and beguiled students to repent and follow the mainstream of the church. Elder McConkie spoke at a devotional and quoted out of a book (the ink was still wet; it was hot off the press) that had been written by a BYU professor, stake president and one of the most popular fireside speakers on campus. Elder McConkie said, “This is false doctrine.” Then, for the next hour, in his very deliberate, concise way he told what the correct doctrine was and gave a lengthy sermon on staying in the mainstream of the church and following the brethren.

The issues were: #1. We pray to our Father in Heaven in the name of Jesus Christ; we do not pray to Christ. #2. Avoid extremes! The professor had encouraged students to follow the prophet Enos’ example and pray all day and all night (staying on your knees in the wilderness for as long as it took) to develop a personal relationship with the Savior. Students were encouraged to tend to the little daily activities that build testimony to develop their relationship with the Savior.

The counsel that the brethren sent Elder McConkie to deliver is that there is safety for the soul in following the mainstream of the church and keeping your eyes focused on the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve. There is no safety on the fringes of any extreme and death or worse yet, the death of the spirit or apostasy lie in wait for those who ignore this warning.

You assume some outcomes from the revolution you are entertaining in your thoughts: #1. That you will win. #2. The original constitutional form of government will be restored. Regardless of your motives, you would be wise to recognize the guile of others who would join you in the battle. Revolutions are not just fought by a party of one. Several parties join in the fight for various reasons –not all are reasons that you would embrace.

You have chosen your scriptures to support your cause. I would encourage you to write a debate on the opposite point of view (peaceful restoration of Constitutional principles) and proof text the debate using the scriptures. When the Nephites were loosing it, Alma gave up the judgment seat (a government office) and spent the rest of his days preaching the word of God because it had the greater power for change.

Perhaps in your case, you would have a greater power for inviting a change back to the original constitutional form of government that we started with if you would moderate the tone of your message so that you educate rather than incite. Be a political missionary and think peace. War was only used against the Kingmen after the Kingmen used war to usurp the government. That hasn’t happened yet so there is time to let “we the people” know what the constitution says and why. The first presidency has promised safety to your soul if you follow the brethren and stay in the mainstream.

When should a people go to the extremity of revolt? “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such governments. …” The key word was design. Mere incompetence was not enough. Mistakes had to be tolerated. It was only when the will of the sovereign aimed specifically at destroying all the rights of a people and reducing them to slavery that revolution was justified. “The history of the present King of Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States.” The abuses listed in the declaration were aimed at proving the point. The American revolutionaries themselves would not endorse a revolution arising from ineptitude in government or even suffering among the people. A much deeper and pervasive corruption was necessary—a malevolent and enduring design to destroy the freedom of the people.

There are exceptions. The command of loyalty to laws and rulers does not compel a citizen to participate in or submit to a government edict that runs counter to the common consensus of humanity, such as genocide or other cold-blooded murder. Nor should it require a person to violate the fundamental tenets of religious faith. For example, if the current laws permitting abortion (which are highly objectionable) were expanded to requiring abortion in certain instances, an unwilling mother and father who regarded this practice as “one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day” (First Presidency statement of January 1973) would be justified in refusing to observe the law. Another exception is specified in our Declaration of Belief, which proclaims that “human law has [no] right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion. …” (D&C 134:4.) An additional exception is hinted in the Doctrine and Covenants sections that proclaim the duty of government to protect our rights of conscience, property, life, and religious belief and practice, and which may condition our duty of loyalty to a government that fails to fulfill those obligations. (D&C 98:5–6; D&C 134:2, 5, 7.)

Dan, you asked about abortions in comment #32. Dallin H. Oaks gives you the answer here. We would not be expected to obey a law which required getting an abortion.

Call it treason or whatever you want, but there are doctrinally justified exceptions to obeying laws when those laws violate certain principles of freedom.

If Bush can do it to other countries, then what’s the difference if I espouse doing it LEGALLY to my own government when they act contrary to Constitutional laws?

I can quote you Joseph Smith who revised Romans 13 to show that Paul was referring to the leadership of the Church, and not the secular government at all.

“And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” (D&C 98, in 1833)

All I am trying to say is I think there can be such a thing as “doctrinally justifiable treason” (when those who define treason are acting unconstitutionally). Whether our current prophet wants us to be patient in obeying unconstitutional laws or not is an entirely different discussion. See my comment #21. I think that right now we are supposed to obey the laws while doing all in our power to defend the constitution by electing good leaders and supporting correct principles. This may or may not always be the case. D&C gives us a good guide, though, as to what the Lord “justifies”. I do believe there is great safety in following the current prophet because we do not always understand the Lord’s purposes.

Here’s another interesting comment from the First Presidency Message, The Rule of Law:

“Revolutionary movements that aim at the abolition of government itself are contrary to the law of God. …”

What about revolutionary movements that aim at restoring constitutional government?

On the other hand, there is another scripture in D&C which says “be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.” (D&C 58, 1831)

What exactly do they say?

More importantly, what do you say?