I called somebody an enemy of our nation because he was voting for Obama. He wasn’t too happy about that. Is there a more tactful way to do this?

Your fascism poster makes me laugh. It’s good parody, but we have to be careful conflating those with whom we disagree politically with fascists. There are yet several essential elements missing to make it actual fascism. It’s fine to warn, but we cheapen the definition of the word when we attack falsely.

Our Founders also established a pluralistic society that strives to appreciate diverse interpretations of matters. We must be careful not to assign sinister intent to every political philosophy with which we disagree. And we must be careful about how we discuss the problems we have with other philosophies. Otherwise, we could end up like Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who made a name for himself by this method and severely (maybe permanently) damaged the cause for which he purported to stand.

I once heard Rex E. Lee speak about the Constitution. He was perhaps the LDS Church’s greatest constitutional scholar. I was surprised at the amount of flexibility he seemed to allow for in constitutional interpretation. There may actually be validity to interpretations that differ from our own.

I doubt that many of those that you view as enemies of the Constitution even remotely consider themselves as such. In fact, I’m sure that some view themselves as champions of the document.

We must inform and fight for what we think is right. But we also need to be careful about how we go about doing this.

It was President Bush who said, “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Many members of Congress violated their oath by supporting Bush’s crimes against the Constitution.

Interesting writing. So who defines enemies of the state? The Christians/Conservatives? Seems that by painting such a broad stroke to define enemies as

The first and most obvious is the group of political opponents within our own government who pursue legislation and programs that are contradictory to the powers and principles embodied in the Constitution

, only benefits one type of political viewpoint and would not tolerate any debate of our laws and/or constitution.

The second and more subtle group of Constitutional enemies are those who adhere to and advocate for a moral standard that rejects natural law, traditional morality, and Judeo-Christian values. Many of the Founders spoke of this situation, one of them being John Adams:

would only benefit Christ worshippers and seeks to be exclude many individuals.

Our founders were very bright men of their day but if we defined “natural law” as it was in their day (by some, not all), we would have to institute 3/5 rule again and apply by it’s strictest interpretation.

This vision for America would make the Taliban, Khmer Rouge, Chairman Mao & those that participated in the Salem Witch trials proud. Sounds like another attempt to establisting a theocracy.

William,

http://ldsphilosopher.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/theocracy-and-primal-authority/

William,

The 3/5 rule had nothing to do with natural law.

Confidence in the markets may have deteriorated, but we should all feel a little more confident in democracy today. This must have been the first time Congress has said no to the Executive branch on something of substance, since this administration began. This is the most conflated we have seen the Democratic Administration and the Republican Congress since I have been old enough to vote. Wait, the other way around on that conflation. Well, let the finger-pointing commence.

Yeah, too bad they talked up the bailout so long, fulfilling their own promise of a massive stock market drop when it failed to pass. The stock market operates only on people’s predictions of the future, a future Bush fulfilled when he told everybody that things would go to Hell in a handbasket if he didn’t get his way.

I might not vote this election. I was behind McCain halfheartedly when he at least matched many of my political preferences (generally Conservative, but against torture and for amnesty for illegal immigrants), but he’s waffling on both issues now. (He voted against banning torture methods earlier this year and is changing his mind on immigration now.

Connor,
Again another excellent post and thanks for the email. I posted it on my blog upon receiving your permission: http://janetwalgren.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/solving-the-economic-crisis/
I heard that Obama’s two top economic advisers were behind the financial melt down of Fannie and Freddie. How is it that these guys never get the boot or go to jail? I feel certain that the enemies of the Constitution and our liberty commit wide scale treason on a daily basis. The Gaddiantons are alive and well.

Thanks to Reach Upward for post no. 2 — a voice of patience and reason. We Latter-day Saints need to remember that we’re a minority, and we don’t want others calling us un-American or enemies of the Constitution because we have differing ideas or priorities. Let’s support and defend the Constitution, and learn about it and teach about it, but let’s not characterize other good Americans with different approaches or viewpoints as enemies or fascists or anything else that an unbiased observer would label as un-Christian. And again, we’re the minority, not the majority (I don’t live in Utah). We must work within our Constitutional framework, and that means working and living in a pluralistic society.

Hurrah for a pluralistic society! It allows me to be a Christian and a Latter-day Saint.

I was talking to someone about a law that, in both rhetoric and intent, explicitly violated the search and seizure amendment. He said, “Well, it only violates it according to interpretation.”

My response: If the constitution can be interpreted so loosely that such a law could be conceivably considered in agreement, why not just throw the constitution out? It ain’t doing us any good. It isn’t telling us which laws are allowed and which aren’t. Because any judgment as to whether a law violates it “is just your interpretation.”

Jeff- that’s what schools teach people to do, sadly. I remember wondering the same thing during 9th grade. All the assignments regarding the constitution were up to our interpretation. There was no “wrong”, therefore there was never a “right”.

Latter Day Saints are in a unique position in that upholding the constitution and seeing it as divinely inspired is part of our doctrine. Others who are not of our faith (and even some who are but are unaware of this doctrine) may not see it that way. Some may genuinely think the constitution was made to evolve and adapt in any way we see fit. We have an obligation to stand up for it and defend it in the same way we stand for moral values or anything else we believe in. In our casual conversations with others, it would probably help our cause to not treat them like enemies. I certainly do believe, though, that there are real enemies out there (especially in high places) who actually desire the destruction of our constitution.

Jeff,
That’s right — it does depend on interpretation — the writers are long-dead, and their unwritten assumptions are unwritten. So of course, we MUST interpret the Constitution.
Some see the Constitution as approaching scripture, and that belief colors their interpretation. Some see it as inspired, but definitely not scripture, and that belief colors their interpretation. Some see it as the work of good (and maybe even inspired) men, and that belief colors their interpretation. Some see it as the work of good men, and that …. And some actually see it as the work of evil slave-holding women-oppressing men, and that ….
And even within these groups, there are differences of interpretation — even among those Latter-day Saints who hold the Constitution as almost scripture, there is plenty of room for differing interpretations. At least, that’s how I see it.

Connor and Carissa,
You both write of evil persons who are enemies of the Constitution, but you don’t name names. Based on what you write, I’m unable to discern who the enemies are. But I do recall that in the mid- and late-1800’s, many other Americans saw Latter-day Saints as enemies of the Constitution because of views on marriage and local government. Teach of constitutional principles and encourage people to adopt one’s mode of interpretation, that’s good — but to me, it appears unkind and fruitless (maybe even counter-productive) to paint those with whom one disagrees in the realm of public discourse and policy as enemies of the Constitution.
As a Latter-day Saint myself, I think the Constitution is working exceptionally well. I do see people who have differing attitudes than me, and I sometimes think they’re going too far and I wonder where they’re coming from, but I’m not ready to call them enemies of the Constitution. For the time being, I appreciate my privileges of citizenship in this great country.

Constitutional enemy is as Constitutional enemy does. We all break minor laws from time to time (some even intentionally), but few of us are considered full-blown criminals. As the Constitution is pretty much the paramount law of the land, it’s probably best to strongly educate people as to the importance of taking it seriously than it is to throw around the “enemies” label.

The ignorant and apathetic are the strongest unwitting enemies of the Constitution and always will be - not the politicians but the citizens who support illegal law.

Oh, my — every Congressman supporting the bailout bill is an enemy of the Constitution? No, Connor, you cannot be serious — but maybe you are — there’s a fringe among any society of people — I appreciate your blog’s purpose of convincing others that you’re right, and you quote freely from a lot of dead prophets, but I hope you and other readers will appreciate that not all Latter-day Saints agree with you — and not only the uneducated or uninformed among us. I consider myself very well educated on the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers, and I’m one of those who is under oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I’m a Latter-day Saint — and it’s my opinion that while you may be quoting dead prophets correctly, you’re erring in you application of their words. And I claim their words to be as much a part of my heritage and right as you.

Anyone supporting universal health care is an enemy of the Constitution? No, and I say this as one who is himself opposed to universal health care as is being discussed. I disagree with those folks on the other side, but kindness and respect forces me to stop short of calling them enemies of the Constitution. Ad hominem attacks are unkind.

ji- do you think the oath should be rephrased to remove the “ad hominem” attack? Do you think enemy is too strong a word?

The Primary song goes, “Jesus said love every one, treat them kindly too…”. I think it is unkind to call someone with a differing view of Constitutional interpretation an enemy of the Constitution.

And yes, it is ad hominem — if you want to debate the merits of any particular policy approach, that’s good — but labeling those who differ with you as enemies of the Constitution is unfair.

How is it unfair, if they REALLY ARE?

Jesus didn’t always speak kind words to people. You know that. Nor have the prophets since ages past. They loved everyone, though.

And enemy is not an unkind word.

Consider: the other day, I was talking with someone who said, “I don’t think it matters what the Constitution says. Why do we have to abide by a silly piece of paper?”

This person is an enemy of the constitution. He may be a good person, yes, but he is still an enemy to the constitution.

I’ll pray for you guys…

In the meantime, if you really believe most of our Government officials (including most of the Senate, who today passed the bail-out bill) are enemies of the Constitution, when are you going to start the revolution to kill or otherwise remove these enemies? Are you waiting for the heads of the Church to start the holy war? I know you like to quote the Book of Mormon a lot in regard to these enemies, and the Book of Mormon consistently has the heads of the Church in its day leading the wars against evil. Are you disappointed that the heads of the Church haven’t already started the war?

I know you disagree with some policy decisions made by the “majority” in recent years, and you think our republic is wholly and fundamentally a failure, but I disagree. I think the United States is still the greatest country in the world, warts notwithstanding, and the bulwark of freedom and Christian principles. The heads of the Church haven’t taught me to adopt fear-mongering or despair or hatred (or maybe I just haven’t gotten it). We need to protect ourselves from cultural pollution and sin and we need to work within our Constitutional framework to help build a safe and just society, but I cannot avoid thinking how unkind and uncharitable it is to label people who have different policy and interpretation approaches in our pluralistic society (where we’re in the minority) as enemies of the Constitution — such ad hominem labelling makes it impossible to work together for the common good. Surely you would be offended if someone else adopted your tactic and called you an enemy of the Constitution? Remember, we have to work with these people for the common good.

Go back and sing the Primary song in your minds — and sing it out loud, even — you might find it a helpful exercise.

Well, like I said, I’ll pray for you…

I’m finished here — I hope any readers of these exchanges will appreciate that some Latter-day Saints (or at least one) see things differently than you, and that your thoughts don’t reflect LDS thought generally. The way you quote the Book of Mormon and words of dead prophets in support of unkind and uncharitable pronouncements is deeply troubling to me — but thank goodness the living prophets aren’t supporting you…

If you want to have the last word, you may…

ji- I think you are overreacting just a bit. The overall point of this post is that it’s important to identify the domestic threats to our constitution so we are better prepared to oppose those threats and defend and uphold the document. The oath of office words these threats to the constitution as “enemies”. Connor then uses this official wording, clarifying an “enemy” to be someone who opposes or undermines and saying the best way to defeat these political “enemies” is through persuasion and education. If the word enemy offends you, feel free to substitute any less-bold synonym of choice here and the message remains the same.

Consider, ji —

The oath uses the words domestic enemy, but if we are unable to identify who that applies to, then, well, the oath is just a bunch of meaningless words. Why can’t we clarify what is meant by those words?

Connor, can you remind me where the phrase “enemies foreign and domestic” that you have highlighted in the oath comes from?

Is that phrase in the oath as contained in the Constitution?

So perhaps the phrase “enemies, domestic and foreign” was not within the intent of the framers.

Swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution by no means implies any one set of policy preferences or principles. My substantial reading of the founders does not lead me to believe that they would collectively find supporting “universal healthcare” as a policy goal to make one an enemy of the Constitution. In fact, in my reading of the founders I have found incredible diversity in political, philosophical, and policy ideas to be espoused among that group. Moreover, surveying the landscape of American political history, I find that people as diverse in their views as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan were not “enemies” of either the Constitution, the American people, or the country.

Wow, this has been a fun thread.
As a latter day saint I am thankful to have prophets seers and revelators leading the church. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Ezra Taft Benson, and Gordon B. Hinkley may be dead, but unless the current prophet has come out and said that their words are not correct I will stand by them till the end.

There will always be a group that points a finger of scorn from the great and spacious building, claiming all is well in zion, but I believe that most of the members of the church are waking to the awful situation that we are in right now.

One day when our liberties have been flushed down the toilet people like Ji will try to explain to his children how we the people allowed ourselves to be lured into this mess.

john f., be careful — you’re sharing words of wisdom and common sense but you might soon find you’re not among kind, charitable, or Christ-like people here… Since you allowed that a person might support universal health care in our pluralistic society, you’ll likely soon be labeled an an enemy of the Constitution yourself or as an “all is well in Zion” stooge… I allowed that it was unkind to call someone an enemy of the Constitution for having a different approach to Constitutional application, and I still believe it cheapens the discourse to use such ad hominem attacks, and you can read how I’ve been received…

perhaps the phrase “enemies, domestic and foreign” was not within the intent of the framers

Perhaps. I don’t think the exact words really matter as much as the idea behind them. The constitution mandates an oath be taken to support it. Everyone who takes this oath will have to decide for him/herself what that means and you’re right about how that will vary with each person’s interpretation and understanding.

Swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution by no means implies any one set of policy preferences or principles

No, but it could certainly mean excluding some of them. The philosophies of communism, anarchy, and socialism, for example, are incompatible with our constitution. Universal healthcare, in my assessment, is incompatible with the constitution because the constitution doesn’t grant the federal government the power to be involved in it. I see federal involvement in education or retirement (social security) the same way. I guess we all have to draw our own lines of what threatens/opposes the constitution. Where would your lines be drawn?

ji- since you kindly gave us the advice of singing primary songs to ourselves (great idea by the way, thanks) I’ll give you some advice in return. Stop being offended so easily, get over your issues with the word “enemy” (which didn’t originate here), and contribute your ideas of how you think we can better defend the constitution. That is, IF you think it’s threatened in any way. I can’t really tell by your comments. We may not agree in every way, but I think we could at least find some consensus since we all love this country.

Carissa,

Here’s my advice — thanks for asking — clearly articulate your policy differences and debate why your opinions on all these different matters best serve the commonweal, without labelling as enemies of the Constitution those fellow citizens who have different approaches to policy solutions or Constitutional interpretation. Using that label is unkind and uncharitable, and it offends your opponents as well as kind-hearted people who otherwise might be sympathetic to your side. Use solid truth and logic to persuade, rather than fear-mongering and name-calling. Labelling a fellow citizen of our great Republic as an enemy of the Constitution for a differing viewpoint, as I have written before and cannot “get over” it because it is true, is unkind and uncharitable, and is unbecoming those who otherwise call themselves Christians and Latter-day Saints. That term, enemy of the Constitution, is charged and negative and derisive (and most likely untrue).

Remember, the Constitution belongs to all Americans, not exclusively to the Latter-day Saints. Even granting that God inspired the document (but without defining “inspired” in any specificity), that same God allows and intends for that document to govern Latter-day Saints, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Jews, Jehovahs Witnesses, atheists, and all other citizens of our great Republic.

Rise above the bitterness — okay, so some policy decisions are going contrary to where you want them to go — in a pluralistic society, this must be expected and accepted. And some people have a differing view of Constitutional approaches and interpretation, and they might prevail now and again — in a pluralistic society, this must be expected and accepted. Neither the majority nor minority side on any matter of debate should start calling names, and “enemy of the Constitution” is a hateful name. And hateful name-calling, and all expressions of hatred, are unkind and uncharitable.

The oath of office requirement in the Constitution was essentially an oath for elected officials to swear to “follow the rules that we have all agreed upon.” It was not a call to respond with violence to anyone who didn’t.

Aside: I find it interesting that in the movie “The Rock” a Navy Seal mis-quoted the oath saying “defend this country” instead of “defend the Constitution”.

Interpretation is not the key. It is knowledge, belief, understanding, and acceptance of the Constitution as the final authority in this country. It is not an interpretation of some meaningless words twisted to mean anything to fit our agenda.

We have the notes of discussion from the Constitutional Convention to gain better understanding of why each article was written the way it was. We have both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers to explain the reasons for the language of the document and the weaknesses in it.

As Franklin said,”From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected?” but added,”I am not so sure that it is not the best”.

Also remember two statements regarding the freedom this Constitution guarantees.

“What type of government do we have, Mr. Franklin? a monarchy or a republic?” — “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

Regarding the Constitution, George Washington said,”It’s only keepers, the people.”

As Connor pointed out, we no longer have a republic. But he incorrectly pointed out that we have, instead, a democracy. I believe we have an oligarchy. How else can we explain that this bailout bill will eventually pass when it is overwhelmingly unpopular with the people? And how many of the current representatives and Senators are going to be voted out next election for voting against the will of the people?

The media sways the uneducated (which is most of America) into whichever paths their bias lies. The keepers of the Constitution have never read it and keep voting in the lesser of two evils, or worse, knowingly vote for the evil of their choice.

Aristotle said — the sign of an educated man is one who can entertain a thought without accepting it.

By this definition, I believe I have come across literally 4 or 5 individuals in my entire life who are truly educated. Everyone is so entrenched in their ideas and agendas that they don’t even look at facts. Even when presented with a fact, they choose to ignore it, or even deny it is a fact because it destroys their paradigm.

Yes, we were supposed to be a pluralistic society, in that we were to have open discussion and open debate with differing points of view. But political correctness, media bias, popular ignorance, and governmental actions have made open and honest debate impossible. People use these tactics so they don’t have to admit that a fact will destroy their paradigm.

So, my questions to both Ji and Connor are these:

1) How can we expect the Constitution to survive when it depends on a moral and a religious people — and yet the people of this country are a godless, and morally bankrupt people, completely ignorant of the intent of the Founders? Many so called religious people are the worst of them (LDS are no exception — look at Harry Reid, or my parents).

2) Can WE THE KEEPERS of the Constitution do our duty when
a) Most have never read it.
b) Many say it is “just a silly piece of paper”.
c) So many are ignorant of what blood, sweat, and tears
that went into creating it.
d) Not even all the Saints are aware that it is a divinely
inspired document.

3) How is a written document of any importance at all when all you have to do is interpret it any way you want in order to have it meet your purposes?

4) When those who take the oath of office have never read it, how can we credibly claim to have a constitutional government at all?

6) When we can’t even agree on what constitutes an “enemy of the Constitution”, how can we protect it from such enemies?

I have read my share of books both classic and modern. But the language of the Declaration and the Preamble are words that still bring tears to my eyes when I reflect upon all the history before and since.

The only other times I have been so struck were with a few passages of scripture and with the “honest man/dishonest man” speech in “Little Britches” (this last one shows that you don’t have to be fancy to be eloquent).

My fellow Keepers,

I feel like Mormon watching his nation dissolving before his very eyes with a knowledge that there is nothing we can do about it.

The only things that keep me going right now are

1) The knowledge that Pres Hinckley said before he DIED (another dead prophet, Ji) that trials lie ahead. But the Lord will be at the helm. And if we have faith, we will be blessed in the end.
2) A misguided notion that I should believe in the apocryphal prophecy about the “American Independent Party”.

The way that things are, I’ve ceased stopping for the Pledge of Allegiance when they play it on my college campus. To yield to a symbol with all of this other stuff going down seems almost insulting - not to the country itself but to the Platonian model of good government and rule of law that we should hold paramount.

1. Re # 37, “Universal healthcare, in my assessment, is incompatible with the constitution because the constitution doesn’t grant the federal government the power to be involved in it.”

I would be interested to see your analysis of why universal healthcare is incompatible with the Constitution. The genius of the United States Constitution is that it does not lay out everything that can and cannot be done in terms of policy and governance choices. The constitutions of many countries are hundreds of pages long. Our Constitution is short and concise in laying out a broad framework of government in an elegant separation of powers — and says nothing about universal healthcare nor about whether the federal government can or cannot legislate in relation to the health of the citizens and visitors to this country.

2. Re # 40, “As Connor pointed out, we no longer have a republic. But he incorrectly pointed out that we have, instead, a democracy. I believe we have an oligarchy. How else can we explain that this bailout bill will eventually pass when it is overwhelmingly unpopular with the people?”

If the assertion is true that the government’s emergency buy-in bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with all of the people of the United States, then the explanation for why legislators elected by those people might end up supporting it contrary to the desires of their constituencies on this point (again, assuming it is true that a majority of people in the country are against it, which I don’t believe is sufficiently established by the evidence at this point) is simple: it is a manifestation of our Republic. In a republic, and specifically in our Republic, legislators elected by the people enact laws, rather than the people themselves. An instance in which elected legislators who are accountable to their constituencies through regular elections vote contrary to the will of their constituencies on one issue or another is primary evidence that the governmental system is a Republic after all.

One thing is clear, the United States of America is not now and never has been a “democracy” in the sense that has been used on this thread (although in broad terms our country and any other country in the world that broadly follows in our constitutional footsteps is loosely considered a “democracy” in a general sense because the people elect their leaders and to differentiate these types of governments in a broad category as contrasted with dictatorship) because we elect representatives to legislate on our behalf. Even the direct election of senators, which is one of the major sticking points for people partial to some of the arguments that Connor has been making on this thread and on this blog more generally, does not cause the United States to cease being a Republican form of government by any means.

3. re # 31, if it is true that the phrase “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” was added to the oath after the Civil War, as you suggest, then a proper reading of the intent behing the addition (assuming you’ve already cleared the hurdle that such an addition would be in harmony with the intent of the Framers, assuming that a diverse group of people such as the Framers had any single intent and that if they did, you or anyone else could find out what it was with a high enough degree of certainty to never stray from it) would need to take account of that Civil War context. In that context, it would most naturally be understood as referring to people who raise an army against the United States for purposes of sedition or secession. It seems highly unlikely that the phrase, given its Civil War genesis, could conceivably have been meant by its Framers to refer to people who support legislation in the realm of healthcare or other areas that many consider to be in the legitimate purview of an elected government in an industrially advanced and therefore professionally stratified society.

John f.,

10 Amendment: “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.”

Federal government was given only a short list of enumerated powers in the constitution. Beyond those, it had no other authority. The rest was to be reserved for the states, or to the people.

Thus, as you say that health care is not mentioned in the constitution, it is therefore not within the scope of the federal government.

John F- As Jeff just mentioned, my “analysis” is very simple and you hit on it well:

Our Constitution is short and concise… and says nothing about universal healthcare

Most people defend the government’s involvement in a number of areas through the general welfare clause. I hear arguments like, “if healthcare doesn’t fit into the category of general welfare, I don’t know what does”. Visit Connor’s other post about that. The answer is pretty clear to me.

1read of a poll taken awhile back that asked the question; ‘Do you believe the United States will still be here by 2076, our 3 hundredth birthday?”

70 % of the respondents said “No”.

The people no longer admire the police, they fear them.

As demonstrated in Eldorado, there is no more Constitution, Due Process, or Civil Rights.

We no longer take the moral high ground in war, and George is doing his very best to bankrupt this Country.

6 months after the “Party” thrown on the Flds, 304 children were quietly freed from captivity with no explanation of why they were taken in the first place, and most of the US stood by and just watched like they did at WACO.

I don’t know who will be leading the free world in the coming decades, but I know we’ve already allowed them to take it from America.

At long last, the lawsuits are now being filed, and it’s my fervent hope that the FLDS bankrupt the State of Texas, right down to Doran’s underpants.

Bill Medvecky

assuming that a diverse group of people such as the Framers had any single intent and that if they did, you or anyone else could find out what it was

Look, they all agreed on the final wording of the document. So things that are incompatible with the document could safely be said to be outside their intent. We could safely say that they agreed with the premise of the 10th amendment (or else why did they include it?), that government shouldn’t have any powers not listed in the constitution unless an amendment is ratified by the people to grant it. If there are fuzzy areas of the constitution itself, we have, as Bill suggested, references such as the Federalist Papers to help us clarify.

So your basis of argument on the healthcare point is a Tenth Amendment argument?

I’d love to hear why the 10th amendment doesn’t apply.

I agree that the argument is pretty standard.

This posting uses universal healthcare as an imaginary example — it is one of the notions that has been posited here as unconstitutional. This is just an example proferred in answer to the question of what does a person do?

Q. A congressman considers introducing or supporting universal healthcare legislation. That individual congressman apparently considers universal healthcare as constitutional, but you disagree on constitutional (tenth amendment) grounds. What do you do?

A. You petition your congressman to re-consider (either on constitutional reasons or public policy reasons), petition your senators to vote against the bill, and/or campaign for a new congressman at the next election.

Q. The Congress passes a universal healthcare bill and sends the bill to the President. The Congress as a whole apparently considers universal healthcare as constitutional, but you disagree on constitutional grounds. What do you do?

A. You petition the President to veto the bill, and/or campaign for a new President at the next election.

Q. The President passes the bill. The President apparently considers universal healthcare as constitutional, but you disagree on constitutional grounds. What do you do?

A. You challenge the law in court if you have standing, citing your tenth amendment objections. If you don’t have standing, you join or otherwise support someone else’s suit.

Q. Your suit (or someone else’s) comes to trial. The court decides against your suit. The court apparently considers universal healthcare as constitutional, but you disagree on constitutional grounds. What do you do?

A. You appeal to a higher court, and/or petition the Congress to repeal the law.

[And, if I might add, in all of the above you maintain your dignity as a citizen of the Republic and as child of God. And we teach our children the importance of dignity and respect to our Constitution and constitutional processes. In all I’ve written here, this is the most important to me.]

All of the above is the constitutional approach envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The process still works. To protect the Constitution, the Founding Fathers designed this system of checks and balances: If one house of Congress passes an unconstitutional (or otherwise unsound) bill, the other house can reject it. If both houses pass an unconstitutional (or otherwise unsound) bill, the President can veto it. If the President signs an unconstitutional bill into law, the courts can overthrow it. If the courts don’t overthrow it, then it’s constitutional, even if any particular citizen somewhere in the country disagrees.

If we get universal healthcare, I suppose it will be through the constitutional process above, and therefore universal healthcare will be constitutional. Even if I oppose universal healthcare, I will accept the resulting condition as constitutional (and I’ll explain this to my children). There are no enemies in any of this imaginary example. If there are any enemies to our Constitution in real life, we have laws and means to punish traitors and criminals. If you know of any of these people, please report them to the authorities — but remember, in the eyes of the rest of us, they’re innocent until proven guilty.

Our great Republic is alive and well. Our Constitution is alive and well. Hurrah for the United States of America! Hurrah for our Constitution!

John,

Your analysis of the way a republic operates is incomplete. You misunderstand why we have the two house system in the way we do.

The Senate and the Presidency were to act like you described and become the political “aristrocracy” of our country. They were to be educated, capable men of character that would be able to make informed difficult decisions without considering the will of the people. That’s why they had such long terms. Senators were originally appointed by state legislature, not elected by the people. The president was elected through the electoral college. These mechanisms shielded them from the will of the people.

The House was to be made of representatives that would reflect the will of the people whether correct or not. The reps were to get the pulse of the people on every major issue and even bring bills to the attention of the people. Then he was to vote as the people dictated. That was why they only had 2 year terms and originally only had a constituency of 30,000 people. There was no way to hide from their constituents. They HAD to do exactly as their constituents wanted.

The reason for this was that if both the common man and the aristocracy agreed on an issue, it was probably good legislation.

I understand if the Senate behaves the way you describe. That’s the way it was supposed to be. But the House is not supposed to ignore the will of the people.

I called my representative and asked how many people phoned in. –Too many to remember without looking it up.

I asked what the breakdown was for or against. –About 2/3 against.

I clarified the situation to the assistant on the phone. “So what you’re saying is that even though about 2/3 of his constituency is against this bill, he is still sending out e-mails saying how proud he is of the pork he has added to the bill and how he –WILL NOT QUIT– until the bill gets passed , and he is proud to have the backing of his constituents?”

Yes.

DID YOU HEAR WHAT I JUST SAID???

Of course.

NO YOU DIDN’T. I just said that we are NOT behind him on this by YOUR OWN NUMBERS. And all he can say is that he is glad we are behind him? WE ARE NOT BEHIND HIM ON THIS. And I will make sure he doesn’t get re-elected.

Thank you for calling. . .

On his website is an announcement of the passage of the bill with some self-aggrandizement on his input into the bill.

What tore me up was how he is still thanking his constituents for all the support we offered him.

NO JOHN, they are not supposed to be THIS disconnected.

Ji,

You stated that the Constitution is still functioning and that our Republic is still alive and well.

The Constitution is only functioning on the skin of its teeth. We have the forms of government, but none of the functionality of the original intent of the founders.

1) We the people have no way to redress our grievances. Just read my conversation above with my representative’s office. The courts just throw out any such cases unless the media happens to make a big deal about it. And have you ever tried to talk to a senator or the President?

2) Because the three branches of government agree doesn’t mean it is Constitutional. In this case, it simply means that enough people were willing to “break the rules” or their oaths of office. Ron Paul and maybe a couple of others even considered the Constitutionality of the law. I know the President thinks of it as a @#$%^& piece of paper. The Supreme Court is constantly voting 5-4 on ANYTHING and is rarely involved in judicial review anymore. How can you really say that the Constituion is alive and well when most of the elected officials either haven’t read it, or don’t care about it, or both.

3) When the government is this far out of control AND out of touch, we the Keepers are powerless to do anything about it because if we followed the process that you outlined, we must either have as much money as Mitt Romney or we’d be broke before we got a few steps into the process.

By taking the ceiling off the number of constituents a representative had, we essentially gave him a place to hide. Couple that with the two party system and he has even more of a shield. Am I really going to keep him from being re-elected? Maybe, but only because I live in a battlground state. Even so, 10,000 like-minded people in my district may not be able to do it.

After the exchange between the Supreme Court against the Roosevelt and Congress over the New Deal, the Supreme Court lost the power to do anything about the economy–even if it was unconstitutional. Notice that no one has even bothered to ask the Supreme Court if the bailout is Constitutional?

You’re still willing to say our Republic is alive and well and functioning under the Constitution?

Tell that to the families of Ramos and Campion.

Yes, I still say it — Hurrah for the United States of America! and Hurrah for our Constitution!

I regret any disappointment you might feel, Bill, when you haven’t prevailed in matters of policy. Maybe as the pendulum swings over time, you’ll find things to more to your liking. That’s often how things work in a pluralistic society like ours.

I’m not here to debate any particular Government policy. I started posting here to offer a rational voice to offset the unkind voices that were labelling others as enemies of the Constitution. I believe in kindness. And yes, even though I deplore certain cultural happenings in our country and even though I disagree with some policy matters we’ve adopted as a country, I still think the Constitution is working. And I thank my God in my prayers for our great country.

I don’t know Ramos or Campion, but if they’ve been hurt, I feel sorry for them.

How can the constitution be working, if it isn’t doing what it was designed to do? It was designed to prevent the government from doing the things it is presently doing.

But you see, my friend, the Constitution is working. It is doing what it is supposed to do. It gives diverse citizens in a pluralistic society a framework that allows us all to work and live together.

The Constitution doesn’t prohibit improvident decision-making, it only provides the framework for decision-making with no one person or faction making all the decisions and citizens leaving peacefully together without cutting each others throats. On any matter, some people will prevail and some others won’t — there will NEVER be a unanimous decision of all 300-Million-plus Americans. So we elect leaders, and they make hard decisions for us.

Is there a potential for corruption? Maybe, but that reflects on dishonest men rather than a non-functioning Constitution. Is there a difference of opinion on how to interpret (or, if you prefer, how to apply) the Constitution? Yes, but doesn’t reflect a non-functioning Constitution. Are Catholics and Presbyterians and Lutherans and Latter-day Saints and Jews and atheists and _____ living peacefully together and governing themselves civilly? Yes, and this does reflect a functioning Constitution

And those fellow Americans who have differing ideas on substantial policy matters are not all enemies of the Constitution, they’re our neighbors. There might be a few traitors and criminals among them, but hopefully they’ll be caught and punished. But people who support the bail-out or universal healthcare or the “other” side on any public policy issue are fellow Americans who see things differently, and if they’re in the majority, they’ll likely prevail. This is as it should be.

Where one sees trends over time that are troubling, perhaps like an increasing police state atmosphere, they should raise their concerns in constructive dialogue and maybe, once in a while, in protest. But he or she shouldn’t try to scare people into fearing that our great Republic is a failure and that our government is controlled by evil enemies of the Constitution. Neither of these are true right now. At least, that’s how I see it.

And I say this as a citizen of our great Republic and also as a Latter-day Saint with faith in God. I really believe it.

I prefer kindness and faith to fear-mongering, despair, and hatred.

I also believe in being subject to kings, rulers, magistrates, and in honoring and sustaining the law.

If Congress passed a law probiting some element of free speech [or polygamy, for example] and the President signed it and the court of last resort upheld it, then yes, that law would be constitutional. At least, until the Congress or courts changed their minds or the people amended the Constitution.

Ji,

I agree with the notion that not all the people in Washington are “enemies of the Constitution”. I even agree that MOST are not enemies of the Constitution. I believe a few are. But I cannot agree that the Constitution is functioning as it should be. And I cannot agree that the republic is doing what it should.

Remember that the whole point of the oath of office is to have the elected officials agree to the rulebook (the Constitution).

It is not just about people in a pluralistic society getting along and joining hands singing kum-by-yah. It is about people in power as well as the populous agreeing to what the rules are. I believe that if people are genuinely ignorant of the Constitution or don’t really care, that is one thing. But I don’t believe that is going on.

I believe that many are knowingly sinning against the light. They know and understand the Constitution, but for their own motivations choose to go against it.

When the President himself calls the rulebook a piece of paper; when the average person has never even read it; when those who are true keepers of the Constitution say what a great idea it would be if we followed it are derided and osticized; and we who are critical of actions we feel violate our rights are said to be fanatics, fearmongers, and unpatriotic (which is what i infer from your comments) how can we credibly say we are following the rules? And if we don’t follow the rules, how can the rules (the Constitution) be said to be functioning?

If we actually had a difference of opinion in how the Constitution may be interpreted, then let that be part of the debate. This is why I appreciated your take on the process (continually berating the 10th amendment). And I appreciated the responses and treatise on general welfare. But everything else you said is based on the promoting of a pluralistic society rather than honest difference of opinion on how to apply the rules that we’ve agreed to.

A pluralistic society can function and thrive under the Constitution –maybe. But when the pluralism goes so far that we don’t even have a common basis of discussion, then that divided house will fall.

When the founders framed the Constitutuion they all agreed that slavery was evil. Many believed a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. Even the slave owners believed that.

By the time the Civil War came around, many — those in power — no longer believed Slavery to be evil. A civil war resulted. Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it.

Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it.

But maybe . . .

Maybe the 2nd amendment is a collective right and not an individual right.

Maybe freedom means that the government needs to take over everything and the time of the free market has run its course.

Maybe we’re so weak that the government needs to do everything for us.

Maybe we ought to just keep spending like there’s no tomorrow and not worry about when our creditor nations come to collect.

Maybe it’s ok that you only pick on the arguments you find a twisted weakness in and ignore the good points that you cannot argue with.

Maybe we shouldn’t let the facts get in the way of our opinions.

Maybe the best way to be Keepers is to pretend all is well in Zion.

Maybe Jesus himself was a sinner because he wasn’t “nice” to the money-changers in the temple and the pharisees who tried time and again to trip him up.

Maybe we should continue to cower under the authority of Kings, Presidents, Rulers, etc. in ignoring the highest law of the land in favor of the passage of laws that continually erode our liberties.

Maybe we shouldn’t be having this dicussion at all because it is fearmongering and hate speech.

Maybe this is just too serious and we will all fall in a pit of despair because we see the truth and a lie is better because it fills our pocket books and lets us think happy thoughts.

Maybe we should take a $700B aspirin to cure the headache caused by the brain cancer of government telling us what to do for our own good instead of going throught the chemotherapy of another depression that might get government out of our lives and restore good government.

I’d like Ji to consider — maybe not.

actually, ji, it would be unconstitutional until the people amended the constitution. The constitution forbids it, thus if the law passes, it would be unconstitutional and remain so until the that passage that forbids it is removed from the constitution.

Sorry, fellas, I won’t be drawn into your traps — I prefer simply to be honest. And honest readers of these exchanges will know which of us is closer to truth.

I still recommend the Primary song to you. See post no. 22.

That’s it?

You haven’t said anything yet.

BTW, Ji
Ramos and Campion are two border security guards that were falsely accused of being racists against Latinos and perfoming criminal acts because of it. They were convicted and put in prison with the general prison population and have undergone tremendous atrocities at the hands of other prisoners because they were former law enforcement officers.

After this was brought out in the news, it all of a sudden became blatantly obvious that they themselves were Latinos and probably weren’t racist against Latinos.

Once the race card was no longer in play, the procecution leaked the fact that the evidence and testimonies they had against them were all fabricated.

Even after that, they have remained in prison for over a year. They sit there still today as political prisoners of George W. despite legal efforts on their behalf and being in the news.

I can’t believe you are so clueless you’ve never even heard their names. But that would explain why you believe our Republic is alive and well.

Sorry, Bill — you used my words to mock your Savior and God in your post no. 59. Shame on you.

But for Jeff T., in a purely hypothetical and abstract and academic sense, you can be right that a certain law might be unconstitutional all along, but we’re still a nation of laws — and we don’t allow a single citizen to determine a law unconstitutional and thereby unenforceable across the country — we rely on the Congress, the President, and the courts to do that. And if they all agree its constitutional, then for all realistic and practical purposes, it is.

Connor, if the point of blogging is drawing out divergent ideas, you’re successful. Remember, though, that the Prophet Joseph Smith once cautioned, after observing a debate among elders, against “too much warmth manifested, too much zeal for mastery, too much of that enthusiam that characterizes a lawyer at the bar, who is determined on victory right or wrong.”. He further counseled the debaters to “improve their minds, and cultivate their powers of intellect in a proper manner, that they might not incur the displeasure of heaven, that they should handle sacred things very sacredly, and with due deference to the opinions of others, and with an eye single to the glory of God” (Nov. 18, 1835). I recommend these thoughts to you.

Out of EVERYTHING I said, that is the one thing that you use to nullify all the other arguements I’ve made?

To be honest, I thought you were being sarcastic when you brought up this Primary song in such a serious debate. I was just tagging along. If you honestly felt that to be sacriligious, I apologize. If you were only saying that to win a debate point, shame on you.

After all you’ve said, I don’t see any argument showing the errors in our logic or evidence. All you’ve done is spouted off some pedestrian quotes and ridiculed. But you’re the one telling us not to anger heaven and have respect?

Attack the argument, not the person. That is what that quote from Joseph is about. But you haven’t. And you refuse to admit any points that we have made that you consider reasonable.

I HAVE admitted that just because you aren’t a friend of the Constitution doesn’t mean you are an enemy. I believe there are many who are neutral. I even admit there is logic in your comment to Jeff. (comment #65)

But you have not even addressed the issue of agreeing to a set of rules. If we can’t even come close to agreeing to a set of rules how can there even be any rules? If we can’t even come close to agreeing on what the Constitution means, how can there really be said to be a functioning Constitution?

It is one thing to quibble over details. But to have such disparate and mutually exclusive “interpretations” we are a house divided. It is not just one person or a hundred or a thousand, but millions across the country that agree. But we are a minority. The mojority disagree with our interpretations. But they also disagree with each other. All they do agree on is that entitlement is better than freedom.

I feel like one of my Born Again friends telling me that I believe in a “different Jesus” than they do. Do we believe in a “different Constitution” than those in Washington?

It must be so. If so, how do we fix that? Do we just abandon our beliefs in a good government?

I also apologize for saying you were “clueless”. That was a personal attack and shouldn’t have a place in a reasonable debate forum.

Bill, re: your 66. The problem with your insistence on a set of rules is that there is no one single interpretation or definition of the rules — yes, the rules are written — but I you or I disagree on what a particular sentence should mean, who wins? You? Me? Nancy Pelosi? I won’t vote for your interpretation (or definition) and you won’t vote for mine. And neither of us will vote for Nancy’s. So who decides what the real intent is? The Congress, the President, and the courts do, under our Constitutional framework.

Connor said NASA was unconstitutional — do we abolish it just because he said so? No. For your question, do we believe in a different Constitution than others? If you believe in a Constitution that only means what you (or Connor) says it means, then yes, you and I believe in a different Constitution. I cannot sustain you as the sole arbiter or interpreter of the Constitution. Yes, Bill, we are a house divided — we’re a pluralistic society and we interpret the Constitution differently — even among Latter-day Saints, we may interpret differently — but the Constitution and the constitutional framework hold us together, all Americans of all persuasions.

If the rules of tennis say the line is the boundary of the playing area and don’t go further, then the players and the judges and the spectators and the commentators are left to decide whether a serve is out-of-bounds if it actually hits the line. This process is called interpretation. The rules of tennis are written, but they must be interpreted and applied. And whether the powers-that-be decide that the ball hitting the line is in or out, someone is going to disagree. They need to get over it and play the game or they need to carefully and kindly try to change the rules. But in any case, they need to speak kindly of the sport and the sports officials and associations in front of others. I could liken all of this to our current discussion, but I suppose you understand.

I was serious in recommending the Primary song. You cannot go through life thinking everyone is interpreting the Constitution wrongly except for you. We have to work together for the common good of our society. If we believe in good government, then we must honor and respect our government and teach others to respect it, and we work within the constitutional framework to achieve whatever we’re seeking. You must be willing to admit that there might be some validity in someone else’s interpretation.

And if our non-LDS friends in the nation’s capital perceive a notion from blogs like this that the Constitution was written by the Mormon God for Mormons and that only Mormons can interpret it rightly, then they will believe in a different Constitution than you. Many of them will be willing to agree that God had a hand in the Constitution, but they won’t agree that Mormons have the exclusive privilege (or duty) of interpretation. Nor do I, and I’m a Latter-day Saint (though one of dubious value, I’m learning from these exchanges).

Sorry, I have no desire to debate any particular matter of current policy. My interest here is the general tone of sustaining the Constitution as working and our Republic as not yet a failure. I’m not ready for despair.

Wait a second Ji. Nowhere does this blog claim that mormons are the only ones able to interpret the constitution. Nowhere does it claim that the constitution was made by a mormon god for mormon people. I’m not sure where you’re getting all that, but it’s definitely a misinterpretation on your part.

I’m not ready for despair either, but I don’t think that despairing over our current political situation is the point here. Just because there are things wrong with our government right now doesn’t mean we despair. It means we recognize what’s happened and act. For some people that action may be writing a blog post to try to inform others and help them act (whether or not you agree with their ideas). For some, it’s calling their congressmen. For some, it may be taking up a cause for or against a certain proposition, etc.

Despair hopefully isn’t part of the equation for most of us here. Even for those of us that wholeheartedly believe that the constitution is hanging by a thread and that our once-great government has gone to pot.

Yin,

Can you accept that well-informed, educated, and honest Latter-day Saints might reasonably disagree with your assessment that the Constitution is hanging by a thread and our great Republic has gone to pot (your words) without saying or implying that they’re uneducated, in the great and spacious building, apathetic, clueless, enemies of the Constitution, collaborators with evil, and such?

Ji,

No one is despairing. No one is fear mongering. We just see a dangerous trend and feel it is better to try and reverse that trend now. What would you have us do? Do nothing until the time for despair is nigh at hand? I’d rather do something now and not despair later, than do nothing now and have real reason to despair in the future.

As for the rules of the game, this ‘interpretation’ isn’t about the ball landing on the line. This ‘interpretation’ is saying server A sails the ball clear over head his opponent, and the majority says “cool, that’s an awesome serve,” and thus it _is_ the rules, because tough noogies, the rule ’sticklers’ got the short end of the stick. That’s not my idea of interpretation.

I’m afraid we’re splitting the argument between two points. I’ll address them in two different posts to avoid confusion.

INTERPRETATION:

Yes, everything in life involves interpretation and point of view.
Yes, we can all be intelligent, educated, informed, and well-meaning and still come to different conclusions.
Yes, we can come together and work out things that will be mutually beneficial.

No, the interpretations and points of view DO NOT CREATE the reality.
No, having different interpretations does not mean that everyone is correct.

If interpretation were to CREATE the truth, then all religions in the world are correct. But we don’t believe that. You have stated that you are a well-meaning LDS. If so, you must recognize that even though all other religious people might be well-meaning and informed, etc. they still don’t get it.

There IS A TRUTH. There IS a right and wrong way to interpret things. To absolutely state that my point of view is the correct one would be tyrannical in minor way (I’m only one man without a lot of influence).
The artistry of being a Keeper of the Constitution is to determine when we have a credible claim to interpreting correctly. The following are things to consider if you wish to have a CREDIBLE CLAIM to being a Keeper, and thus have a correct interpretation.

1) Have you read it? You can’t claim to have interpreted something correctly if you haven’t read it.

2) Have you studied any background on it and consulted the authors or writings of the authors regarding their work? Anyone can interpret the Bible. But have they actually prayed about it and asked the Author regarding their interpretation?

3) Do you subbordinate your own will and agenda until after DISCOVERING what the written words would say regarding the subject. Anyone can argue black into white with twists of logic. But it takes having an agenda to do so.

4) Are you a FRIEND of the Constitution? Friends try to take their friends’ opinions into account. Friends show respect and brotherly love. Friends try to serve. Friends give when they can and ask only when they must.

Notice that you may be able to honestly answer YES to all of these and still come up with a different answer than others. You can say YES to all of these and still find an incorrect answer.

But if you answer NO to any, you have a LESS CREDIBLE CLAIM to having a correct interpretation. If you say NO to ALL of them, I believe you have NO CREDIBLE CLAIM to a correct interpretation.

I can say YES to all these and I might still be wrong. I can admit that. But those who must honestly answer NO usually cannot admit THEY might be wrong.

If everyone serving in office can honeslty say YES to these, then I would agree with you when you say the Constitution is functioning as it should. If a large majority must honestly say NO to most or all of these, we do not have a credible claim to having a functioning Constitution.

There may be other things to add to this list to be sure; but this list is sufficient for now.

Based on these four criteria alone, I do not believe many in Congress nor the President have a credible claim to being Keepers.

A HOUSE DVIDED vis-a-vis A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY.

Any society has limits. The limits for a society under the US Constutition are limited by being a moral and a religious people.

People back in the Founders’ day pretty much had the same ideas of right and wrong in their daily lives. They had the Ten Commandments that most religions agreed on and had similar interpretations of what they meant. They disagreed on how to govern such people and what morality should be made into LAW backed up by governmental force.

Today, we don’t even agree on what is right and wrong in our own lives and we see that the result of that under this Constitution is to make more morality (or immorality) into law under penalty of fines, imprisonment, or death.

Compare George Washington’s Farewell Address to Abraham Lincoln’s “A House Divided” speech. While in Washington’s day, there were differences of opinions and open debate, we were still a unified people. One nation under God. In Lincoln’s day we had huge chasms of differences which erupted into the Civil War.

I personally see the Civil War as a SYMPTOM that the Constitution was not functioning. But under your criterion that the three branch framework was still operating, you would say it WAS functioning. I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

If you were forced to decide where we are compared to these two points in history, who’s day would you say we are closer to?

I’d say I’m not quite “despairing”. But I don’t have a lot of hope for the future of the Constitutional government.

Ji,

I did apologize for the “clueless” remark. I would hope you would accept it for what it was–An honest attempt to make amends for an action that I honestly believed to be out of line.

After all this, I still choose hope and confidence in our Constitution and our great Republic, and I caution against teaching others, including our youth, that our great Republic has failed and that other citizens with differing approaches to constitutional interpretation and application (even those very close to us) are enemies of the Constitution. I see hope and confidence as a positive duty of mine.

Yes, there is ultimate truth. One aspect of that ultimate truth is that we must be kind and charitable to our neighbors. A practical truth is that in our pluralistic society, claims of ultimate truth in what others see as one’s political agenda are improvident.

Today is General Conference. I much appreciate Elder Perry’s opening words on hope and especially President Uchtdorf’s entire message of hope. Wow!

Hope doesn’t mean doing nothing. Hope doesn’t mean ceding ground to differing viewpoints. Hope doesn’t mean everything will be fine whatever I do or do not do. There is still responsibility, and the requirement of action. I actually like your analogy of the constitution to rules of a game, though I don’t like your conclusions. Might I propose that government is like a massive game. The players are the people and their public officials. This is a special kind of game, where only a few actually compete in the game directly. The republic aspect. We choose people who we think will play the game well.

Now the rules, any game needs rules. Tennis needs clear definitions of what’s out, what constitutes a point, etc. You mention the ‘ball on the line’ thing. I guarantee you that in any serious tennis match, the players are well aware of what a ball on the line means BEFORE they start the match. This is not to say that the rules in the government need to be wholly predefined, never able to change, but when they do change they must needs do so in an orderly manner.

For to choose a player we would think will do well in government, we must first have a clear understanding of the rules even as we choose our representative. How can we know how well one will do if we have no framework within which he will act?

I was debating in an irc channel against the bailout. I said that our representatives had no authority to vote yes on this bill. The opponents answers were, ‘you voted for these people, and if you don’t like what they do now, don’t vote for them the next time around.’ This is pure fallacy. WHEN I voted for my representative, I did so with a certain understanding of what rules he would be subject to. If I must be required to vote for someone who will in all cases govern his own choices to be in line with the constitution, at all times, in the face of all temptations, that is a tall order indeed. I dare say impossible to fill. Hence we must have rules that keep these players in check, rules we all understand.

Now there is some flexibility in those rules. Ones interpretation may very well be as valid as the next. The thing we defenders of the constitution take issue with is where the rules are clearly and unabashedly ignored, at no consequence. Not a mere interpretation of the rules, but a blatant disregard for those rules altogether. At this point the game is like a game of monopoly that has gone on too long, and the bored participants start grabbing money from the bank by handfuls. It’s no longer monopoly, it’s “who can grab money the fastest.”

My hope is in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and in his restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My confidence in our Constitution and our great Republic is not improperly placed.

I choose hope and confidence, kindness and charity.

And I chose to hope that I can make a difference in defending the constitution.

Connor, re: your 81 — And equally seriously, if you will allow, I can’t help but see fear-mongering, despair, and hatred in your remarks.

I have some satisfaction now in knowing that present and future readers of these exchanges will have the benefit of knowing that there are some Latter-day Saints who disagree with some of your notions. If your blog were just one way, your original posting would be standing alone and perhaps interpretable as truth as seen by Latter-day Saints generally. By allowing for viewer postings, like mine, you allow present and future viewers to discern that there are others among us who think differently. I appreciate and thank you for the opportunity, and remind all readers that truth isn’t always found on blogs. Maybe sometimes, and maybe not.

I believe Ji is mostly referring to me. After reading all the posts, I believe I’m the one with the least hope about the Constitution. But let me distinguish between the gospel word hope (as Pres Uchdorf described) and the plain English version of hope.

Hope in a gospel sense is the desire to believe in something greater than yourself. That there really is a higher purpose to everything. It is the motivating force to find faith.

Hope in English implies an expectation of something good about to happen.

While I still believe the Lord is at the Helm of the course of the world, I do not expect anything good to come out of the bailout bill.

I’m not expecting my stocks to go up any more than would normally be reasonable. I’m not expecting that this bill will create more jobs. I’m not expecting that the majority of the people in this country will suddenly wake up and realize how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution. I also do not expect that the Constitution will last long.

Since I have no prophetic insight into the matter, this is just a guess by a hacker based on the limited information I have access to. Part of engaging in discussions like this is to try to find other evidence that would lead me to more hope. But simply SAYING things are fine is not evidence.

Your entire argument is based on two things:

1) Everything is fine because I believe it is.
2) The three branches of government are there so the Constitutuion and our Republic are doing just fine.

The first is naive. The second shows ignorance in the Constitution. Refer to my previous post on the CREDIBLE CLAIM to interpreting the Constitution correctly.

With even as little hope as I have, I am still going to be active in politics and do my personal best to ensure the Constitution survives.

re: #82

Ji,

Hatred is a very strong word. Just because you label someone as an “enemy” doesn’t mean you hate them. I pray for the leaders of this country often. Not out of hatred, but out of concern for the path they’re leading us down.

I’ve already addressed the “despair” claim (#69).

As for fear-mongering, this post doesn’t quite fit the mold. All I see is questions posed and ideas posited. I don’t see fear or scare tactics being used, an agenda being pushed, or propaganda of any kind. I consider fear-mongering to be when the government uses scare tactics about the economy to garner support for an unconstitutional bailout bill. Or when the government uses the fear after 9/11 to get people to support an unconstitutional war that has nothing to do with 9/11.

It seems to me that your labels of “hatred”, “despair”, and “fear-mongering” are terribly misplaced.

re: 83: “Future readers of these exchanges will no doubt scratch their heads, wondering why you couldn’t answer direct and simple questions.”

Maybe some of them — but others might perceive that “wouldn’t” might fit better than “couldn’t”.

I hope this afternoon’s