As we read the newspapers and other printed materials, listen to television and radio, and read or hear the voices of distinguished Americans, we become conscious that America is at the crossroads. We stand today with the reality before us that we could lose our great heritage of freedom.

There are those in our midst who depreciate our great beloved republic and the men who laid the foundation of our government. These are the voices and the words that our youth frequently hear or read. I ask, How can they be expected to feel a duty to God and their country when the climate of opinion is so negative to all that we cherish and hold dear? The answer to that question will be decided by how well our homes instill a love of God and of our country and how well we as leaders exemplify before our youth our devotion. When was the last time you took the occasion to let them know your feelings about your country?

This nation is unlike any other nation. It was uniquely born. It had its beginning when fifty-six men affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence. I realize there are some who view that declaration as only a political document. It is much more than that. It constitutes a spiritual manifesto, declaring not for this nation alone, but for all nations, the source of man’s rights.

The purpose of the declaration was to set forth the moral justifications of a rebellion against a long-recognized political tradition—the divine right of kings. At issue was the fundamental question of whether men’s rights were God-given or whether these rights were to be dispensed by governments to their subjects. This document proclaimed that all men have certain inalienable rights; in other words, that those rights came from God. The colonists were therefore not rebels against political authority. Their contention was not with Parliament nor the British people; it was against a tyrannical monarch who had “conspired,” “incited,” and “plundered” them. They were thus morally justified to revolt, for as it was stated in the declaration, “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 Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The document concludes with this pledge: “For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

How prophetic that pledge was to be! Consider with me some of the sacrifices made by these signers.

Fifty-six men signed the document on August 2, 1776, or in the case of some, shortly thereafter. They came from all walks of life. Twenty-three were lawyers, twelve were merchants, twelve were men of the soil, four were physicians, two were manufacturers, one was a politician, one a printer, and another a minister.

Almost a third of the signers were under forty years of age; eighteen were in their thirties and three were in their twenties. Only seven were over sixty. The youngest, Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, was twenty-six and a half, and the oldest, Benjamin Franklin, was seventy. Three of the signers lived to be over ninety. Charles Carroll died at age ninety-five. Ten died in their eighties.

Possibly as many as six of the signers were childless in their marriages (two never did marry), but the remainder sired 325 children. Carter Braxton had 18 children; William Ellery, 17; and Robert Sherman, 15.

The signers were religious men, all being Protestant except Charles Carroll, who was Roman Catholic. Over half expressed their religious faith as being Episcopalian. Others were Congregational, Presbyterian, Quaker, and Baptist.

Two of the signers would become presidents of the United States—Thomas Jefferson, the author of the declaration, and John Adams. Two—John Adams and Benjamin Harrison—would be fathers of future presidents. Another, Elbridge Gerry, was the vice-president under James Madison.

Those signers pledged their lives, and some paid that price for this nation’s birth—and our birthright.

At least nine of them died as a result of the war or its hardships on them. The first of the signers to die was John Morton of Pennsylvania. He was at first sympathetic to the British, but finally changed his mind and cast his vote for independence. By doing so, his friends, relatives, and neighbors turned against him. Those who knew him best said this ostracism hastened his death, for he lived only eight months after the signing. His last words were, “. . . tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it to have been the most glorious service that I ever rendered to my country.”

Another to pay with his life was Caesar Rodney. Suffering facial cancer, he left his sickbed at midnight and rode all night by horseback through a severe storm. He arrived just in time to cast the deciding vote for his delegation in favor of independence. His doctors told him he needed treatment obtainable only in Europe. He refused to go in this time of his country’s crisis. The decision cost him his life.

When the British came to Trenton, they settled near the home of John Hart, one of the five signers from New Jersey. He had a large farm and several grist mills. While his wife was on her deathbed, Hessian soldiers descended on Hart’s property. They destroyed his mills, ravaged his property, and scattered his thirteen children. Hart became a hunted fugitive. When he finally returned to his land, he was broken in health, his farmland was scourged, his wife had died, and his children were all scattered. He died three years after signing the declaration.

Yes, the signers also pledged their fortunes, and at least fifteen saw the realization of that pledge. Twelve had their homes ransacked or ruined. Six literally gave their fortunes to further the cause. When the four New York delegates signed the declaration, they signed away their property. William Floyd was exiled from his home for seven years and was practically ruined financially. Francis Lewis had his home plundered and burned, and his wife was carried away prisoner. She suffered great brutality and never regained her health; she died within two years. He never regained his fortune. Robert Morris had his property destroyed and, like Floyd, was denied his home for seven years. Phillip Livingston never saw his home again, for his estate became a British naval hospital. He sold all of his remaining property to finance the revolution. He died before the war was over.

Another signer, merchant Robert Morris, lost 150 ships, which were sunk during the war. Three of the four signers from South Carolina—Thomas Heyward, Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge—were taken prisoner by the British and imprisoned for ten months.

Thomas Nelson, Jr., of Virginia died in poverty at age fifty-one. He gave his fortune to help finance the war and never regained either it or his health. Before Patrick Henry gave his great speech, he was preceded by Nelson who said, “I am a merchant of Yorktown, but I am a Virginian first. Let my trade perish. I call God to witness that if any British troops are landed in the County of Yorks, of which I am a Lieutenant, I will wait no order, but will summon the militia and drive the invaders into the sea.”

When Patrick Henry declared his immortal words, “. . . give me liberty or give me death,” he was not speaking idly. When those signers affixed their signatures to that sacred document, they were, in a real sense, choosing liberty or death, for if the revolution failed, if their fight had come to naught, they would be hanged as traitors.

Yes, the signers fulfilled their pledge. Their spirit of sacrifice was exemplified by John Adams, who, when others were vacillating on whether to adopt the declaration, declared:

“Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand and my heart to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in the beginning we aimed not at independence. But there’s a Divinity which shapes our ends. . . . Why, then, should we defer the Declaration? . . .

“. . . You and I, indeed, may rue it. We may not live to the time when this Declaration shall be made good. We may die; die colonists; die slaves; die, it may be, ignominiously and on the scaffold. Be it so, Be it so. If it be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready. . . . But while I do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country.

“But whatever may be our fate, be assured . . . that this Declaration will stand. It may cost treasure, and it may cost blood; but it will stand, and it will richly compensate for both. Through the thick gloom of the present, I see the brightness of the future, as the sun in heaven. We shall make this a glorious, an immortal day. When we are in our graves, our children will honor it. They will celebrate it with thanksgiving, with festivity, with bonfires, and illuminations. On its annual return they will shed tears, copious, gushing tears, not of subjection and slavery, not of agony and distress, but of exultation, of gratitude, and of joy. Sir, before God, I believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope, in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it; and I leave off as I begun, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment, Independence, now, and Independence for ever.” (The Works of Daniel Webster, 4th ed., 1851, 1:133-36.)

How fitting it is that we sing in “America the Beautiful”:

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife, Who more than self their country loved, And mercy more than life!

These patriots were willing to make the effort and sacrifice they did because they understood a fundamental that seems to be forgotten today: that the rights of man are either God-given as part of a divine plan or they are granted as part of a political plan. Reason, necessity, and religious conviction and belief in the sovereignty of God led these men to accept the divine origin of man’s rights. To God’s glory, and the credit of these men, our nation had its unique birth.

If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations—a throwback to the feudal system of the Dark Ages. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Since God created man with certain inalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. As said so appropriately by Lord Action:

“It was from America that the plain ideas that men ought to mind their own business, and that the nation is responsible to Heaven for the acts of the State,—ideas long locked in the breast of solitary thinkers, and hidden among Latin folios,—burst forth like a conqueror upon the world they were destined to transform, under the title of the Rights of Man. . . .

“. . . and the principle gained ground, that a nation can never abandon its fate to an authority it cannot control.” (The History of Freedom and Other Essays, 1907, pp. 55-56.)

We also need to keep before us the truth that people who do not master themselves and their appetites will soon be mastered by government.

I wonder if we are not rearing a generation that seemingly does not understand this fundamental principle. Yet this is the principle that separates our country from all others. The central issue before the people today is the same issue that inflamed the hearts of our Founding Fathers in 1776 to strike out for independence. That issue is whether the individual exists for the state or whether the state exists for the individual.

In a republic, the real danger is that we may slowly slide into a condition of slavery of the individual to the state rather than entering this condition by a sudden revolution. The loss of our liberties might easily come about, not through the ballot box, but through the abandonment of the fundamental teachings from God and this basic principle upon which our country was founded. Such a condition is usually brought about by a series of little steps which, at the time, seem justified by a variety of reasons.

Yes, I thank God for the sacrifices and efforts made by our Founding Fathers, whose efforts brought us the blessings we have today. Their lives should be reminders to us that we are blessed beneficiaries of a liberty earned by great sacrifice of property, reputation, and life. There should be no doubt what our task is today. If we truly cherish the freedoms we have, we must instill these sacred principles in the hearts and minds of our youth. We have the obligation to rekindle the flame that existed two hundred years ago among those who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. The opportunity for patriots to do so again is clearly upon us.

(Source: This Nation Shall Endure, Ezra Taft Benson, published 1977)

No people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law. God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights and no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these. The function of government is to protect life, liberty and property and anything more or less than this is usurpation and oppression.

The Constitution of the United States was prepared and adopted by courageous men acting under inspiration from the Almighty. It is a solemn contract between the peoples of the states of this nation which all officers of government are under duty to obey. The eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to or individual liberty will perish. It is the responsibility of government to punish crime and provide for the administration of justice and to protect the right and control of property. But today these basic principles and concepts are being flaunted, disregarded and challenged, even by men in high places. Through the exercise of political expediency the government is condoning the breakdown of law and order. (Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, pages 4-5)370pp. 978-0-9843972-3-5

Purchase: An Enemy Hath Done This by Ezra Taft Benson

This video, featuring Joel Skousen, explains the origin of rights and what is and what isn’t a fundamental rights. By watching and understanding this video you will be able to understand what is and isn’t a fundamental right, pertaining to any issue, bill, legislation, law, etc. Understanding fundamental rights is the basis of understanding the Proper Role of Government.

YouTube video link.

Want to skip right to the “formula”? It’s at 4:10 in the video, however the rest of the video helps you understand the concept better with examples and more.

I’ll also spell it out for you right here: “Fundamental rights are those rights which everyone can simultaneously claim without forcing someone to serve their needs.” Now watch the video for further explanation.

1. The Unknown Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is the document nobody knows. Like the Bible, all Americans make reference to it, and some profess to revere it, but few read it. Fewer still understand the written words and appreciate the effect of its provisions upon their daily lives and interests.

How long has it been since you read the Constitution? Have you studied it with a view to understanding the effect it has on your daily acts? Did you know that it was the supreme law of the land, and that by it you are guaranteed the right to life, to liberty, and to property?

This is the first of a series of articles designed (1) to renew our knowledge of that document. (2) to assist us in gaining a healthy reverence for the document itself and for the rights and privileges which it guarantees, and (3) to prepare us to maintain those rights and privileges against all subversive influences however subtle.

From time to time an idea gets out into the political field to the effect that the Constitution of the United States is an anachronism, a mass of dry bones, an instrument of government adapted to a horse and buggy age.

Some of our politicians and would-be politicians are preaching that our form of government, is obsolete and that it should be replaced by a planned economy, and that the restraints of the Constitution are not practical in a modern industrial and complex civilization. They profess to admit that this form of government may have sufficed for thirteen sparsely settled colonies on the Atlantic coast but claim that it is entirely out of step with the progress of an enlightened industrial age.

In recent years recurring attempts have been made to override many of the time tested constitutional restraints with what seemed to be the will of the people for the moment. To accomplish this end. demagogues have affirmed that this basic law of the land is no longer so wholly essential as it has previously been in guaranteeing our rights and that humanitarianism and social betterment require the disregarding of some of its precepts.

To champion principles more divergent from fundamental political truth and verity would be difficult to do. To disregard the constitutional rights guaranteed in that document is to trample under foot the cumulative experience of over 900 years of the development of the common law. It is to suppose that the rights and freedoms for which Englishmen have been fighting and dying since the days of William the Conqueror have not been worth the sacrifice.

The Constitution is the very foundation and substance of the freedom of all men of this nation, and it is as needful, or more needful that its precepts be kept alive today than at any other time in the history of man’s struggle for freedom. Freedom is dearly bought, but easily sold.

The study of the Constitution is the study of the rights of free men, and of the development of the liberties of the people. The Constitution is a code of the people’s liberties; it came into existence by the sovereign will of the people, and is so ordered that it cannot go out of existence except by the will of the people, or at least as a result of their indifference and acquiescence.

These rights did not spring spontaneously into existence in 1787 when the Founding Fathers sat in convention in Philadelphia; they had been brought and paid for by the blood of one revolution in the colonies, and several in the mother country. If they are to be lost in our time, it will be because the descendants of the free no longer hear the cry of the blood spilled in freedom’s cause crying from the ground. But they need no be lost if the valor will gained them can be found to defend them. If our freedoms should be load the lesson of history is that to regain them would require again the blood and toil and struggle by which they were made secure by our fathers.

The political and civil salvation of the United States lies in maintaining those rights and privileges and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. A knowledge of that document is essential to a decent preparation to a decent preparation of the ability to preserve those freedoms.

“Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.” (Constitution of Utah).

2. The Convention Which Framed It

The convention which produced the Constitution of the United States of America did so without the prior approval or authorization of the people of the country, or of the state legislatures which had selected the delegates to the convention, or of the Continental Congress which had called the convention.

The 55 men who assembled in Philadelphia beginning on the 14th day of May in 1787 had been selected to “revise the Articles of Confederation.” It was immediately apparent to them that no lasting good would accrue from their labors unless they disregarded their instructions, scrapped any thought of amending or changing the existing weak confederate government, and launched boldly forth on an entirely new political theory.

This they did. In secret, star-chamber sessions, where no records were kept of the voting on any propositions, and with armed sentries at the doors they proceeded to lay aside the Articles of Confederation, and introduce the various plans calling for an entirely new constitutional government.

They frankly determined that “a record of the opinions of the members would be an obstacle to a change,” and determined to keep no such record. However, both William Jackson, the secretary of the convention, and James Madison, one of the delegates, kept accurate and extensive minutes of all the discussions and debates.

Their proceedings were not revealed to the public nor divulged to the press. Early in the convention they adopted a resolution forbidding the “licentious” publication of the proceedings. During the entire period of their sessions they were completely free from public clamor or the influence of pressure groups. There was no lobbying and no persuasion other than that of reason and debate.

It is probable that there has never been in the history of nations a convention which proceeded with more dignity than this one. No single delegate ever arose to filibuster. Offensive expressions were not employed. All the debates and discussions, though often heated and emphatic, were sincere and dignified.

The rules of the convention were strict. Every delegate was expected to give his undivided attention to the discussions. The reading of newspapers or books was forbidden when any delegate was speaking, and no person was permitted to pass in front of the chairman while another delegate was speaking. The delegates sat in a semicircle three rows deep and Washington as chairman sat on a platform raised about six inches from the floor.

Each delegate was allowed to speak on every subject arising for discussion. But no delegate was allowed to speak a second time on the same subject until every other delegate desiring to speak on that subject had spoken or had had the opportunity to speak on it.

Those who have visited the senate and the house of representatives in solemn assembly in our nation’s capital will recognize no similarity between this description and the usual proceedings in those august bodies.

The convention met pursuant to the call of the Continental Congress on the 14th of May in 1787, but on that day only 28 delegates had arrived and only nine of the states were represented. It was not until the 25th of May that sufficient delegates had arrived and presented their credentials to constitute a quorum which could proceed to do business. new Hampshire did not send her delegates until July, and Rhode Island was never represented.

Of the 55 delegates who reported fewer than 20 shouldered the burden of the labor, although the average attendance is said to have been 73 per cent. Thirteen of the delegates became disheartened and left the convention prior to the 17th of September when the document was finally finished and signed by 39 of those who had endured to the end. Only 42 had attended the sessions with any degree of regularity.

Between the 25th of May and the 17th of September the delegates struggled through the 79 arduous work days of seven hours each exclusive of caucuses and committee meetings. To an individual whose soul was not imbued with a desire to perpetuate and make sure upon the earth those principles of freedom for which the revolution had been fought. the debates and discussions would have seemed interminable. It has been calculated that Gouverneur Morris made 173 speeches, Wilson 168, Madison 161, Sherman 138, Mason 136, and Gerry 119. George Washington delivered only one.

The debates and discussions in which they engaged have seldom if ever been equalled or approached. The document which they produced bears lasting testimony to their wisdom and inspiration. It was worth then all the labor and sacrifice required to create it. It is worth now all the blood and gold that may be necessary to re-establish its worth and perpetuate for free men the freedoms it guarantees.

3. The Men Who Made It

Only 39 of the 62 persons elected to the Constitutional Convention approved and signed this greatest of all political documents.

Seven of those elected did not consider the assignment of sufficient importance to even bother to attend the convention, and of the 55 who reported at one time or another, only 42 exhibited the interest to remain to the end of the deliberations. Three of these refused to sign and the remaining 39 gained immortality by subscribing their names to this peerless document.

The men who actively participated in the work of framing the Constitution were the most eminent, the most trained, and the most competent group of statesmen that were ever assembled under one roof at one time in the know history of the world.

They were masters of the common law of England; they loved freedom as few men have, and their devotion had been tried in the furnace of eight long years of revolution. Against overwhelming odds they had been weighed in the balances and not found wanting. In the four years between the peace of 1783 and the Convention of 1787 they had struggled with the inefficiency and impotency of the Confederacy, had been subjected to a serious postwar inflation and had been shamed by the throttling and selfish restrictions imposed by the thirteen sovereign republics on nearly all interstate commerce.

Not only were they idealists in the cause of freedom and the rights of men, but they were practical politicians, and statesmen. Forty-one had served in the Continental Congress and 26 in state legislatures; 14 had served as state judges or attorneys, 13 in state constitutional conventions, and seven had been governors of states. They were the leaders in war and in peace. In the darkest days of the revolution they had been the firebrands who inspired the disheartened armies of the colonies. When the merciless heel of George III ground heaviest upon their rights and privileges as Englishmen, theirs had been the most compelling cries of objection.

The group contained 28 lawyers, and all members are believed to have been God-fearing men. Ellsworth, Rutledge and Wilson subsequently served on the Supreme Court. Washington and madison became presidents and Alexander Hamilton was secretary of the treasury in the nation’s first cabinet.

To select any one and say he was the greatest man in the assembly would be difficult. But as in all groups there were some who excelled in stature and leadership.

George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Army, and destined to be elected twice to the high office of president, was chairman of the convention. His steady impartiality and the respect which all men bore him, set him apart as the great balance wheel of the convention. When the debates and quarrels were hot and the compromises difficult to achieve, the hand of a less able and discreet chairman might have swung the convention to the alternative of dissolution.

James Madison is considered by many to have been the pillar of the convention, and Washington himself called him the Father of the constitution. Through 79 arduous 7-hour work days Madison faithfully recorded the proceedings and debates without ever missing a single speech. Then for hours upon end, after each day’s adjournment, he would rewrite his notes for the day. These notes were sold to the government by his widow in 1837 for the sum of $30,000. In addition to this self-imposed duty he led out in many of the debates and discussions both on the floor of the convention and in the caucuses of the Virginia delegates.

Benjamin Franklin then in the 82nd year of his illustrious life and enjoying national fame for his best seller, Poor Richard’s Almanac, was dean of the Convention. His was the role of peace maker, for which position his long experience in the capitals of Europe as a representative of the Colonial government had fully fitted him. It was he who arose on the 28th of June, when the convention had struck an impasse and was on the verge of dissolving, to urge the delegates to “employ the assistance of Heaven.”

James Wilson of Pennsylvania is considered by many to have been the most important man in the Convention next to Madison. To Gouverneur Morris of the same state goes much of the credit for the literary style of the final document. He, it is reputed, was the only man with sufficient daring to welcome Washington with a slap on the back.

John Adams who had served on the committee which drafted the Declaration of Independence, and who was destined to become president, was in England at the time. Thomas Jefferson also was abroad. John Hancock, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine were all men of national standing and renown but were not members of the convention.

There are those who believe, and the author is one, that the document signed in the convention on the 17th of September in 1787 did not emanate from the wisdom of the Founding Fathers alone, wise and experienced as they were. Rather the inspiration of the Almighty was with that little body, and they were led to prepare a Constitution which would preserve the rights and privileges of men on this earth so long as men were endowed with sufficient virtue to support those God-given freedoms.

4. The People Who Adopted It

There were more votes cast in Salt Lake County in the general election in November 1944 than were cast in favor of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America in all of the 13 sovereign states in 1787 and 1788.

The Constitution was adopted by conventions called in the 13 sates, and approximately 160,000 male persons participated int eh selection of delegates to these conventions. About 100,000 voted for delegates who would adopt and support the then revolutionary document, and 60,000 ballots were cast for delegates against the new political theory. There were about 105,000 votes cast in Salt Lake County for the two gubernatorial candidates in the last general election.

The right to vote was strictly curtailed. Property qualifications were in effect in all the colonies and it is estimated that less than one-fifth of the adult males were eligible to use the franchise. The white population was less than two and a half million.

The Continental Congress had called upon the state legislatures to send delegates to Philadelphia to “revise the Articles of Confederation.” The delegates had discarded their instructions and assumed the right to create an entirely new document based on a theory of government anew in the annals of history.

They were fully aware of the steps they were taking and the effect the document they had written would have upon many of the people of the colonies. Hence when they came to the point of selecting a method of having the document submitted for approval they saw the necessity for circumventing the state legislatures whose instructions they had violated.

The system of having the people in the several states choose delegates to special conventions which would be called for the purpose of ratifying or rejecting the new Constitution seemed the one most likely to succeed. This method was accordingly chosen and it was provided in the document itself that the ratification of the conventions in nine of the states would be sufficient to establish the Constitution between the states so ratifying.

The document was presented to the Continental Congress. The states were requested to call conventions to consider it. Among a small portion of the people vigorous debates ensued on each of the various provisions. However the document was never widely understood nor discussed. Only 400 copies were ordered printed in New Hampshire, and the assembly in Maryland directed the printing of only 2000 copies. It has been estimated that outside of the delegates to the legislatures and conventions not one per cent of the population of the colonies had ever so much as read the Constitution prior to its adoption. (Shades of modern America!)

The conventions were elected and called to meet at various times in the several states. Of the persons who could meet the property qualifications to vote, few actually exercised their privilege. maryland had 25,000 qualified voters; only 6000 voted. and two-thirds of these were from the populated portions of the state.

In most of the state conventions the final votes of approval were close. In Massachusetts the delegates voted 187 for to 168 against. In Virginia it was 89 for and 79 against. A change of 6 votes would have kept Virginia out of the new Union although her delegates had been some of the most active and eminent in the Constitutional Convention. The New Hampshire convention met in February of 1788, and as it was apparent that sentiment was against the new form of government, an adjournment was engineered until June. When the convention reconvened, there had been a change in personnel and the vote was 57 for ratification and 47 against.

The New York convention did not convene until June of 1788 and the initial sentiment was against ratification. News of the New Hampshire and Virginia ratifications arrived during the early sessions and the New York delegates seeing their state facing isolation out of the new Union finally ratified by a margin of three votes, a vote of 30 to 27. Before taking this vote, however, the New York Convention had unanimously passed a resolution calling for a second constitutional conventions to draft a second and more acceptable document.

Rhode Island sentiment was about 10 to one against ratification, and she and North Carolina did not come into the Union at this time. Rhode Island had not even bothered to be represented in the Constitutional Convention. It is said that 8 of the states which did ratify the Constitution, did so only because of an understanding the a Bill of Rights would be added by amendment.

But now, by the skin of their respective teeth, as it were, 11 states had ratified, and the new government was established. Early in 1789, 13 years after the Declaration of Independence, the newest and most basically sound nation on earth elected George Washington to be her first president.

5. The People Rule

The people order and the king obeys. The people speak and the crown gives ear. The people are the masters, the king their servant. This is the true order of civil government.

The government of the United States of America is the first one in civil history in which this true basic principle has been effectively established. The history of kingdoms has been one in which the kings were almighty and the citizens of the realm were their serfs. The development of the common law is the story of freemen wrenching from their kings the rights of self government which those kings had usurped and assumed by force of arms.

This story is generally considered to have its beginning with the Norman Conquest in 1066. William the conqueror was in very deed a conqueror. He took over England both the people and their lands and their wealth. All things were his and behind him stood a conquering army to enforce his will. He was the Sovereign.

He set up his own government and personally issued the laws administered them, and when disputes arose between his subjects, he assumed the power to judge them. All legislative, executive and judicial functions were centered in him.

Naturally he divided the lands and wealth of the kingdom among his captains and noblemen, and appointed various of them to act as his representatives in performing governmental acts. He appointed tax collectors and sheriffs, chancellors, and judges of lower courts, but to each appointee the authority to act was delegated from the King and they performed their functions in his name. sovereignty thus was centered in one man and its exercise was delegated by him to various agents who were responsible solely to him for their acts.

This type of absolute monarchy inevitably incurred the opposition of the people. And for generations and centuries they resisted absolutism and demanded rights and guarantees of freedom from their sovereigns. By 1215 the Barons were able to force King John to sign the Magna Charta, which is the first written constitutional document developed in the common law.

Later came the Petition of Rights and the English Bill of Rights, and various enactments of parliament. Each placed restrictions on the exercise of the sovereign power by the King. Trial by jury was guaranteed. The House of Commons gained the right to initiate all revenue bills and to specify the uses for which appropriated money might be used, and so forth.

By continual struggle and at least two revolutions, and the execution of some of their kings the people finally established reasonably secure guarantees against encroachment upon their basic liberties. But still sovereign power rested with the king and the rights of English freemen were protected only by restrictions upon the exercise of that power. This was the state of affairs in the 1770s when George III was attempting to impose his sovereign will upon the American colonies.

The American Revolution severed the political ties of the colonies with the mother country. No longer were they subject to the sovereign will of the English throne. The pendulum swung completely over and the colonists determined and announced that sovereignty now rested with the people as a whole. And the people were to be the protectors of their own rights.

The Declaration of Independence, after affirming the existence of inalienable rights, states, “That to secure these rights. governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The people are sovereign. They say what form of government they will have and what powers it may exercise. The functions of government are to be delegated by them to their representatives and only such of the powers of government as are delegated can be exercised. Sovereignty is to flow from the people to their governments and no longer from the government to the people.

The first words of the Constitution affirm this new theory. “We the people” ordained and established the Constitution. Such powers as may be exercised under the Constitution are the direct result of the delegation of the right to so act by the people.

The philosophy of limited sovereignty for the government is evident throughout the whole document. But as if to make more sure that which was already certain, the colonists included in two of the ten articles of their Bill of Rights the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution. By them they declare as plainly as language allows the supremacy of the people and the limited authority of the people’s government.

These state: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And, “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.”

Thus the people order and the government obeys.

6. Democracy Attempts Suicide

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

This warning and prophecy was uttered by one of the early patriots in the heat of the debates over the acceptance of the new and revolutionary Constitution. He could view all the history of the past, and it was apparent that no government had long endured which attempted to guarantee and preserve the rights of free men for which the Revolution had been fought.

But this very fact was the basis for the decision of the Founding fathers to limit democratic government by establishing a written Constitution. They did not establish a pure democracy, although the many principles and benefits of democracy were included. The Constitution itself says that we have a “republican form of government.” It is a representative and constitutional democracy.

In a democracy the supreme law of the land would be the will of the majority of the people for the time being. Any time that 50 percent of the people plus one determined upon a course of action, then that would be binding, and would be the expression of the sovereign will of the government.

In a democracy wherein, for the sake of efficiency and convenience, government is administered through elected representatives, then the sovereign and unalterable will of the people would be expressed by 50 per cent of the representatives plus one. This form of government is purely and simply one of majority rule.

Under such a system the passions of men would sway the exercise of sovereign functions from one pole to another. The will of the people today might not be the will of the people tomorrow. Any time the majority of the people would elect to deprive the minority of their rights, no matter how sacred, then those rights would melt away as the hoar frost. The will of the majority would be supreme.

The Constitution is a code of personal liberties of free men. “We the people” who adopted it and made it the supreme law of the land refused to do so until they had received an unalterable assurance that a Bill of Rights setting forth by name many of their inalienable rights would be made a part of it.

The people in whom all sovereign power rests ordained and established the Constitution and by it delegated certain powers to a national government. At the same time they reserved to themselves the freedoms and privileges they had fought for, and they denied their government the power to interfere in the exercise of these rights and freedoms. Hence we have freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, the right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances, the right to own property and to be secure in that possession, and many others.

A majority plus one cannot legally deprive any single individual of any of those rights. Nor can 60 percent of the people, nor 80 nor 90, nor all of the other people in the nation combined. The only means of infringing these rights would be to amend the supreme law of the land which is the Constitution, and delegate to the national government the power to control in an additional field.

The nature of our government is such that minorities are protected in their rights. The sovereign citizen in sparsely populated Nevada cannot have his rights trampled on by the mere weight of democratic numbers by the great state of New York.

The great problem is that of keeping alive in the breasts of free men the identity and value of the rights which are preserved to them through the Constitution. It is in time of war or other real or pretended emergencies that these rights are most easily lost. Then above all other times the people must be the guardians of the cause of liberty.

“We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established, whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged.” These are the words of Charles Evans Hughes. The time is June of 1920. The first world war has but shortly passed.

If this warning was true a quarter of a century ago, how much more timely it ought to be to us today. The other great war has arrived, and God helping we will be victorious. But will we have in full force and bloom the inalienable rights of which we boast?

The suicide of the republican form of government will be complete if these rights are allowed to lapse. The Constitution is the bulwark upholding them. If they are preserved to us and our posterity it will be because that document is held inviolate. It will be because the sovereign American citizen refuses to permit the circumvention of the supreme law of the land.

7. These Inalienable Rights Belong To All Mankind

Do we really have inalienable rights? If so, what are they? And from whence do they come?

The Declaration of Independence announced for all time for American free men the doctrine of inalienable rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; 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 an new government.”

An inalienable right is one that cannot be given away. It comes to man as a free gift from the Creator. It is an inherent and essential part of living on the earth. Man cannot delegate it to his government nor to any other man. If some of these inalienable rights are taken away from man, then he no longer enjoys free agency, and if all of his inalienable rights are taken from him then life itself must cease, for life is one of these rights.

What is the right to life? Obviously it is to live as a human being upon the earth. But it is more than this. It is the right to live and not have the government, the king, or any person put you to death. It is the right to be free from the assassins bullet and the tyrant’s sword. “Off with his head,” has been a password between despots and their executioners. The Constitution helps to preserve the right to life by guaranteeing every man an impartial trial by a jury of his peers, all twelve of whom must stand unanimous before life can be taken.

The right to liberty goes hand in hand with the right to life. This is the privilege to be free and to be unrestrained in all activity except that which interferes with the equally sacred rights of others. The Ceasars banished their political foes. The right to liberty is the right to be free from banishment. It is the right to be free from arrest except for crime and then, in most cases, only upon a warrant. It is the right to a writ of habeas corpus, and to bail except in capital cases where the proof is evident and the presumption sure. Liberty is a most sacred heritage of free men; most of our wars have been fought to preserve it.

No person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” There is included in this the right to property. It is pure unalloyed capitalism and is wholly repugnant to every principle of communism and of socialism, or fascism and of marxism. It is so sacred to Americans that twice they have amended their Constitution to preserve it unto themselves. The first occasion was in the 5th amendment just quoted, and the second in the 14th amendment which decrees, “No state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” We cannot do away with the capitalistic system of free enterprise without first doing away with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States.

The right to law is inherent in our form of government. It is guaranteed in every section and clause of the Constitution. All men are created equal before the law. There is no favoritism. It is the right to equality. both political and economic. It is the right to justice, to due process, to equal protection of the laws. It is the privilege of every man to have his day in court, and to have his rights protected in his own community no matter who the offender may be, whether he is the president, a general, a magistrate, or any government official. no man is above the law, but all men have the right to law.

No inalienable right is more sacred than the right to freedom of conscience and worship. no privilege was more dear to the founders of this nation than the right to be free in the exercise of one’s own religion. Much of the basis for the colonization of America was built upon this cornerstone. No man can be compelled to adopt any religion, or to pay taxes for the support of any church, or be deprived of the opportunity to hold office because of his religious sentiments. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

These rights–to life, to liberty, to property, to law, and to religion–are some of the more sacred inalienable ones. They are the free gifts of God, and rightly belong to all mankind, but all men are not now free to enjoy them. The government of the United States is designed to preserve them for all its municipals. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people to be the guardian of their inalienable rights.

8. Americans Have Their Rights

“I know my rights! You can’t do this to me! I’m an American citizen!”

This is a healthy and typical reaction of Mr. Average Citizen to the petty restraints of bureaucrats, or to whatever restraints government officials may attempt to impose upon him.

Americans have more rights, freedoms, and privileges than any other people on earth. And they have so organized their government that these freedoms can more easily be preserved than they can among any other people. The spirit that rebels against governmental meddling in the affairs of the people of this nation is one that should be fostered. If the day comes that Mr. Average Citizen meekly submits to government intervention and control of his economic and social affairs then he will be in line to have his rights and freedoms curtailed. We need to develop the desire to keep our freedoms and rights alive. To do this we should know what these rights are. both our inalienable or natural rights and our political rights.

Yes, Mr. Average Citizen, what are your rights? Well, there are the great inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, to law, and to freedom of conscience. These are the natural rights of all mankind and come as the free gift of the Creator. But there are many more that have been developed and established by Englishmen throughout the centuries as part of the common law.

The power to prosecute for offenses or supposed offenses can be an instrument of severe persecution in the hands of a despotic government. The fear of this is less in America than in any other nation. We have the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This includes a trial by a jury which shall be the sole determiners of the facts of the case.

Americans have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. They may be arrested only upon warrants supported by a complainant’s oath, except for certain crimes committed in the presence of the arresting authority. They are entitled to know the nature of the accusation against them. They cannot be tried twice for the same offense, nor can they be forced to testify against themselves. Trials must be speedy and impartial and held in the district where the offense was committed. Witnesses must confront the accused and he must have compulsory process for obtaining his witnesses.

Excessive bails are prohibited. Cruel and unusual punishments cannot be inflicted. Americans have the right not to be punished by maiming or disfiguring, nor can they be banished for crime. or for any cause. Laws cannot be passed making an act already done a crime or increasing the penalty for a crime after its commission. The Congress can pass no bill of attainder.

There is the right to take civil causes into court and have them determined impartially. Jury trials are preserved in most civil cases. The courts are open to every man, and none can be denied. Contracts cannot be impaired by subsequent laws, nor can the right to freedom of contract be curtailed.

All men have the right to political freedom, to vote as they choose, to be represented in the legislative body which taxes them, to enjoy local self-government and to be free from involuntary servitude or slavery.

Freedom of speech and of the press are axiomatic. The rights to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for redress of grievances cannot be infringed. The people cannot be denied the right to keep and to bear arms, nor to be independent in their forms of worship.

Economic rights are equally sacred. There is the right to work and to trade, or to refuse to work. There is the right to earn money and make a profit, to choose any business that one elects, and to put one’s own price on his services or goods. There is the common law right to be free from combinations in restraint of trade, or combinations which restrict the output of a man’s labor.

These things, and many others, are not just laws that have been enacted. They are rights. They have grown up as a part of the common law. Their development has taken centuries and they have been recognized by the courts, have been enacted into laws, and have been recorded in constitutional documents. Over 700 years ago the Magna Charta began listing them and announced that they would be preserved inviolate.

All down through the centuries of English and American history instances have arisen in which these and kindred rights have been curtailed and infringed and taken from the people. But each time the determined will to be free has risen again and the people have insisted that their rights be preserved.

The struggle has by no means ceased. Rights are being infringed today even as they were in the days of George III. The people then refused to be restricted and their rights were maintained. The people today must refuse to give up their rights, even as their forebears refused.

In times of war certain rights are suspended or restricted. The right to a writ of habeas corpus may be lawfully denied in times of war or rebellion, but when peace comes again the right is still there. Americans must preserve their rights after this war. If they know what they are and the value they have, they will preserve them.

9. You Have The Right To Work

“Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work.” this is part of one of the Ten Commandments. It is a law that has not been repealed.

When the first man and the first woman were sent forth out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from whence they were taken, the same Law giver had decreed that, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.”

Man is thus commanded to work, and therefore he has the right to work. The duty cannot be imposed unless the means of accomplishment is also given. This then is one of the inalienable rights Declaration of Independence says are the endowment of all men from “their Creator.”

All men have both the duty to work and the right to work. Neither of these can lawfully be taken away or curtailed at least not without a cause. The duty is a personal matter, and each individual must exercise his own free agency in determining what he will do about it. The right to work is also a personal matter, but because of the nature of the complex society in which we live, it is also a matter which must be protected and preserved by the arm of the people’s government.

The common law right to work like the other common law rights has been developed down through the centuries. Over 700 years ago the Magna Charta, that first great English constitutional document, affirmed the right to labor and to trade. Merchants were guaranteed the privilege to go and to come and to sell freely without let or hindrance.

From this beginning Englishmen demanded more and larger guarantees of this right. Free men may now elect to work in any trade or field they choose. They have the right to earn money and to make a profit, to demand such wages as they can get and to refuse to work for them if they are not satisfactory. This is part of the right of freedom of contract.

The right to work includes the right to be free from coercion by any man or combination of men. The laborer may not be restrained in his trade, or have his output restricted, his price fixed, or be injured by unfair methods of competition.

The right of workers to organize is established and valuable, but that right ought not to contain the power to deny other men their inalienable right to work. Trade guilds prospered in France prior to the French Revolution. They started out as unions or combinations of workmen, but by the time of the revolution they had grown rich and aristocratic, and had long since ceased to represent the employee. They were so powerful that a man could not get work without the consent of the guild. The exercise of this power enabled them to be gradually converted into combinations of employers. The power to grant consent to work is the power to employ. They dominated the economic structure of France, gained the hatred and contempt of the people, and of course, were destroyed with the revolution. their downfall was welcomed with bonfires and the ringing of bells throughout France.

In England workers never permitted themselves to become subject to the bondage of the guilds. They insisted upon their right to work, and it cannot be stated too plainly that this is a right. It was considered so fundamental a right by the people of Utah that they endeavored to preserve it by making it a part of the Constitution of the state. “Every citizen of this state shall be free to obtain employment wherever possible, and any person or corporation maliciously interfering or hindering in any way any citizen from obtaining or enjoying employment already obtained from any corporation or person is guilty of a misdemeanor.” This is the law of the land in Utah and neither the legislature or any individual can properly deny this right.

There is much being said about Four Freedoms one of which is freedom from want. This is not a common law right and has not been developed and incorporated into our form of government. Freedom from want carries with it a guarantee of security. If the government undertakes to guarantee this as a right it will be supplying loaves and fishes to the people, lest they lacking these find themselves in want.

Security is a desirable end, but it is insignificant in comparison to the right of opportunity. Instead of attempting to provide a cow and an acre to every man to insure him freedom from want, the people should insist that their government preserve free enterprise. This will give the opportunity to acquire those things which will satisfy man’s wants. The right to work is inherent in free enterprise. It is part of the right of opportunity. When the right to work is denied, then free enterprise and opportunity are rejected, and our traditional way of life with its political and economic freedoms is in jeopardy.

10. Shall It Be Jehovah Or Baal

“All men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God. And let the saints of the Most High walk in this colony without molestation in the name of Jehovah, their God for ever and ever.”

No, this is not a quotation from the Bible. it is part of a code dealing with freedom of worship. It was enacted by the first colonial legislature ever to meet in the colony of Rhode Island. The time was 1647.

This was probably the first substantial guarantee of real freedom of worship that had been made in the Christian era. Even this guarantee was far from established in fact, and was maintained in theory only for a short time. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789 there were only two of the 13 colonies that had provisions in their state constitutions guaranteeing religious freedom. They were New York and Virginia, and their state constitutions had been adopted as late as 1777 and 1785. All of the other colonies had religious tests for their officials, or in some form made religious discriminations.

The Catholic Church dominated the Christian religion until the era of the reformation. The Church of England was the most powerful daughter church. It became the official church of the realm, was supported by the taxes of the people, and ruled by the Parliament and the King. This was the state of affairs at the time of the Revolutionary War.

One of the moving factors involved in the settlement of the various American colonies was to gain religious freedom, and escape from the restrictions on conscience which were everywhere in effect in the old world. The result was that many forms of worship were set up on this land. All were comparatively strong in their chosen locality, and there was no single church that could dominate all the others.

This condition in which all churches were equally strong and equally weak made it a political impossibility for any one denomination to foster and establish a state church. Thus it came about, more out of political necessity than out of any desire on the part of the religionists of the day, that equal freedom of worship was guaranteed to all.

The body of the Constitution contains the provision that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This, of course, was a thrust of defiance at the English test act, which prescribed a religious test as a condition precedent to holding a civil position. The first sentence of the first amendment provides, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

This complete development of the guarantee of freedom of conscience is peculiar to the United States alone. The growth of religious freedom has its roots in the common law, but our constitutional guarantees surpass anything that then existed in the world, or that even now exist in any other nation. Englishmen are still paying taxes to the support of the church of the state.

The denial of religious freedom in other nations is a crime for which their rulers will be held accountable before the judgement bar. Germany and Russia have formally and as an official act of state denied Christ and forbidden or limited His worship. No mention may be made in Germany of “Zion” or other things closely associated with the antiquities of the Jews. jewish persecution in all ages and by many nations has been always and fundamentally a matter of religious persecution. Denial of the right of conscience in many nations today ranks in severity with the most abominable restrictions ever placed upon mankind by any despot in any age.

The skirts of the United States are not clean. Before the adoption of the Constitution there were many severe plagues of persecution in the colonies. Since the establishment of that document there have been many additional such scourges. The Missouri persecutions of the Latter-day Saints in the 1830s were as reprehensible and iniquitous as any in the history of the world. In complete disregard of the constitutional provision prohibiting religious tests as a qualification for holding public office, the Congress imposed such a law upon the territory of Utah in the last half of the nineteenth century.

Religious liberty is not yet secure in actual practice even in the United States. We have yet to arrive at the day spoken of by the legislature of colonial Rhode Island in 1647 when all men may walk as their consciences persuade them, and that without molestation.

11. “Privilege Of Speech Is Granted”

Her Royal Highness Elizabeth, the Queen, to the greatest deliberative body in all the world, the Senate of the United States: “Greetings. Sirs: Privilege of speech is granted you in your deliberations. But I would have you know of what that privilege consists. It is not to speak every word that you choose, or to utter any thought that comes into your brain. Your privilege is to say yes or no. I have spoken.” Signed Elizabeth, Regina.

Queen Elizabeth exercised just exactly that authority over the House of Commons in merry England. And when one Peter Wentworth arose in that august body to question her authority to restrict the speech of free men and to control the Parliament, she clapped him into the Tower of London.

Elizabeth herself had attacked the right of freedom of speech in the House of Commons. Wentworth, with the courage of Elijah before Ahab, and perhaps some of the inspiration, arose to say: “Sweet is the name of liberty; but let us take care lest, contending ourselves with the sweetness of the name, we lose and forego the thing. Two things do great hurt here, one a rumor which runneth about the House: ‘Take heed what you do. The Queen’s Majesty liketh not such a matter. Whosoever preferreth it she will be offended with him!’ the other message sometimes brought into the House, either of commanding or inhibiting. I would to God, Mr. Speaker, that these two were buried in hell. The king hath no peer in the kingdom, but he ought to be under the law, because the law maketh him king.”

But like Ahab, the haughty Elizabeth was not deterred by righteousness of the cause. Said she: “Privilege of speech is granted, but you must know what privilege ye have; not to speak every word what he listeth, or what cometh into his brain to utter; your privilege is ay or no.”

Freedom of speech and of the press are sacred rights which thanks to peter Wentworth and other valiant lovers of liberty have been substantially established in our day in this land. In many other nations it is not so.

To criticize a sovereign who rules as well as reigns is a costly business in any nation and in any age. In Germany, japan, Russia, Spain, Argentina, and a multitude of other nations men do not speak their thoughts freely at any time, nor does the press approach any degree of freedom. To some of us in the United States these rights are taken completely as a matter of fact, and we give them no more concern than we do the air we breathe. There is always a danger that one’s rights will be restricted when they are accepted indifferently and without appreciation.

The invention of printing, a great good, brought with it the fact of censorship, a great evil. This power was first assumed by the clergy, but after the Reformation, in the case of England, the power devolved upon the crown. Censorship was so rigid in England that at one time nearly all printing was prohibited until it had first been “seen, perused and allowed” by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London.

From that early day in England to this day in the United States the curse of censorship has not been entirely lifted either in war or in peace. Few question the necessity to restrict military information in time of war. The right of self-preservation dictates that we not tell our enemies where and what our defenses are. But most people think, and that rightly, that the power of censorship which carries over into civilian agencies is used not to preserve information that would be of aid and comfort to the enemy, but to cover up bungling and inefficiency in governmental administration.

Most federal agencies are authorized to classify information as restricted, confidential or secret. Information so classified may not be revealed to the public or press without incurring severe penalties. It is reputed to be a common practice among civilian agencies of the government to classify in this manner information that the people have a right to know. This, of course, is to avoid bringing discredit upon the agency.

The press is a great guardian of the liberties of the people. The acts of kings and rulers are swayed by the moment that a free press makes about those acts. It was an inquiring reporter who found that there was actually no such document as the Atlantic Charter. A president and a prime minister have been trying to explain what agreement was actually reached ever since. None are too high or too mighty to be above the power of a free press.

A great English statesman declared that the emancipation of the press had “done more for liberty and for civilization than the Great Charter and or the Bill of Rights.”

Elizabeth said, “Privilege of speech is granted.” Elizabeth was wrong. Freedom of speech and of the press are not granted. They belong to the people. They are not privileges only; they are rights. The people’s government cannot regulate them. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This is the guarantee of the first Article of the Bill of Rights.

12. The People Create A Government of Laws

The Parliament can do no wrong. But the Congress can, and does.

Anything that is done according to the will of the persons holding the sovereign power in a nation, constitutionally speaking, is right. The sovereign power in England rests with the Parliament. It does not rest with the Congress in the United States, but with the people. The acts of Parliament create the English Constitution. In the United States the people ordained and established the Constitution.

There is no function of government in England that cannot be performed by Parliament. It enacts laws, administers them, interprets them, and enforces them. It is judge, jury and prosecutor all wrapped in one and there is no check on the powers it may exercise.

Parliament passes a law which is the legislative function. Then it appoints from its membership ministers to administer and execute the very law which it has passed. This is the executive function. And finally it acts as a judge to interpret the law, or to decide upon the guilt or innocence of those charged by its ministers with violating the law. This is the judicial function. The House of Lords is the Supreme Court of the realm.

Government in England is designed to protect the people form the king. When the American colonies threw off the yoke of the English king, there was no longer a need to be protected from him. They were now a free and independent nation. But the fear of government was uppermost in the colonial mind, and so when the sovereign people determined to delegate the functions of government to the United States they imposed severe restrictions on the exercise of those powers even by their elected and appointed servants.

The American Constitution divided all the functions of government among three separate and independent departments. The Congress is authorized to make the laws, the executive to administer them, and the courts to interpret them. None of these departments can poach on the territory of the other. Each exercises only that portion of the sovereign power that has been delegated to it.

But that is not all. Not only are they independent in their spheres, but they also act as a check on the other departments in the performance of the functions assigned to such other departments. The president can veto legislation; two thirds of the Congress can override the veto. The Congress can pass laws and the president approve them, but a majority of the Supreme Court may determine that they are outside the authorized constitutional scope and therefore void. The justices of the court are appointed by the president with the consent of the senate, and funds for the support of both executive and judicial branches must be appropriated by the Congress.

Never under any circumstances can the same body of men both make the laws and administer them, or administer them and judge those who break them. None of the departments can delegate their functions to either of the other.

This system of checks and balances is an American development. It was expressed in the Constitution of Massachusetts, which was adopted in 1780 in these words: “In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”

Daniel Webster said that this clause, “to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” was the greatest ever written in any constitutional document.

The virtue of the English government is in that it protects the people from the oppression of a tyrannical king. Its defect is that it does nothing more. An unrestrained Parliamentary government is a horror as great as an unrestrained executive. A despotic Congress might discard the Constitution and usurp power unto itself, and become like the English Parliament, if there were no checks and balances.

The genius of our government is that it protects the rights of the people from infringement by any branch of the government. This is government by laws and not by men.

13. America Chooses A Successor To George III

Thomas E. Dewey would be the vice-president instead of Harry S. Truman if the Constitution had remained unto this day as it was originally written by the framers and accepted by the people. Hoover, Landon, and Willkie would each have presided over the Senate as holders of the second highest office in the power of the American people to bestow, if we had not departed form the procedure given in the original Constitution.

The people of the United States have never elected a president or a vice-president. They have provided through their Constitution that this power will be exercised by an Electoral College. The delegates to this unique organization are chosen by the qualified voters of the several states.

The original Constitution provided that the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes in the Electoral College should be the President, provided that this number was a majority. Then that candidate for president who received the next highest number of votes would automatically become the vice-president.

This procedure was established in the days when there were no political parties as we know them today. Differences existed among the colonies, but they were geographic and economic differences. Washington was elected the first president and John Adams the first vice-president on a strictly non-partisan basis.

With the development of political parties it became apparent that this Electoral College system if left without change would thwart the will of the voters in every presidential election. Under the two party system it would mean that every defeated presidential candidate would be come vice-president.

The 12th Amendment was devised to preserve the form of the Electoral College, but to change the procedure so that the president and vice-president would represent the same political party, A man is now a candidate for either the office of president or of vice-president and not for both at once and that on the same ballot. This is the Amendment which chose March 4th as the inaugural date. The only change since then has been the “lame-duck” or 20th Amendment which provides that the terms of the president and vice-president shall end and commence at noon on the 20th day of January following their elections.

The selection of a term of office and a manner of election of a president was one of the difficult decisions which faced the Constitutional convention. Hamilton preferred a monarchy patterned on that of mother England, and under his plan there would have been no problem of election, nor would there have been created the republican form of government which we now enjoy.

There is considerable debate recorded on the merits and demerits of an elected life tenure. The term of office was interwoven with the matter of eligibility for reelection. Time after time the delegates agreed upon one term or another only to discard their decisions and vote for some other term at a subsequent ballot. A 20-year term was suggested by King, a 15 by Gerry, and an 11 by Martin. Mason sponsored a 7-year term and on two occasions the convention voted for that term. Later a 6 year term was accepted and finally the present 4 year term. There have been well over 100 resolutions introduced in Congress calling for an amendment to the Constitution which would change the presidential term.

It took 11 different polls of the delegates to finally determine upon the method of choosing the president. At one time the proposition of popular election passed with a vote of 9 states to one, the Pennsylvania delegation being the only one voting in the negative.

In the absence of political parties and under the conditions existing in the 13 original states the Electoral College undoubtedly was an ingenious success. Today it is completely outmoded. Even the election of senators who were designed to represent the states and not the people, has been changed by amendment to a direct election by the people, rather than by state legislatures.

Twice in the history of presidential elections candidates have been elected after receiving only a minority of the popular vote. Tilden in 1876 and Cleveland in 1888 both received more popular votes than Hayes and harrison, but the latter two were elected. In 1912 Wilson received 42 percent of the popular vote and 82 percent of the electoral vote. It has been calculated that 300,000 strategically placed votes for Dewey would have been worth more than the 3,000,000 vote lead of Roosevelt.

There is no method for changing the Electoral College setup except by an amendment to the Constitution. This ought to be done.

14. ‘When The Wicked Rule The People Mourn’

Said Benjamin Franklin to George Washington, “By what title shall the president be called?” Said George Washington to Benjamin Franklin, “His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of Their Liberties.”

Washington was not alone in his choice of such a title. A committee appointed by the first senate recommended a similar title. John Adams the first vice-president contended that if Washington were called merely “the president of the United States,” that the common people of other nations would “despise him to all eternity.” But the House of Representatives insisted upon that title and finally prevailed.

The office of president of the United States is the most powerful held by any single individual in the wold. Despite all the restrictions placed upon him his influence far surpasses that of any dictator. He is Commander-in-Chief of the greatest army and navy now in existence, and he is practically unrestrained in the use he makes of them both in war and in peace.

The power to declare war rests with the Congress, but the president is in a position to provoke a war, and to have it going full blast before the Congress ever learns the facts.

The president negotiates treaties with foreign nations, although two thirds of the senators must approve them before they bind the nation. With the concurrence of the Senate, he appoints ambassadors, ministers, consuls and judges of the Supreme Court. A host of other administrative officials are appointed without such consent. He receives ambassadors form other countries, and has power to grant reprieves and pardons for any crime except that of impeachment. He can veto any law, No bill becomes a law until he has approved it and signed it. It takes two-thirds of the Congress to annul his veto.

Grave duties are imposed upon him. He takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution says that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” He is required to give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and to recommend to their consideration such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

The president cannot enact legislation nor is he the final authority for interpreting the laws that have been enacted. He can be impeached, and an independent Congress can refuse his recommendations and neglect to appropriate funds for his projects. He is subject to the law the same as any man, for it is by the law that he becomes president. He must be a natural born citizen, have attained the age of 35, and have been 14 years a resident of the United States.

The powers delegated to the president in the Constitution are so great that many of the colonist feared to adopt it. It was largely because of this sentiment that George Washington declined to consider a third term as executive. but the power of the presidency in Washington’s day was meager in comparison to the influence wielded by that office today. The growth of the nation has added to the stature of the office. The increase in functions preformed by the federal government have multiplied its responsibilities.

The charge of “dictator” was hurled at both Lincoln and Wilson, and surely they were to of our strongest presidents. But their powers pale into oblivion in comparison to those now resident in the hands of the chief executive. The last 25 years has seen the increase of boards, bureaus, and commissions. Regulations in the fields of interstate commerce, social security, wages and hours, and child labor, have heightened the influence of the federal government beyond anything dreamed of even at the beginning of this century. It is said that there are now over 3,000,000 civilian employees of the national government.

The Constitutional powers of the president are almost too great to be entrusted to one man. Even by staying strictly within them, and it is said that none of our dynamic presidents actually have, a power and influence is built up that makes it easy for the president to perpetuate himself in office.

The modern day increase in the powers of the presidency should call forth the placing of additional restrictions on that office. An evil disposed president could virtually destroy the nation and stamp out the rights of the people.

I suggest a constitutional amendment limiting the president to one term of 4, 5, or 6 years. The same amendment should abolish the Electoral College and provide for his direct election. The Electoral College was devised in a day when there were no political parties, and has since become grossly inequitable. The president has almost become what Washington suggested, that is, “His High Mightiness.” The limitation of his tenure to one term is the only feasible way to place the executive department back in its true perspective with the legislative and judicial departments.

15. Thus Saith The Supreme Court: It Shall Not Stand

Congress enacts legislation. The president approves it. The people apparently want it. The Supreme court determines that it is unconstitutional and void. Thus the will of the people is defeated–or is it.

A great deal of important emergency legislation has been voided by the Supreme court, not infrequently by a vote of 5 to 4. Much of this has involved social and economic reform and experimentation. The majorities in congress favoring the controversial measures have been imposing. the hue and cry has gone forth that 5 of 9 old men are subverting the will of the people, hindering economic recovery and social betterment, and exercising more influence than the whole legislative and executive branches of the government. But what are the fundamental principles involved?

The government of the United States is one in which the sovereign power rests with the people. It does not rest with the government or with any department of it. The people are the rulers.

The federal Constitution is the document by which the sovereign people delegate to the national government the right and power to perform certain functions for and on behalf of the people. The national government is thus one of limited powers. It can act only in those matters on which prior authorization has been received from the people by means of a written constitution.

Not only did the people exercise extreme care in choosing the limited powers they delegated to the government, but they went further and expressly reserved to themselves all other powers, and plainly said to their government, “Thou shalt not exercise these.” This then is the nature of government under a written constitution.

In England the Parliament holds the sovereignty and is supreme. There is no written constitution by which the people limit parliamentary powers. It has been said that the Parliament can do anything but turn a man into a woman and a woman into a men. Our Congress is not so; it is limited in the powers it can exercise, and the limitation is imposed by the people by means of the Constitution. Thus anything that parliament does is right, constitutionally speaking, but anything that the Congress does is right constitutionally speaking, only if it falls within its delegation of authority to act.

It is the function of all courts to adjudicate the rights of individuals when those rights are brought before them in proper cases. If, in the course of determining what those rights are, it is found that there are two different legislative enactments involved, and these are in conflict with each other, it then becomes the duty of the court to determine which law shall apply and which shall be discarded.

For instance, if one law was enacted on one day and another on a subsequent day, and these two laws contradict each other, then the courts have generally determined that the law last passed will be the one to govern. This is simply a matter of choosing what law will govern in a particular case, and the fact that one of them is thus incidentally determined to be void is immaterial. It was the legislature that declared it void by passing a subsequent law in conflict with it. The courts are by such acts upholding the laws and honoring them. They are preserving the supreme law in preference to a lesser law.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was enacted by the people themselves and can only be changed or amended by them. It is the permanent expressed will of the people of the United States. Any acts of a legislature or of a Congress express merely the opinion of a majority of the representatives of the people at a given time. These representatives are acting with limited and delegated powers. The people acted with all sovereign powers when they ordained and established the Constitution.

Congress may enact a law which is in conflict with the permanent will of the people, with the supreme law of the land as expressed in the Constitution. If this occurs and a proper case comes before the court, a choice must be made between the higher law and the lesser. The effect of this choice is to declare the act of Congress void, or, as is commonly said, unconstitutional.

This is the natural function of courts. If this country is to have a written Constitution, then the courts cannot be denied this power. Otherwise there would be nothing to uphold the supreme law of the land as against any lesser law, and the Congress would become supreme and have all sovereignty.

Our form of government can only be preserved if this power of the courts is upheld. courts are truly the guardians of the Constitution.

16. The Congress Shall Have Power

“Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States that the Mohammedan religion shall be the only lawful one in this nation. All persons whomsoever shall pray 3 times a day kneeling toward Mecca, and one billion dollars is hereby appropriated for the support of this religion and the enforcement of this law.”

Improbable and facetious, you say; and you are right. But if there were no constitutional prohibition, the Congress could legally enact such a law. The Constitution which is the supreme law of the land and therefore a higher law than the statutes passed by Congress provides that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The acts of parliament are the supreme law of the land in England. Parliament could constitutionally enact and enforce such a statute, and in fact has enacted laws creating the Church of England, and providing for its support from the taxes of the people. The sovereign power in England resides in parliament, and all powers whether legislative, executive, or judicial may legally be exercised by that body. In fact the highest court in England is the House of Lords, and the kings’s powers are nominal and used only by consent of parliament.

In the United States the sovereignty has been retained by the people, and they have delegated to the Congress that portion which it may legally exercise. Freedom of worship remains with the people.

But suppose that the Congress in clear disregard of the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution, did in fact enact such a law. Then who is to judge between the law of the Congress and the Constitution of the land? And which shall apply?

Parliament has on occasions passed laws extending its own life and putting off general elections. The present parliament has been in power for something like 10 years without an election. The Constitution provides that senators shall be elected for terms of 6 years and representatives for terms of 2 years. Suppose that Congress considered that because of war or other serious emergency a national election was not in the best interests of the nation and therefore enacted legislation extending its sessions to 10 years of 20, or 50 or for the life of its members. Then what? Or suppose that the Congress enacted legislation extending the length of the presidential term longer than 4 years. Who is to look out for the sovereign rights of the people and prevent their unauthorized usurpation?

It is the function of courts to determine what the law is and, when conflicts arise, to uphold that which is the supreme law in preference to any lesser law. This our courts do. It is their natural function, and so all of them, and the Supreme Court in particular, become guardians of the Constitution, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

If our religious rights were infringed or our representatives extended their terms of office and such acts were then declared void by the courts, we would acclaim these judicial bodies as the saviors of our liberties.

But when the Congress steps outside of its delegation of authority and attempts social and economic reforms and experiments and these same courts determine that such laws conflict with the Constitution then the courts are condemned and maligned and people say that they are a hindrance to economic progress and industrial development. Or they say that the Constitution is outmoded and should be discarded. The multitudes seek the loaves and the fishes at the expense of their rights as free men.

Perhaps there are problems of an industrial life which should be regulated by congress and which Congress is now prevented from governing. But if there are and the sovereign people determine such to be the case, it is a simple matter for them to delegate more of their sovereignty to Congress so that such regulations may be put into effect.

Senator Ashurst once proposed an amendment to the Constitution providing that “The Congress shall have power to make laws to regulate agriculture, commerce, industry and labor.”

All of the New Deal measures would have been held constitutional under such a delegation of authority. This amendment would put the federal government in the position of being capable of regulating every detail of the economic life of every person in the nation. State and local governments would be reduced to mere nothingness. Centralization and its offspring bureaucracy would reign supreme.

The sovereign American citizens have so far not seen fit to delegate such omnipotence to their representatives. Until they do the Supreme Court will continue to protect and guarantee and uphold them in their constitutional rights.

17. Bureaucracy Comes of Age

“The influence of the crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.

This was a resolution directed by the House of Commons in 1780 against the tremendously popular George II. Translated into a modern objection in this nation it would read. “The influence of the federal government and therefore of bureaucracy, has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”

The centralizing of the powers of government is equally bad in any age. The development of the common law has been the process of de-centralizing the government from a sovereign to the people. One of the basic principles of the common law is that free men have the absolute right to local self-government, and also the right to be free from interference and coercion from a central and non-personal government. Our forefathers fought a revolution because that right was infringed by a despot.

No man or group of men has ever lived upon this earth with sufficient wisdom, ability and talent to operate a large civil government from a central seat of authority, and have that operation result in justice and equity. The burden is too great, the conditions too unalike. Woodrow Wilson expressed his view on this by saying that, “Uniform regulation of the economic conditions of a vast territory and a various people like the United States, would be mischievous, if not impossible.”

Economic and social conditions vary throughout the Union. The climate and the prejudices of the people are nowhere the same. This condition prevailed when the Union was born, and it prevails even more so today. It was freely recognized by the framers of the Constitution, and it cannot now be denied.

The people who ordained and established the Constitution took great care to see that they delegated to a central government only those powers of a national concern and which were manifestly outside the province of a state government. The 13 states existed and had their own constitutions and delegations of sovereignty, and were actively administering the local affairs of the people years before the national government was created.

The federal government was empowered to coin money, declare war, regulate customs and interstate commerce, handle the mail, govern foreign affairs, and such similar things as should be done by the colonies as a unit. The states retained the police power, the control of marriages, wages and hours, labor, manufacturing, crimes, and all matters of domestic and international government.

It is only in a limited way that the federal government ever should come in contact with these matters. The only constitutional provision that ever permitted the national government to exercise control over the internal affairs of the states was the 18th amendment. Since the repeal of that amendment, the federal government has no authority to enter into the internal and domestic affairs of a state unless the state forsakes the republican form of government, in which event the president must take steps to restore it.

Statesmen and politicians seldom directly challenge the doctrine of state sovereignty. But under the guise of the commerce clause the Congress has circumvented many sovereign state rights. To some extent a planned economy has been imposed upon the states by the federal government.

This has been a process of doing by indirection what cannot be accomplished by open process. One of the common procedures is to appropriate funds for a certain purpose, say the care of the aged, and then allot those funds to the states only on condition that certain regulations and standards set up by the Congress are put into effect in the state.

The effect of this is to withdraw the rights of local self-government from the states and to make them inferior to a central government whose uniform regulations cannot be made to apply fairly to all peoples and conditions. Social security, wage control, child labor, the control of manufacturing and industry are matters that should come under the sole supervision of the states. The interstate commerce clause should apply only to goods in actual transit between states.

The recent trends have been toward centralization. But the remedy is simple. It consists in sending to Congress men who will strictly construe the powers of the federal government; men who will desert the pork barrel and champion state rights.

Congress is in a position to preserve local self-government by rejecting laws which pertain to the domestic and internal affairs of the states. The loss of local self-government provides an easy approach by which the rights and freedoms of the people may be attacked and infringed. If the people were fully aware of this danger they would require their Congress to preserve the integrity of the states and diminish the influences of the federal government.

18. Has Congress Failed Us?

The rights and privileges of the people are restricted. The fault lies with Congress. The supreme Court holds that the federal government has power to regulate insurance on the basis that it is interstate commerce. The Congress is guilty. The president issues executive decrees having the force of law and these decrees deprive men of their right to civil trial by jury. It is Congress that has betrayed the American people.

Congress ought to be the strongest branch of the government, and the guarantor of the rights of the people. congress represents the people. All legislative powers of the federal government have been delegated to it. The people expect their rights to be preserved. It is their right to have them upheld inviolate.

The Constitution lists the delegations of authority that the sovereign people have given to their legislative department. It may collect taxes, duties and imposts, borrow money and pay the debts of the government. It is authorized to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states. It can make rules governing naturalization and pass uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies. The power to coin money and regulate its value, and to fix the standards of weights and measures have been delegated to it. Copyrights and patents, the punishment of counterfeiting, and the establishing of post offices and post roads are among its functions.

The Congress can declare war and make rules governing captures on land an water. It can raise and support armies and navies and make rules to govern them; however, no money can be appropriated for the use of the army for a longer term than two years. It can provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

The Congress can define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, as well as other offenses against the laws of nations. It can create federal courts. It has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and over all forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and such that may be acquired in the several states.

The Congress has power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution any of the functions delegated to it in the Constitution. But that is all the power it has. No act can be done which cannot be justified under a specific clause or phrase in the supreme law of the land.

The fault with Congress has not been that it has not enough power to perform the functions that need to be performed by a national government. The trouble has been that the delegations of authority have been so construed by the lawmakers as to permit the passage of laws which will dictate the domestic and internal affairs of the states.

The single phrase in the Constitution that has given rise to more litigation than any other is the one authorizing Congress to regulate commerce among the states. That seems plain enough when taken at its face value, and it was probably plain enough to the men who wrote the document and to the people who originally adopted it.

To regulate commerce among the states is simply to establish rules which shall govern the transportation of items of commerce from one state to another. But, as it has developed, it is not quite that simple. The congress has chosen to regulate all things incident to the manufacture of goods which after their manufacture may be transported into another state. This type of regulation includes wages and hours, social security, labor conditions, price control, and nearly all matters pertaining to social and economic conditions.

The Supreme Court which interprets and sustains or rejects the enactments of Congress has over along period of time, and by repeatedly broadening the definition of interstate commerce, finally come tot he point where it upholds such legislation as being within the delegation of authority of Congress to act. One constitutional authority concludes that, “the commerce power, as interpreted in case after case, now seems sufficiently broad to provide grounds for control of almost all aspects of the economic life of the nation.”

The fault is not with the courts. They are bound to sustain the legislation if they can. The fault is not with the president, at least not ultimately. He can act in the legislative field only under delegations of authority from Congress. The fault lies with the Congress, or perhaps ultimately with the people, for sending to Congress men who will vote for social and economic measures which usurp the powers of states over their internal and domestic matters.

Unless America wants a strong central government controlled from Washington and that necessarily by bureaus, her Congress must be required to confine regulations governing commerce to goods in transit, and return the control of manufacturing back to the states. It is a question as to whether the people prefer local self-government or centralized bureaucracy. The can have either. The Congress can give them either. It is their Congress.

19. The People Change Their Government

Is it too hard or too easy to amend the Constitution?

There have been over 3000 joint resolutions introduced in the Congress calling for amendments but less than 30 of these have been adopted by the necessary two-thirds vote of both houses, and only 21 have been ratified by the states.

The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were all adopted within two years of the original acceptance of the Constitution. Eight of the original states adopted the Constitution only after receiving positive assurances that a Bill of Rights would be proposed immediately.

The 11th amendment concerning the judicial power, and the 12th governing the mode of electing the President were adopted to correct deficiencies in the original document. Then for 61 years no amendments were ratified. The 13th 14th and 15th grew out of the political turmoil and insecurity of the Civil War and were all passed within about 5 years. Then from 1870 until 1913, a period of 43 years, there were no additional amendments.

The 16th which allows a Federal income tax, and the 17th which provides for the direct election of senators both were declared in force in 1913. The 18th or National Prohibition Amendment went into effect in 1920 and was repealed by the 21st in 1933. the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote was ratified in 1919 and the 20th or “lame-duck” amendment gained the force of law in 1933. Amendments have been born in periods of strife and crisis.

Proposals to amend the Constitution must be passed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and then be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions called for that purpose in three-fourths of the states. The 21st amendment is the only one that has ever been submitted to conventions in the states, and the Utah convention was the 36th to ratify it. All other amendments have been submitted by the Congress to legislatures of the several states.

Congress is required to call a national convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, if two-thirds of the state legislatures request such a convention. Amendments so proposed would have to be submitted to the legislatures or conventions in the states for their ratification on the same basis as though they had been proposed by the Congress. this procedure has never been used as yet. All amendments have been proposed by the Congress.

A situation might arise in which all of the states would have to ratify a proposed amendment before it could go into effect. This is because no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The only proposal now before the states is the child-labor amendment. This was submitted in 1924 and provides that the Congress shall have power “to limit, regulate and prohibit the labor of persons under 18 years of age.”

Recent liberal Supreme court rulings have done away with much of the argument that could be used in favor of this amendment.

The fact that 150 amendments have been presented to the Congress for every one that has been finally accepted by the states has led some people to the conclusion that the procedure governing amendments is too difficult. On the other hand it can be said with equal logic that the procedure is too easy, otherwise either the 18th or the 21st amendments would never have been adopted, for one repeals the other.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; it is the permanent will of the people. It is above the enactments of the Congress. They express only the will of the majority of the people for the time being. Because of the nature of constitutions, it follows that the great fundamental rights of the people are preserved by them. These rights cannot be whittled away by laws passed by a temporary majority. It is in the interest of the people to make it difficult to override these rights and freedoms. the easier it is to amend a constitution the easier it will be for the rights of the people to be lost in times of war or of other emergencies.

On the other hand, if the basic law of the land cannot be altered to provide for changing social, economic and industrial conditions, it does not meet the needs of the people. One of the grave defects of the Articles of Confederation was that they could be changed only with the unanimous consent of the 13 colonies. From a practical standpoint this was impossible of achievement.

The will of two-thirds or the Congress and three-fourths of the states seems a reasonable restraint on majority rule. It is a safe guarantee of the rights of the people. Social and industrial changes can be provided for when the people really desire it. the

civil War amendments clearly illustrate that in times of need and crisis, the will of the people can be incorporated into the Constitution with speed and order.

The Constitution is neither too hard nor too easy to amend. It is just right.

20. It Is A Rising Sun

“The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Honorable Benjamin Franklin.”

It is the 17th of September in 1787, and the venerable Franklin at the age of 81 years has arisen to give his final benediction to that document which the delegates are about to sign, the Constitution of the United States of America.

“Sir,” began Franklin, addressing himself to George Washington, “for four months I have been observing that picture painted on the high arch of your chair. More than anyone in this chamber I have gazed at carvings and paintings of artists of all lands. In the galleries and salons of England and France I have seen innumerable attempts of artists to depict that greatest of planets, the sun. Artists have always found it difficult to distinguish a rising from a setting sun. I have often in the course of these sessions, and vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that sun behind the president of this convention without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising sun and not a setting sun.”

It was the great English Prime Minister Gladstone who said that “the American constitution is the most powerful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” In the sense that this great document was all written by one convention, Gladstone is correct. But the principles established and the freedoms guaranteed int he Constitution were the outgrowth of over 700 years of struggle by English freemen. Every phrase, word and letter was sanctified by the shedding of the blood of those who loved freedom and right more than life. The constitution was the crowning capstone of all the common law.

But the struggle to assure freedom in this land did not cease with the framing and adoption of the Constitution. It has been amended 21 times since. And there are today many grave problems facing the people who must preserve the Constitution, if freedom is to remain with us.

1–The people must insist that all of their rights and privileges which are curtailed by the prosecution of a total war be returned to them in their entirety as soon as peace is established.

2–The people must determine whether they want the federal government to continue to regulate their whole social and economic existence from Washington under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, or whether they want the control of their domestic and internal affairs returned to their local state governments. Federal regulation will be by impersonal bureaus. Local control will be by the people themselves, with their own interest at heart, and with a knowledge of the personal problems confronting them.

3–The people must determine whether they want their three departments of government to act independently in their proper spheres, or whether the congress shall continue to delegate law making powers to the president, and judicial powers to boards and bureaus.

4–The people must choose whether they want the power of the executive department restricted, so that he will be on a par with the Congress and the courts instead of superior to them. The chief means on doing this would be to restrict the president to one term only.

5–The people must choose between continuing to elect a president by the archaic Electoral College, the reason for the adoption of which has ceased, or whether he shall be elected by the popular vote of the people themselves.

6–The people must require their Congress to take its rightful place in national government, exercise a just control over the executive, and shake itself free from control by pressure groups.

7–The people must choose wise men who are imbued with the cause of liberty and not overcome by the spirit of party to represent them in all governmental positions.

8–The people must require their government to get out of debt. In 1796 George Washington told his countrymen in his farewell address that the government should avoid “the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”

9–The people must learn their rights and resolve above all else to preserve them inviolate.

10–If the people will do all these things, and the kindred things that are related to them, they will preserve for themselves those freedoms that their progenitors have given them and they will perpetuate that kind of society in which social and economic betterment will prevail.

11–The constitutional sun is rising, and it has not reached its zenith, nor will it, so long as the love of freedom is sufficiently dear that men will sacrifice their all for it. The people must love freedom more than they love money. The cause is just. The god of freedom has approved. the even is in the hands of the people.

The phrase “survival of the American way of life” carries a somewhat different connotation to various groups even within the United States. Probably to no other group will it bring a more significant meaning in terms of farms of America than to those who operate our farms and ranches. As one who has been reared among them, served them, and been served by them, I declare that our rural people are today the strongest bulwark we have against all that is aimed not only at weakening, but also at the very destruction of our American way of life. It seems that man must get his feet into the soil to keep sane. In any event, no other segment of our population knows so well that “as ye sow, so shall ye reap.” America and the world must learn this eternal truth. Failure to do so can bring only disappointment, suffering, and desperation.

It is not surprising that we should turn our thoughts to a consideration of those factors which will determine in large measure our future success and happiness as a nation through the preservation of the American way of life. What, then, is the American way of life? What are its fruits? Do we really want our free enterprise system to survive?

If you could have spent a recent year with me in war-torn Europe, that which you would have seen would have given the answers. It is heartrending to see people who have lost their freedom of choice—their free agency—and who feel no security; who have no homes they can call their own; who own no property; whose hearts are filled with hatred, distrust, and fear of the future.

The outlook for free enterprise in the world has never seemed so uncertain as now. A world survey by the New York Times shows that nationalization is growing rapidly, especially outside the western hemisphere. Many nations have a mixed economy brought about by an increase in state control and a corresponding weakening of the private enterprise system. Under various forms of socialism and communism, the growth of governmental restrictions and nationalization goes on apace. The seriousness of the situation demands careful reflection by all interested in the preservation and perpetuation of our system of individual free enterprise, predicated, as it is, on a democratic capitalistic economy under a republican form of government.

The New York Times also printed the results of a survey of twenty-two nations, made by correspondents—and of all the countries, Canada appeared to be the only one in which private enterprise “can be said to be functioning today with anything like the freedom from governmental controls that obtains in the United States.”

Millions of people today have become slaves to the state. The dignity and value of the individual, except as a tool of government, have vanished in many parts of the world. We have experienced in years past in many nations, including America, the slavery of person to person. We fought two great wars to settle these issues in our own land. The first was a fight for national freedom; the second was a fight for freedom of person from person. The current question, and one that has brought and is bringing so much sorrow and misery to people in many parts of Europe, is that of slavery of the individual to the state.

Should we as American citizens be concerned? We need not think it cannot happen here.

Fortunately, the founding fathers of this great land, under the benign influence of a kind Providence, established a solid foundation aimed at guaranteeing a maximum of individual freedom, happiness, and well-being. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” they said in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This inspired document proclaims clearly that governments should be established on such principles as “seem most likely to effect” the “safety and happiness” of the people. The Constitution of the United States, which Gladstone has described as “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man,” was aimed to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

In these sacred documents are embodied eternal principles that no man, group of men, or nation has the right to withhold from others. Here is our basis for freedom of individual achievement. Our Constitution with its Bill of Rights guarantees to all our people the greatest freedom ever enjoyed by the people of any great nation. This system guarantees freedom of individual enterprise, freedom to own property, freedom to start one’s own business and to operate it according to one’s own judgment so long as the enterprise is honorable.

The individual has power to produce beyond his needs, to provide savings for the future protection of himself and family. He can live where he wishes and pick any job he wants and select any educational opportunity. He is, to a high degree, free through his own hard work and wise management to make a profit, to invest in any enterprise he may choose, and to leave a part of his accumulation to be inherited by others as they may, in large measure, determine. He may enjoy the sacred rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of worship. To this American entrepreneur his home is his castle, and in the event that he is accused of an offense against the laws established by the people, he has the right of trial by a jury made up of his own fellow citizens.

All these and more, embodied in written documents that cannot be changed easily and quickly to suit the whim of some would-be dictator, are our heritage under the American way of life. Here is freedom guaranteed by the limitation of government through a written constitution. Do we recognize and fully appreciate the priceless value of this legacy? Now, while the world is in commotion and turmoil over ideologies and political philosophies, is a good time to reflect upon the past. It is a good time to draw a few comparisons—to take stock.

Under these principles of freedom and enterprise America has become the richest nation under heaven and has grown to be the most powerful and influential nation in the world, using an economy based upon freedom of individual achievement. Here has been established the most highly developed industrial system in the world, together with the technological equipment, human and otherwise, to support it.

Our republic has now been an operating unit for almost two centuries. During that period we have developed a productive plant and a way of life that have given the highest standard of living for the masses known to the civilized world. In the long run, a nation enjoys in the form of goods and services only what it produces. We have established an all-time record of production.

Within the past century we have received a huge increase in net output per man-hour. These vast gains in human welfare have lessened human toil. At the time of the Civil War the average work week was seventy hours. In America the inventive genius provides horse-drawn and tractor-drawn equipment, and one family can cultivate 50, 100, 200, or even 400 acres and more. A man working by hand has the physical force of one-tenth of a horse. A man with a ten-horsepower tractor has ninety times that much power. American ingenuity under freedom of choice has harnessed tremendous amounts of mineral energy to do physical work. Most occupations in the United States today require more horse sense than horsepower. Under our free enterprise system there are good reasons to believe that the technological progress of the past will continue in the future, perhaps at an accelerated rate.

Our free enterprise system also allows for all necessary flexibility. No other economic program responds so readily to changes in wartime and peacetime demands. Witness what happened after the fall of France in 1940, when the President asked Congress for 50,000 planes to strengthen America’s defense in a dangerous world. Other nations and some of our people cried, “Impossible! We haven’t the plants, money, or materials.” What was the answer of America’s free enterprise system? By June 1945, 297,000 war planes had been produced, nearly 100,000 of them bombers.

No fair-minded person contends that the private enterprise system is perfect. It is operated by human beings who are full of imperfections. Many of us deplore the fact that a few of our corporate entities seem to lack that social consciousness proportionate to their power and the privileges granted them by the state. Some businesses apparently still fail to recognize that there are social and spiritual values as well as profits that should be considered in their operations.

Neither do our needs always correspond to our demands under the free enterprise system. For example, the American male still prefers steak and potatoes and apple pie to a better balanced diet. Many American families often prefer housing below a decency level to the “indecency” of getting along without a family car. As a nation we have spent twice as much money for liquor and tobacco as for medical care, about the same for movies as for the support of the churches, and almost as much for beauty parlor services as for private social welfare. Whether wise or unwise, these decisions on the part of individuals as to how they spend their money are the result of free consumer choice, which is a part of the free enterprise system.

With all of its weaknesses, our free enterprise system has accomplished in terms of human welfare that which no other economic or social system has even approached. Our freedom of individual opportunity permits us to draw upon our natural resources and upon the total brain and brawn power of the nation in a most effective manner. This freedom of individual choice inspires competition. Competition inspires shrewd and efficient management, which is conducive to the production of the best product possible at the lowest price.

Are we to discard a system that has produced so much simply because it has not worked perfectly? We all admit there are abuses. One should not condemn an entire system because of the abuses of a handful of those who do not play the game according to established rules. We often refer to the family unit as the very basis of civilized society, and yet all will agree that family life is not perfect—divorces are too frequent, some homes are unhappy—but our objective is not to throw the family overboard, but rather to work for the improvement of family relations. Even the churches of America are not perfect, but no sane American would recommend that the churches be discredited and discarded. We all recognize religion as the basis of true character-building for which the world is starving.

The evidence clearly indicates that our most cherished rights and interests are all a part of the American way of life. Can communism, socialism, fascism, or any other coercive system provide these priceless blessings which flow to us as a part of our American way of life? The common denominator of all these coercive systems is the curtailment of individual liberty. Surely we will all agree that our Constitution provides the basis for the only economic system acceptable to true Americans.

Although we all cherish the material blessings which flow from the American system of individual achievement, it would be folly for us to close our eyes to certain challenging and dangerous trends that are in evidence and that strike at its very foundation. As Americans, far removed from the struggles which won for us our freedom, we are inclined to take the inevitable blessings of freedom for granted. It has been seven generations since the adoption of the American Constitution. Many in America today seem to have forgotten the cost and the value of freedom.

In addition, during the past few years, particularly, loud voices have been calling attention to the weaknesses of private enterprise without pointing out its virtues. We have been teaching our people to depend upon government instead of relying upon their own initiative as did our pioneer forefathers. Our freedom to work out our individual destinies has been abridged. We have been looking upon government as something apart from us and have failed to realize that we, the people, are the government.

We have also been making individual success unpopular. There has been a tendency to refer to men who have cash to invest in tools and equipment for the use of workers as “coupon clippers,” “economic royalists,” “capitalists,” and “profiteers”—as though there were something inherently bad in it. Evidence of this fact is found in the writings and discussions of our high school and college students, the majority of whom, it is reported, believe private enterprise is a failure, although they don’t have a clear understanding of what private enterprise is. With them, as with many adults, there is a vague notion that it is some unfair system which tends to give special advantage to big corporations and wealthy individuals. This attitude is encouraged by certain textbook writers who hold the idea, in many cases, that a government-planned economy is the remedy for all of our economic ills and the weaknesses in our American way of life, to which they readily point without referring to the beneficent fruits of the system.

We are rearing a generation that does not seem to understand the fundamentals of our American way of life, a generation that is no longer dedicated to its preservation. A long-range educational program beginning with the adult level is, of course, the only answer. Our people, both before and after they arrive at the age of the right of the ballot, should understand what it is that has made America great. We can only appreciate freedom if we understand the comparative fruits thereof. It was Jefferson who said: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” It is one thing to win freedom; its preservation is equally important. If reference is made continually to weaknesses of the private enterprise system without any effort to point out its virtues and the comparative fruits of this and other systems, the tendency in this country will be to demand that the government take over more and more of the economic and social responsibilities and make more of the decisions for the people. This can result in but one thing: slavery of the individual to the state. This seems to be the trend in the world today. The issue is whether the individual exists for the state or the state for the individual.

In a democracy the real danger is that we may slowly slide into a condition of slavery of the individual to the state rather than entering this condition by a sudden revolution. The loss of our liberties might easily come about, not through the ballot box, but through the death of incentive to work, to earn, and to save. Such a condition is usually brought about by a series of little steps which, at the time, seem justified by a variety of reasons and which may on the surface appear to be laudable as to intent. It has been pointed out that the more basic reasons offered by would-be planned economy advocates are “the desire to change and control others, the search for security, and the desire of individuals or groups to improve their own economic status or that of others by means of direct governmental intervention.”

Europe today is evidence of the fact that one of the most common routes toward serfdom is followed by those in search of economic security. Never has there been so much apparent interest in security. Many programs so labeled have wide appeal. In order to appraise properly any so-called governmental security plan, however, we must look behind its name. Many so-called progressive programs are attractively labeled, and if we are to preserve our freedom and liberty, we must constantly analyze the nature of issues and programs and ignore labels that have been attached to them.

Equality is also a favorite term. Most people believe themselves to be below the average in income; therefore they feel they stand to gain through equalization via governmental intervention. All would like to equalize with those who are better off than they themselves. They fail to realize that incomes differ, and will always differ, because people differ in their economic drive and ability. The evidence clearly indicates that government has been unable to prevent inequality of incomes and, further, that equalization efforts usually stifle initiative and retard progress to the extent that the real incomes of everyone are lowered.

Many of our problems and dangers center in the issues of so-called fair prices, wages, and profits and the relationship between management and labor. We must realize that it is just as possible for wages to be too high as it is for prices and profits to be excessive. There is a tendency, of course, for almost everyone to feel that his share is unfair, whether it is or not. An effort to adjust apparent inequities often calls for government subsidies. Too often these are authorized without asking, “Who will pay for them?” Much of our program of letting the government pay for it can be described as “an attempt to better yourself by increasing your pay to yourself and then sending yourself the bill.”

The only safe and solid answer is the mechanism of a free market operating in an enterprise and free competition. Here everyone has a chance to cast his vote in the election that will decide what is a fair price, fair wage, and fair profit, and what should be produced and in what quantities. To contradict the justice of that decision is to contradict the whole concept of justice by the democratic process. All will agree that the democratic processes and the free market—both parts of our American way of life—are not perfect, but they are believed to have fewer faults and to do a better job than any other known device. A sure way to take a shortcut to serfdom is to discard the sovereign rights of all the people in either the political or the economic realm.

We must remember that government assistance and control are essentially political provisions, and that experience has demonstrated that, for that reason, they are not sufficiently stable to warrant their utilization as a foundation for sound economic growth under a free enterprise system. The best way—the American way—is still maximum freedom for the individual guaranteed by a wise government that establishes and enforces the rules of the game. History records that eventually people get the form of government they deserve. Good government, which guarantees the maximum of freedom, liberty, and development to the individual, must be based upon sound principles, and we must ever remember that ideas and principles are either sound or unsound in spite of those who hold them. Freedom of achievement has achieved and will continue to produce the maximum of benefits in terms of human welfare.

Our way of life is based upon eternal principles. It rests upon a deep spiritual foundation established by inspired instruments of an all-wise Providence.

On the 17th day of September, 1987, we commemorate the two-hundredth birthday of the Constitutional Convention, which gave birth to the document that Gladstone said is “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”

I heartily endorse this assessment, and I would like to pay honor—honor to the document itself, honor to the men who framed it, and honor to the God who inspired it and made possible its coming forth.

To understand the significance of the Constitution, we must first understand some basic, eternal principles. These principles have their beginning in the premortal councils of heaven.

Some Basic Principles

The first basic principle is agency. The central issue in that premortal council was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed Him stood for the former proposition—freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter—coercion and force.

The war that began in heaven over this issue is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality. And one of Lucifer’s primary strategies has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments.

Look back in retrospect on almost six thousand years of human history! Freedom’s moments have been infrequent and exceptional. We must appreciate that we live in one of history’s most exceptional moments—in a nation and a time of unprecedented freedom. Freedom as we know it has been experienced by perhaps less than 1 percent of the human family.

The second basic principle concerns the function and proper role of government. These are the principles that, in my opinion, proclaim the proper role of government in the domestic affairs of the nation:

“I believe that governments were instituted by God for the benefit of man; and that He holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them. …

“[I] believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. …

“[I] 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.” (D&C 134:1-2, 5.)

In other words, the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.

The third important principle pertains to the source of basic human rights. Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan.

If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The fourth basic principle we must understand is that people are superior to the governments they form. Since God created people with certain inalienable rights, and they, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that the people are superior to the creature they created.

The fifth and final principle that is basic to our understanding of the Constitution is that governments should have only limited powers. The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess.

By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

God Raised Up Wise Men

With these basic principles firmly in mind, let us now turn to a discussion of the inspired document we call the Constitution. My purpose is not to recite the events that led to the American Revolution—we are all familiar with these. But I would say this: History is not an accident. Events are foreknown to God. His superintending influence is behind the actions of His righteous children.

Long before America was even discovered, the Lord was moving and shaping events that would lead to the coming forth of the remarkable form of government established by the Constitution. America had to be free and independent to fulfill this destiny. I comment to you as excellent reading on this subject Elder Mark E. Petersen’s book The Great Prologue (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1975). As expressed so eloquently by John Adams before the signing of the Declaration, “There’s a Divinity which shapes our ends.” Though mortal eyes and minds cannot fathom the end from the beginning, God does.

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Savior declared, “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80.) These were not ordinary men, but men chosen and held in reserve by the Lord for this very purpose.

Shortly after President Spencer W. Kimball became President of the Church, he assigned me to go into the vault of the St. George Temple and check the early records. As I did so, I realized the fulfillment of a dream I had had ever since learning of the visit of the Founding Fathers to the St. George Temple. I saw with my own eyes the record of the work which was done for the Founding Fathers of this great nation, beginning with George Washington.

Think of it, the Founding Fathers of this nation, those great men, appeared within those sacred walls and had their vicarious work done for them. President Wilford Woodruff spoke of it in these words:

“Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.’

“These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. …

“I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McAllister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men.”

These noble spirits came there with divine permission—evidence that this work of salvation goes forward on both sides of the veil.

At a later conference, in April 1898, after he became President of the Church, President Woodruff declared that “those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits … [and] were inspired of the Lord.” We honor those men today. We are the grateful beneficiaries of their noble work.

But we honor more than those who brought forth the Constitution. We honor the Lord, who revealed it. God himself has borne witness to the fact that He is pleased with the final product of the work of these great patriots.

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith on 6 August 1833, the Savior admonished: “I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land.” (D&C 98:6.)

In the Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer given on 27 March 1836, the Lord directed the Prophet Joseph to say: “May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.” (D&C 109:54.)

A few years later, Joseph Smith, while unjustly incarcerated in a cold and depressing cell of Liberty Jail at Clay County, Missouri, frequently bore his testimony of the document’s divinity: “The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner.”

How this document accomplished all of this merits our further consideration.

Major Provisions of the Constitution

The Constitution consists of seven separate articles. The first three establish the three branches of our government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The fourth article describes matters pertaining to states, most significantly the guarantee of a republican form of government to every state of the Union. Article 5 defines the amendment procedure of the document, a deliberately difficult process that should be clearly understood by every citizen. Article 6 covers several miscellaneous items, including a definition of the supreme law of the land, namely, the Constitution itself. Article 7, the last, explains how the Constitution is to be ratified.

Now to look at some of the major provisions of the document itself. Many principles could be examined, but I mention five as being crucial to the preservation of our freedom. If we understand the workability of these, we have taken the first step in defending our freedoms.

The major provisions of the Constitution are as follows:

First: Sovereignty lies in the people themselves. Every governmental system has a sovereign, one or several who possess all the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. That sovereign may be an individual, a group, or the people themselves.

The Founding Fathers believed in common law, which holds that true sovereignty rests with the people. Believing this to be in accord with truth, they inserted this imperative in the Declaration of Independence: “To secure these rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Second: To safeguard these rights, the Founding Fathers provided for the separation of powers among the three branches of government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Each was to be independent of the other, yet each was to work in a unified relationship. As the great constitutionalist President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., noted:

“It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches—legislative, executive and judicial—and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. … It was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.”

The use of checks and balances was deliberately designed, first, to make it difficult for a minority of the people to control the government, and, second, to place restraint on the government itself.

Third: The powers the people granted to the three branches of government were specifically limited. The Founding Fathers well understood human nature and its tendency to exercise unrighteous dominion when given authority. A Constitution was therefore designed to limit government to certain enumerated functions, beyond which was tyranny.

Fourth: Our Constitutional government is based on the principle of representation. The principle of representation means that we have delegated to an elected official the power to represent us. The Constitution provides for both direct representation and indirect representation. Both forms of representation provide a tempering influence on pure democracy. The intent was to protect the individual’s and the minority’s rights to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labors—property. These rights were not to be subject to majority vote.

Fifth: The Constitution was designed to work with only a moral and righteous people. “Our constitution,” said John Adams (first vice-president and second president of the United States), “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Constitution Requires Loyalty and Support

This, then, is the ingenious and inspired document created by these good and wise men for the benefit and blessing of future generations.

It is now two hundred years since the Constitution was written. Have we been wise beneficiaries of the gift entrusted to us? Have we valued and protected the principles laid down by this great document?

At this bicentennial celebration we must, with sadness, say that we have not been wise in keeping the trust of our Founding Fathers. For the past two centuries, those who do not prize freedom have chipped away at our Constitution until today we face a crisis of great dimensions. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said:

“Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.”

Will we be prepared? Will we be among those who will “bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction?” If we desire to be numbered among those who will, here are some things we must do:

1. We must be righteous and moral. We must live the gospel principles—all of them. We have no right to expect a higher degree of morality from those who represent us than what we ourselves exhibit. To live a higher law means we will not seek to receive what we have not earned by our own labor. It means we will remember that government owes us nothing. It means we will keep the laws of the land. It means we will look to God as our Lawgiver and the Source of our liberty.

2. We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound?

I quote Abraham Lincoln:

“Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.”

3. We must become involved in civic affairs. As citizens of this republic, we cannot do our duty and be idle spectators. It is vital that we follow this counsel from the Lord: “Honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:10.)

Note the qualities that the Lord demands in those who are to represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest. We must be concerted in our desires and efforts to see men and women represent us who possess all three of these qualities—goodness, wisdom, and honesty.

4. We must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, and our advice. We must be wisely informed and let others know how we feel. We must take part in local precinct meetings and select delegates who will truly represent our feelings.

I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—men and women who will subscribe to and abide the principles of the Constitution.

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that the God of heaven sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and He has sent other choice spirits to preserve it.

We, the blessed beneficiaries, face difficult days in this beloved land, “a land which is choice above all other lands.” (Ether 2:10.) It may also cost us blood before we are through. It is my conviction, however, that when the Lord comes, the Stars and Stripes will be floating on the breeze over this people. May it be so, and may God give us the faith and the courage exhibited by those patriots who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor that we might be free, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

My beloved brethren and sisters and friends, humbly and gratefully I stand before you in response to the call of him whom we sustain as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and President of the Church. With all my heart I endorse and rejoice in the counsel received at this conference.

About a month ago our beloved leader, President David O. McKay, delivered an inspiring prayer at the dedication of the London Temple.

As an introduction to what I trust the Lord will be pleased to have me say today, I quote a short paragraph from that memorable prayer:

“Next to life, we express gratitude for the gift of free agency. When thou didst create man, thou placed within him part of thine Omnipotence and bade him choose for himself. Liberty and conscience thus became a sacred part of human nature. Freedom not only to think, but to speak and act, is a God-given privilege.”

Our heritage of freedom is as precious as life itself. It is truly a God-given gift to man. Since the time of the council in heaven, the fight of liberty-loving people for freedom has continued.

Free agency is an eternal principle vouchsafed to us in the perfect law of liberty–the gospel of Jesus Christ. Freedom of choice is more to be treasured than any earthly possession. It is guaranteed in our heaven-inspired Constitution. Yes, freedom is an inherited, inalienable, divine gift to men.

When the Savior of mankind wished to impress on his hearers the fruits of his teaching, he used these words: ” . . the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32.)

We are moral agents with freedom to choose between right and wrong.

Past material advances have been the fruit of our freedom–our free enterprise system–our American way of life–our God-given freedom of choice. The progress of the future must stem from this same basic freedom.

Because our forefathers fought for the ideal of freedom; because our fathers preserved that ideal through our free enterprise system under our God-given free agency; because-they were willing to make religion the vital force of daily living, all of us have climbed through the years to new heights of well-being and inner strength.

But it is not only in the moral choice of right and wrong that man is free. Among the relentless quests of human history, is the quest for political freedom. When Patrick Henry shouted his immortal “Give me liberty or give me death,” he did not speak idly. When at Philadelphia in 1776, the signers of the Declaration of Independence affixed their signatures to that sacred document, they, in a very real sense, were choosing liberty or death. Not one of them but knew full well that if the revolution failed, if the fight for freedom should come to naught, they would be branded as rebels and hanged as traitors.

The inspired founding fathers formulated a system of government with checks and balances protecting the freedom of the people. But even this was not enough. The first order of the new congress was to draw up a Bill of Rights–ten amendments guaranteeing for all time the fundamental freedoms that the American people insist are theirs by the will of God, not by the will of government.

Yes, the founders of this nation bequeathed to us a heritage of freedom and unity that is our most priceless political possession.

But to be enjoyed, freedom must be won continually. The major responsibility of government is to guard the lives and safeguard the freedom of its citizens. Yet even in the operation of government–especially big government–there are real dangers to our freedom.

Today the scope and variety of governmental operations have become amazingly wide. We are touched by government from before we are born until after we die. Government impinges on our lives every hour of the day and night.

Most of these governmental activities are helpful in greater or lesser degree, of course. But we must face the central problem of just how much of our lives, of our freedom, of our economy, and of our society, we want to entrust to government.

And we must face the further fact of just what division of functions we want to make between Washington and our state capitals. We must be aware of the price we pay when we place more and more of our lives in the hands of centralized government

It is high time we awakened to the dangers of excessive government in business and in agriculture. It is time we realized the perils of too great a centralization of power, and too much dependence on public agencies.

We have seen in the past quarter century a tremendous shift from individual to governmental responsibility in many phases of economic and social life. We have seen a rapid shift of responsibility from the states to the federal government.

The magnitude of these changes is revealed by a few simple figures. Twenty-five years ago the federal government received one-fourth of all the taxes collected in the United States. Today the federal government–in spite of the biggest tax cut in history of $7,400,000,000 (7.4 percent) in 1954 Collects not one fourth but three-fourths of all our taxes. Twenty-five years ago all taxes, federal, state and local, took 14 percent of our national income. Today taxes take 31 percent.

I recognize that there have been reasons for doing more things through government, and for doing them from Washington. Fighting first a prolonged depression and then a war, unavoidably shifted responsibility to the federal government. The shrinking of time and distance and the growing interdependence of our economic lives have all contributed to a centralization of authority at the national capital.

Yet, deep in their hearts, the American people instinctively know that great concentration of power is an evil and a dangerous thing. They do not need to have it proved.

What lies behind this conviction? Basically, it is an intuitive knowledge that, sooner or later, the accumulation of power in a central government leads to a loss of freedom. Once power is concentrated, even for helpful purposes, it is all there, in one package, where it can be grabbed by those who may not be helpful in its use.

If power is diffused, this cannot happen. This is why the founders of our country carefully divided power between the state and federal levels. Nothing has happened in the meantime to call in question the validity of this arrangement.

Our traditional federal-state relationship, we must never forget, starts with a general presumption in favor of state and individual rights. Under the constitutional concept, powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.

Many forces work toward the concentration of power at federal level. It somehow seems easier to impose so-called “progress” on localities than to wait for them to bring it about themselves. Raids on the federal treasury can be all too readily accomplished by an organized few over the feeble protests of any apathetic majority. With more and more activity centered in the federal government, the relationship between the costs and the benefits of government programs becomes obscure. What follows is the voting of public money without having to accept direct local responsibility for higher taxes.

If this trend continues, the states may be left hollow shells, operating primarily as the field districts of federal departments and dependent upon the federal treasury for their support.

It has been truly said by our present Chief Executive that, “The federal government did not create the states of this Republic. The states created the federal government . . .–if the states lose their meaning our entire system of government loses its meaning and the next step is the rise of the centralized national state in which the seeds of autocracy can take root and grow.

Those are strong but true words.

The history of all mankind shows very clearly that if we would be free–and if we would stay free–we must stand eternal watch against the accumulation of too much power in government.

There is hardly a single instance in all of history where the dictatorial centralization of power has been compatible with individual freedoms–where it has not reduced the citizenry to the status of pawns and mere creatures of the state. God forbid that this should happen in America. Yet I am persuaded that the continuation of the trend of the past twenty-five years could make us pallbearers at the burial of the states as effective units of government.

The drift toward centralization of power is not inevitable. It can be slowed down, halted, reversed.

How? By state and local governments insisting that theirs is the responsibility for problems that are essentially local and state problems–insisting upon this, with the knowledge that responsibility and authority go hand in hand.

Inevitably, in centralized federal programs the money is not as wisely spent as if the states participated financially.

The people come to look to the federal government as the provider, at no cost to them, of whatever is needful.

The truth is that the federal government has no funds which it does not first, in some manner, take from the people. A dollar cannot make the round trip to Washington and back without shrinking in the process. As taxpayers we need to recognize these facts; programs which obscure them are contrary to public interest.

The thought that the federal government is wealthy and the states poverty-stricken is a dangerous illusion. The federal debt is now eight times as great as the combined debt of the forty-eight states. It is difficult for the states to make a strong case for assistance from the federal government when anything the federal government spends must come from the states.

The states not only have rights, they also have responsibilities, and they have opportunities.

In the last analysis, we are not trying to protect one government entity from another. We are trying to protect the rights of individual people. If we ever forget this, the whole process of government is pointless.

George Washington said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!”

“It is hardly lack of due process,” said the Supreme Court, “for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” But we must remember as President Clark has counseled us that a planned and subsidized economy weakens initiative, discourages industry, destroys character, and demoralizes the people.

Our people must remain free. Our economy must remain free-free of excessive government paternalism, regimentation, and control.

As a nation, we are strong. With the freedom of economic enterprise that we possess, we are able to produce as much industrial goods as all the rest of the world combined–even though we are only six percent of the world’s people and possess only six percent of the world’s land.

These abundant blessings have come to us through an economic system which rests largely on three pillars:

1.. Free enterprise . . . the right to venture . . . the right to choose.

2. Private property . . . the right to own.

3. A market economy . . . the right to exchange.

Working together, we can maintain the strength of these three pillars.

There are some in our midst, nevertheless, who decry free enterprise, who would place business, agriculture, and labor in a government strait jacket.

Our economic order is not perfect, because it is operated by imperfect human beings, but it has given us more of the good things of life than any other system. The fundamental reason is that our economy is free. It must remain free. In that freedom ultimately lies our basic economic strength.

Let us admit the weaknesses that exist. Let us work aggressively to correct them. But never let us make the catastrophic blunder of putting chains on our basic economic freedom.

Yes, our phenomenal material advances have been the fruit of our freedom–our free enterprise system–our American way of life–our God-given freedom of choice.

The progress of the future must stem from this same basic freedom.

Yet these basic American beliefs, principles, and attitudes are threatened today as never before.

By whom are they threatened?

They are threatened by well-meaning but uninformed people who see the shortcomings of our economic system and believe they can legislate them out of existence. They try to reach the promised land by passing laws. They do not understand our economic system and its limitations. They would load it down with burdens it was never intended to carry. As their schemes begin to break down, more and more controls must be supplied. Patch is placed upon patch, regulation is added to regulation and ultimately, by degrees, freedom is lost–without our desiring to lose it and without our knowing why or how it was lost.

Our heritage of freedom is threatened by another group–self-seeking men who see in government legislation a way to obtain special privilege for themselves or to restrain their competitors. They use demagoguery as a smokescreen to deceive. These people have no love for freedom or enterprise. They would bargain away their birthright for a mess of pottage. They would learn the value of freedom only after it was gone.

A third, still much smaller group is dedicated to the overthrow of the economic and social system that is our tradition. Their philosophy does not stem from Jefferson, but is foreign to our shores. It is a total philosophy of life, atheistic, and utterly opposed to all that we hold dear as a great Christian nation. These men understand our system thoroughly–and they hate it thoroughly. They enlist innocent but willing followers from the uninformed and the unprincipled. Through rabble-rousing and demagoguery they play upon the economic reverses and hardships of the unsuspecting. They promise the impossible, and call black white, and mislead with fallacies masqueraded as truth.

If we lose our freedoms, it will be to this strange and unlike coalition of the well-intentioned, the slothful, and the subversives.

It will be because we did not care enough–because we were not alert enough–because we were too apathetic to take note while the precious waters of our God-given freedom slipped–drop by drop–down the drain.

Heaven forbid that this should come to pass!

Let us remember that we are a prosperous people today because of a free enterprise system founded on spiritual, not material values. It is founded on freedom of choice–free agency–an eternal God-given principle.

The founding fathers, inspired though they were, did not invent the priceless blessing of individual freedom and respect for the dignity of man. No, that priceless gift to mankind sprang from the God of heaven and not from government. Yes, the founding fathers welded together the safeguards as best they could, but freedom must be continually won to be enjoyed. Let us never forget these facts.

This is America–the land of opportunity! A land choice above all other lands. Let us keep it so!

We, here in America, as Theodore Roosevelt said a half century ago, “hold in our hands the hope of the world, the fate of the coming years, and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of high resolve is dimmed, if we trail in the dust the golden hopes of men.”

With God’s help the light of high resolve in the eyes of the American people must never be dimmed! Our freedom must–and will–be preserved.

Yes . . . this is a choice land–choice above all others. Blessed by the Almighty, our forebears have made and kept it so. It will continue to be a land of freedom and liberty as long as we are able to advance in the light of sound and enduring principles of right. To sacrifice such principles for momentary expediency–often selfishly motivated–is to endanger our noble heritage and is unworthy of this great American people.

With all my heart I love this nation. I have lived and traveled abroad just enough to make me appreciate rather fully what we have here. To me, this is not just another nation. This is not just one of a family of nations. This is a nation with a great mission for the benefit and blessing of liberty-loving people everywhere. It is my firm conviction that the Constitution of this land was established by men whom the God of heaven raised up unto this very purpose.

The days ahead are sobering and challenging and will demand the faith, prayers, and loyalty of every American. Our challenge is to keep America strong and free–strong socially, strong economically, and above all, strong spiritually, if our way of life is to endure. There is no other way. Only in this course is there safety for our nation.

God grant we may resolutely follow this course in humility and faith, I humbly pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Because so many millions of Americans finally realize that something is seriously wrong with the way the government is handling our affairs, people are continually asking: “Do you think there is still time to turn it around?”

When you ask, “Still time before what?” they usually reply: “Before total disaster overtakes.”

For those who wonder about such things the answer is this: “Yes, there is still time, but not much.”

The next question is: “What can we do to get America turned around and regain our national sanity?”

The answer is: “Elect a President and a majority in Congress who still believe in the Constitution and will fight to return America to her original moorings.”

Identifying Constitutional Candidates

“But how can you tell when a candidate for political office is really a Constitutionalist?”

If the candidate is already in office he will have a voting record which will clearly show whether or not he is a Constitutionalist. Several organizations monitor the Congress and publish the results.

However, if the candidate is a newcomer to politics you will have to test his knowledge of Constitutional principles by asking a few questions.

What Kind of Questions Should Be Asked?

We are listing a few of the many questions which might be addressed to a candidate in order to determine whether or not he stands for those basic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers.

As we go through these questions you will note that nearly all of them can be easily answered by anyone who has attended the “Miracle of America” seminars on the Constitution. In the text for this course the answers to all of these questions are explained and documented. If your candidate does not know the answers, invite him to take a Constitutional seminar at the earliest possible date. The thirteen hours required for this study may turn out to be the best investment in political orientation he could find. No American should run for public office until he has studied the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Questions on General Principles

1. Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?

The founders said it is in the people “by God’s own allowance”. No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people’s representatives.

2. In what way are “all men created equal?”

All humanity are equal in three ways: 1. equal before God, 2. equal before the law, 3. equal in their rights. In all other respects people are different.

3. What is an inalienable right?

An inalienable right is one which comes as an “endowment from the Creator” and cannot be violated without coming under the judgment of God.

4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?

The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5. What did the founders mean by the “pursuit of happiness?”

This is a collective phrase designed to cover all of the other inalienable rights.

6. Give an example of an inalienable right which is essential to the pursuit of happiness.

The Founders believed, for example, that human happiness requires that each of us enjoy the right to acquire, develop and dispose of property. They believed that without the protection of property rights, all other rights are placed in serious jeopardy.

7. What are some of the other inalienable rights?

The inalienable rights of mankind include such things as the right of self government; the right of human beings to beget their own kind; the right of parents to rear their children free from outside interference (unless there is criminal abuse or neglect); the right to freedom of belief; the right to freedom of speech; the right to assemble; the right to petition; the right to change residence; the’ right to change jobs, etc.

8. What is the purpose of government?

The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide “liberty under law,” which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty. and well-being of the people.

The American Structure of Government

9. What is a democracy?

A democracy is a government wherein decisions are made by the masses of the people rather than by elected representatives.

10. What is a republic?

A republic is a system in which the laws are passed and decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.

11. Why did Jefferson call the American system a democratic-republic?

Because the system allows the masses of qualified voters to participate in the election of their officials (democracy) and then the people’s elected representatives enact the laws and administer the affairs of the people under majority rule but with the equal protection of individual rights (a republic).

12. Is it a mistake, therefore, to call the United States a democracy?

Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from “democracy” is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people’s elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over “pure democracy” would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.

The Task of Controlling Power

13. Why is separation of power safer than concentration of power?

Government is “force” which Washington compared to “fire” and said government is a “dangerous servant” and a “fearful master.” Power should be dispersed among the people where they can keep it under control.

14. How should the powers of government be separated?

First of all the Founders wanted political power separated vertically. They considered the principal power base of society to be the family. However, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (police, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated to the community. Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to the higher level of the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the State level. The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders’ pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all. 1

15. What remedies did the Founders provide if government officials violated the channel of power assigned to them?

Administrative pressures from other departments are provided and if his offenses are serious he can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.

16. Why did the Founders want the powers of government to flow from the bottom up rather than the top down?

Jefferson stated that a political unit governs best which governs least. In other words, the services which the people need from government are relatively simple and when circumstances are normal the people like to conduct their affairs with as little interference from the government as possible. Consequently, in the Founders’ original plan for a happy and prosperous society, the functions of government were designed to be relatively simple and remarkably cheap.

17. Then why do we have such a complicated and expensive government today?

The professional politicians learned that in a war, depression, or a serious crisis, the people will endure higher taxes and a far greater concentration of authority on the higher levels of government. Certain politicians therefore set out to exploit every emergency as an excuse for the acquiring of more power. During most of the twentieth century ambitious politicians trumpeted the message that the government can solve practically all problems better than the people. Today, as a result, Americans are being literally “programmed” to death. And taxes have skyrocketed.

Separating Power Horizontally

18. How did the Founders separate power horizontally?

There are three functions of government at each level of society. One function is to make the law, another is to administer the law and a third is to interpret the law. These are all on the same horizontal level and are referred to as the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. The Founders wanted these three functions to be separated into equal, independent departments. At the same time, they wanted to coordinate these functions so that one department could not function without the other two. Each department was therefore assigned to serve as a check on the others. The idea of the Founders was to have these functions of government “coordinated but never consolidated.” This was one of the most ingenious devices contributed by the Founders.

19. What happens if the separation of powers breaks down either vertically or horizontally?

The Founders warned that if the vertical separation of power should ever break down so that all power began to be concentrated in Washington, there would be a severely arrogant abuse of the people by government officials. They also said that if the legislative executive and judicial departments failed to act as a check on each other, there would be tyranny and the people would lose their freedom. For more than one full generation this is what has been happening.

Americans Experiment with Another System

20. Is the consolidation of government functions the trend today?

Yes. Consolidation of power is gravitating toward Washington at a pace which would have greatly alarmed the Founders.

21. What has caused this?

Beginning around 1900 certain wealthy influential groups lost confidence in the original American system and began propagandizing the people into believing that a “redistribution of the wealth” by the government would greatly improve the American life style. This theory of economics with its concentration of political power at the center of government is usually referred to as socialism. Samuel Adams vigorously warned against these principles. He said socialism violates equal protection of rights and completely destroys the concept of limited government. In fact, he said the Founders had done everything possible to make these collectivist policies “unconstitutional.”

22. What has been the result?

These policies launched the United States on a wild and dizzy trajectory which has resulted in run-away inflation; a huge burden of national debt; taxes which are devouring nearly half of the peoples’ earning power; a serious invasion of individual rights; and a virtual collapse of states rights.

23. Has socialism or “collectivism” worked anywhere in the world?

Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as Communism, Nazism, and Fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called “peaceful” forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proven counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor’s edge of perpetual bankruptcy. Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.

24. How did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?

They did it by setting up a “limited” form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the “chains” of the Constitution.

American Leaders Began to Abandon the Founders Success Formula

25. Does this mean Theodore Roosevelt was In error when he said the President could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids?

Yes, he was turning the Constitution upside down. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as “usurpation.”

26. Was President Woodrow Wilson also in error when he said the United States should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world?

Yes. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the United States should try to be friendly with all nations, but beholden to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war.

27. Was Franklin D. Roosevelt in error when he structured the New Deal?

Yes. The New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was “tax, tax — spend, spend — elect, elect!”

28. Was Lyndon Johnson in error when he said, “We will take from the haves and give to the have nots!”

The Founders would certainly have called it an error. There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to “soak the rich,” but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes.

29. Was President Nixon in error when he continually tried to involve the United States in a “New World Order”?

Yes. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations.

30. Was President Carter in error when he began meddling in domestic affairs of foreign nations?

Yes. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the United States would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any President or Secretary of State who has followed a policy of “interventionism,” has operated outside of his Constitutional authority.

Presidential Violations of the Constitution

31. What about executive orders which are treated as laws after being published in the federal register?

In the eyes of the Founders these would be considered unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision but he has no authority whatever to make “laws” for the people since the Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure.

32. What about executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign governments?

This procedure is also unconstitutional. The Founders provided that all agreements with foreign nations must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Since American Presidents began holding summit conferences with the heads of foreign governments, they have been entering into secret engagements which very often never see the light of day let alone receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Each year there are many more executive agreements signed by the President than there are treaties ratified by the Senate.

Judicial Violations of the Constitution

33. What about new laws laid down by the Supreme Court?

This is called “judicial legislation.” This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court.

34. How is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the Constitution?

The Founders made it very clear that the Supreme Court would be violating its assignment if it substituted its own opinions for that of the Founders. Until recently it has always been an established principle that the

Constitution must be interpreted the way the Founders intended it and not according to the whims or caprice of modern justices.

35. Is there any way to curb the Supreme Court from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner?

Yes. A Judicial Reform Amendment would allow any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. A decision could also be overturned by concurring resolutions from three-fourths of the State Legislatures. Had this procedure been available the States would have’ undoubtedly outlawed forced busing of school children at least twenty years ago.

Unconstitutional Edicts of Regulatory Agencies

36. Is it Constitutional for an agency of the Federal Government to write rules and regulations which are enforced in the courts as “laws?”

No. This is a recent development in governmental procedures. It is called “administrative law.” The Founders provided no power in any agency of government to make laws except the Congress.

Blurring the Founders’ Division of Labor Between

the States and the Federal Government

37. How did the Founders intend to divide the problem-solving powers between the States and the Federal Government?

James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, No. 45. He wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined…. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

38. How did the Founders know whether to assign a problem to the State or Federal Governments?

If a problem involved foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes on the high seas, navigable waters, naturalization, etc.) it went to the Federal Government. All other powers were retained by the States.

39. How many areas of power were ultimately assigned to the Federal Government?

The Constitution gives the Federal Government twenty powers. These are set forth in Article I, Section 8.

40. What if the Federal Government thinks it needs more power?

The government cannot legally exercise any powers except those which are specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The only way Washington can get any additional legitimate power is by an amendment.

41. Where does it say that the Federal Government is specifically restricted from exercising any power not granted to it by the States?

The Tenth Amendment

42. Then how did the government get so much power?

The dominating arrogance of the Federal Government today came about primarily through three channels: 1. outright usurpation of power, 2. an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, and 3. distorting the Commerce Clause as the means of shattering the restrictive chains of the Constitution and expanding Federal jurisdiction into hundreds of areas never intended by the Founders..

Subverting Two Important Constitutional Clauses

43. What was the Butler Case?

In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the “general welfare” of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.

44. In what way has the Commerce Clause been distorted to give the Federal Government unconstitutional powers?

This clause was simply designed to give the Federal Government sufficient power to insure the “free flow” of commerce so that the States would not interfere with inter-state shipments as they had done in the past. Since 1936 the original intent of the Founders has been expanded to include Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court), has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation.

Some Practical Questions

45. Doesn’t the more complex nature of modern society require a far more extensive control of the economy by the Federal Government?

No. The more complex society becomes the more it needs the automatic problem-solving devices of a free-market economy operating with the least possible interference from government. As Adam Smith pointed out, government interference only adds to the complexity of the system and results in a serious deterioration of individual freedom.

46. What is a modern example of the Founders’ original success formula solving some of the highly complex problems of a modern society?

No nation could have had a much more complex situation than West Germany right after World War II. Every major city in Germany was bomb-gutted and the people were surviving in basements and make-shift hovels. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany took over in 1949 and immediately initiated the basic economic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers. By using freedom instead of heavy-handed government regulations, West Germany achieved the highest standard of living in Western Europe within eight years. The West Germans were not only fully employed but importing foreign labor besides. Clothing, food and housing were abundant and cheap. West Germany became so prosperous she was the envy of socialized Sweden. It will be recalled that Sweden wasn’t even in the war and had boasted of the superiority of her socialist controls. However, in Sweden a young married. couple has to wait ten years to get a one-room apartment because of the government monopoly over housing. It was obvious West Germany had chosen a better way.

Questions About Money and the Budget

47. What happened to the Federal budget after the “Butler” case?

In 1936 (the year of the Butler case) the Federal budget was around six billion dollars. By 1980 the looting of the American taxpayer had pushed the Federal budget to more than six hundred billion dollars!

48. Is it Constitutional for the government to spend more money that it takes in?

Yes. The Constitution allows the government to borrow in emergencies. Unfortunately, during the last 50 years Congress has continually found excuses to borrow whether there was an emergency or not. The only way to stop this is to replace the big spenders in Congress with Constitutionalists who recognize that we are presently on a disaster course.

The National Debt

49. How much is the national debt today?

The U.S. National Debt is nearly a trillion dollars (extremely higher today!) requiring interest payments which cost more each year than the entire cost of World War I. Future liabilities to which the government is already committed will require taxation of an additional six to seven trillion.

50. How does the U.S. debt compare with the debts of other nations?

The United States now owes more than all of the rest of the nations of the world combined.

51. Why would the Founders have considered this gigantic indebtedness immoral?

The Founders said that no generation should go so deeply in debt that it becomes guilty of squandering the next generation’s inheritance. They said such extravagance is immoral. All past generations tried to pay off all the debts accrued during their time. Ours is the first generation which has deliberately squandered the inheritance of its children.

What About Welfare?

52. But hasn’t much of our money been spent for welfare and other Important social programs?

This was the main excuse for sky-rocketing taxation and deficit spending. Tragically, however, the money has been squandered primarily to build a vast bureaucracy. It is amazing how many of the government’s multibillion dollar social programs have provided only a pittance to trickle down to the poor, the sick and the elderly.

53. But didn’t the government have to try to do something to help those in need?

The Founders specifically warned against this type of political deception where the compassion of the people is exploited to build big government and raise taxes. They said that all types of charity and welfare should be handled on the local level where abuses could be quickly detected and corrected.

54. But what if the states do not provide needed services?

The existence of a need on a State level does not create a power on the Federal level. When a State fails to fulfill its obligation the pressure should be exerted on the State, not the Federal government. Jefferson said there is no way to preserve freedom if all political power gravitates to Washington.

The National Debt and Foreign Aid

55. In view of America’s tremendous national debt, why do we continue giving foreign aid to over a 125 countries?

This whole procedure violates the Constitution and common sense. What started out as part of the defense program in the interest of the United States has turned into an international Santa Claus give-away program. similar to the extravagant give-away programs at home. Tens of billions given away each year automatically add to the national debt.

Social Security

56. Is Social Security an insurance plan or a welfare plan?

The Supreme Court has held that it is a welfare plan. This means that it can be terminated at anytime. It also means the government can distribute its proceeds arbitrarily. The contributor to social security payments acquires no rights and receives only what the government condescends to distribute to him as “payments” if he qualifies under the government’s arbitrary poverty level.

57. Is there a better way?

Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it. [these figures would be higher now]

58. Is the Federal Income Tax Constitutional?

Yes. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted according to the requirements of the constitution.

59. Is this the type of tax which the Founding Fathers would have employed?

No. They provided that direct taxes be apportioned to the States according to population, not according to the incomes of the people.

60. Has income tax been administered uniformly?

No. A graduated income tax violates the equal protection of rights. It violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property of accumulated wealth less sacred than those who have less.

61. Is it possible to administer the Income Tax fairly?

No. This could only be done by setting up a universal monitoring system similar to a “police state.” This would violate all of the basic rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.

62. Would it ever be possible to repeal the Federal Income Tax?

Yes. By phasing out governmental activities which are clearly outside the Constitution, the cost of government would be greatly reduced and the income tax could be safely eliminated.

63. Would the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment interfere with defense and other legitimate Federal responsibilities?

No. Corporate taxes and other sources of Federal revenue would more than adequately provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government if its unconstitutional expenses were phased out. Who knows, there might even be a surplus!

64. What about the thousands of Federal-aid programs covering nearly every aspect of American life?

Federal grants are unconstitutional unless directly related to some power specifically delegated to the Federal Government. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would probably wipe out at least 95% of the Federal-aid programs presently plaguing the nation.

Federal Regulatory Agencies

65. What about EPA?

The Environmental Protection Act involves problems which the Founders delegated exclusively to the States where local supervision could prevent abuses and deal with over-regulation more readily. Today, federal control over air, water, and land environment is strangling the economy and suppressing the development of energy and natural resources.

66. What about OSHA?

Occupational safety and health are important responsibilities but they should never have been delegated to the Federal level. The Founders knew that government is too big, and the legal machinery too expensive for most citizens to handle. They therefore endure the disruptive and oppressive edicts of this agency because it has been too big for the average citizen to fight.

67. What about the Federal Communications Commission?

This agency was designed to “police” the traffic on the air waves but the FCC has used its licensing power to control the editorial content of programs. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

68. What about the Pure Food and Drug Administration?

There is no authority for this agency under the Constitution. If it is in the national interest to have such an agency it should have been authorized by an amendment. There is already a wide-spread criticism of the arbitrary manner in which this agency has exercised its broad spectrum of power.

69. What about Consumer Protection?

Here again we have an exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution. Do we really want that much power allocated to the Federal level where the agency is so big and powerful that not even the largest corporations are able to cope with its abuses?

What About the Government Setting Up Business Operations?

70. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the government to set up tax-exempt corporations or business operations to compete with tax-paying citizens?

The answer is no, unless the corporation or business is directly connected with an area of Federal responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. For example, an independent government corporation to provide mail service would be constitutional. However, a corporation set up to compete in the production of electricity, the manufacturing of clothes, or the operating of a chain of public restaurants, would not.

71. How many corporations and businesses does the government operate at the present time which are unauthorized by the constitution?

Around 700 corporations and 11,000 businesses. [much higher now]

72. Are all of these tax-exempt?

Yes. They are not only tax-exempt but most of them are being subsidized out of tax funds because they are not being operated efficiently.

What Caused the “Sagebrush Rebellion?”

73. Shouldn’t all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?

Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

74. Which states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an equal footing?

All of the Western States and Alaska.

75. In what way were they forced to accept statehood unequally?

Large regions of these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

76. About how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these states?

The government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and 96% of Alaska.

77. Are any of these states attempting to get this land back?

Yes. The press has labelled this effort the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” but it is not a rebellion. These states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to have this land turned back to them.

What About Locking Up State Territory As Wilderness Areas?

78. Does the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to lock up large blocks of land within a state as a “wilderness reserve?”

No. This violates the express provisions of the Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.

79. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest within the confines of a state?

No. This is not included in the list of territories which the Federal Government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the State. (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the Constitution to justify it. Historically, the States have had fewer forest fires and have maintained the State forests on a higher level than the national forests.

80. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within the confines of a State?

No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule State Parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by the Federal Government.

What About Federal Control of Energy Resources?

81. Does the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the production of energy resources within a state?

No.

Problems with Government Monopolies

82. What about the widely expanded activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission?

The Founders never intended the “regulation of commerce” to include cartel monopolies, fixing prices, fixing routes, and regulating industries into bankruptcy. The recent deregulation of airlines dramatically demonstrated the advantage of free-market competition over a system of unconstitutional governmental regulations.

83. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set prices?

Not in time of peace.

84. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set wages?

Not in time of peace.

The National Labor Relations Board

85. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to enter into labor-management disputes in the private sector?

No. This area of Federal usurpation occurred during the “New Deal” days by completely distorting the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

The Department of HEW

86. Is there any Constitutional foundation for the extravagant and wasteful expenditures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?

No. Each of the agencies under HEW has developed since the Butler Case. The dictum in this case authorized the general welfare clause to be interpreted in a manner which extended government intrusion into areas specifically excluded from Federal jurisdiction by the Founders.

87. About how much of the Federal budget Is spent each year on these unconstitutional activities?

Around 201 billion dollars in 1980 which is approximately 1/3 of the Federal budget.

88. Would it require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Department of HEW?

No. An act of Congress could dismantle this extremely costly department which has probably been more wasteful and nonproductive in its assigned area of activity than any other branch of the government.

The Equal Rights Amendment

89. Why are so many millions of American women now opposing the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment?

In the beginning nearly everyone assumed that this amendment was designed to provide equal rights for women. This supposed objective was widely approved. It was only after 30 states had ratified this amendment that it was realized that the simple wording of this amendment would actually destroy a broad spectrum of rights which American women already have.

90. What are some of the rights of American women which ERA would destroy?

At present American women enjoy both the common law right as well as the statutory right to be supported, along with their children, by their husbands. ERA would not only destroy this right but also eliminate many rights relating to employment, maternity leave, insurance and survival rights which are presently provided by law.

91. Would passage of the Equal Rights Amendment give women any more rights than they now have?

No. All of the rights which the advocates of ERA claim they are getting for women through the passage of this amendment are already provided by law.

92. Would the passage of ERA further damage the original separation of powers instituted by the Founders?

Yes. For example, it would transfer a large percentage of cases involving family and other domestic problems from the State courts to the Federal judiciary which is already smothered with legal problems.

Abortions

93. Is Federal funding of abortion a violation of the Constitution?

Yes. The specific and limited authority granted to the Federal Government does not include any funding for abortions.

The Gold and Silver Standard

94. Was the United States taken off the gold and silver standard in violation of the Constitution?

Yes. The gold standard is written into the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and was removed by several acts of Congress without an amendment to the Constitution between 1934 and 1964. From the Founding Fathers standpoint this whole procedure was illegal.

The Federal Department of Education

95. Is it Constitutional for Federal funds to be used in the financing of local schools?

No. The Founding Fathers warned against the funding of schools by the Congress. In fact, education in the U.S. has seriously deteriorated since Federal funding began. James Madison equated the Federal funding of schools as extremely dangerous and said it was almost as bad as funding and controlling the churches of the nation.

96. Should the members of State and educational associations be required by law to pay dues to the National Educational Association?

No. The NEA is a private lobby with an annual budget of nearly $60 million dollars. It succeeded in getting the States to pass a law requiring the educators in State associations to pay dues to the NEA. These laws should be repealed. Teachers find themselves compelled to pay dues to this private organization which often advocates policies that are inimical to the best interests of American education.

Taxes on Dividends

97. Should stockholders be required to pay income taxes on their dividends when the corporation has already been subject to a corporate tax?

No. The stockholders are the owners of the company. They have already paid around 48% tax on the company’s earnings. The residue should be distributed among the stockholders as funds on which the required tax has already been paid.

Control of Firearms

98. Should the Federal Government pass laws providing for the control of guns?

No. The Founders left gun control under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State. They felt it was extremely dangerous to allow the Federal Government to “infringe” on the right to bear arms even in the slightest degree.

The Modem Method of Electing Senators

99. Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed?

The Founders would undoubtedly say yes. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people and set up a Senate to represent the individual States. Senators were originally appointed by State legislatures and were the watchdogs of States rights. The Seventeenth Amendment took away the authority of the State Legislatures to appoint Senators. and therefore required Senatorial candidates to appeal to the people in a popular election. This resulted in the Senators frequently ignoring States rights in an effort to get more money for their States just as Congressmen do. States’ rights have been seriously deteriorating since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913. It destroyed an important element of balance which the founders built into the Constitution.

The BLM

100. Should the Bureau of Land Management be abolished?

Yes. This bureau has been rapidly phasing out the traditional grazing rights of ranchers and setting up impossible regulations on land which should have been turned over to the States when they were admitted into the Union.

Government Expenses

101. Can you find out how the government spends its money?

Yes. A complete breakdown of government spending is published each year by the Government Printing Office. This is required by the Constitution.

Conclusion

Now, as nearly as we can ascertain from the writings of the Founding Fathers, this is about the way they would have answered each of these 101 questions. We have also tried to reflect the line of reasoning which their writings portray when similar questions were raised in their own day.

It is believed their point of view deserves careful consideration in view of the rather calamitous consequences which modern Americans have encountered as a result of following a different line of thinking. The socialist or collectivist formula has not worked for Americans; nor any one else for that matter.

It is believed this generation of Americans could earn the eternal gratitude of their descendants if they would immediately undertake to restore the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.