Divinely Inspired Constitutional Principles

Of the 195 countries in the world today (depending on how you count), all but three have a written constitution. All of these derive from the existence of the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the oldest, most longstanding of them all. Many states, as in the United States, in Mexico, and other places, may also have their own written constitutions. Texas does.

In our worldwide conference yesterday, President Dallin H. Oaks,[i] of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, talked with us about the US Constitution and the divinely inspired principles of freedom it embodies. Why was that brought up in a worldwide religious meeting?

President Dallin H. Oaks, of the First Presidency of 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
speaking at Sunday afternoon's General Worldwide Conference
screenshot from here

 

As Pres. Oaks said,

The United States Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in force today. Though originally adopted by only a small number of colonies, it soon became a model worldwide.

And,

The United States Constitution is unique, because God revealed that He established it for the rights and protection of all flesh.

We believe our US Constitution was divinely inspired at a time and place that made the restoration of the gospel—the founding of our Church—possible, just three decades after it was written. But it’s not just for Church members; it’s for the benefit of all mankind.

US Constitution
image from Wikipedia

While there were other places and people in the world that spoke about human rights and equality—as opposed to a stratified society, which was the norm and had been historically—the United States Constitution was the first to put that into law. There was no place else in the world at that time that would have been receptive to Christ’s restored religion in which God is no respecter of persons but invites all to come unto Christ.

Pres. Oaks has the qualifications to speak on the matter:

·         He clerked for the Chief Justice of the United States.

·         He taught law for 15 years.

·         He served on the Utah Supreme Court for 3 years.

·         He has served as an apostle for our Church for 37 years.

I could add that he also happened to be the President of my alma mater, Brigham Young University; his term ended at my graduation. That doesn’t have anything to do with his expertise on the Constitution and how it relates to the Church, but it adds to my respect for him.

He speaks clearly and lays out his points logically. Always. And yet, he tends to stir up the occasional hornets’ nest when he speaks. Maybe because he’s willing to state things at odds with current culture or political correctness.

I suppose in today’s climate, you’re not supposed to say that something one country has is better than what other countries have. But if it weren’t true, we wouldn’t have a border problem. So let’s just admit that there’s something good here in America. And whatever good we have probably stems from the freedom and prosperity we have directly resulting from our Constitution.

Freedom relates to agency—our ability to choose, and therefore to be accountable for, our actions. He said,

The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices. Then… every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, the Lord revealed, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. This obviously means that human slavery is wrong. And, according to the same principle, it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of their rulers or the making of their laws.

So individual freedom is the overriding principle. But he further distills what makes the US Constitution such a good pattern for the world into these five principles (but not necessarily limited to only these):

1.       The source of government power is the people.

He adds that,

Sovereign power in the people does not mean that mobs or other groups of people can intervene or intimidate to force government action. The Constitution established a constitutional democratic republic, where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives.

2.       A division of power in which only limited, enumerated powers are granted to the central government, and all other rights are reserved “to the states respectively or to the people.”

3.       The separation of powers among independent executive, legislative and judicial powers. More than a century earlier “the English Parliament pioneered the separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king.” But it was an inspired innovation to have all three branches co-equal, so they “could exercise checks upon one another.”

4.       The Bill of Rights, guaranteeing individual rights as well as limits on government authority.

These are not new, as he points out:

Here the inspiration was in the practical implementation of principles pioneered in England, beginning with the Magna Carta. The writers of the Constitution were familiar with these, because some of the colonial charters had such guarantees.

5.       The rule of law, as opposed to ruler’s law.      

He says,

We are to be governed by law, and not by individuals. And our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any officeholder.

Here in Texas our state constitution was patterned after the US Constitution, so I thought I’d take a look and see if it held these five principles.

The opening of the Texas Constitution, handwritten 1876
image from Wikipedia

Bill of Rights, check. Instead of amendments, Article I is the Bill of Rights. It starts with Freedom and Sovereignty of the State, saying this:

Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

This is the basis of the contract between Texas and the United States of America.

Going on, it covers being a republican form of government—representing the voice of the people. That’s the first principle of Pres. Oaks’ list, so check that. Then comes equal rights for all—no special privileges for any. Then comes equality under the law, saying it this way:

Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. 

There are several in a row related to freedom of religion: no religious tests to qualify for office or public trust, provided that a person acknowledges “the existence of a Supreme Being.” Without a Supreme Being, there are no God-given rights to preserve; that would be a problem. Then witnesses cannot be disqualified based on religious belief nor lack thereof; “but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.” Next is freedom of worship—and this is longer and more detailed than the First Amendment in the US Constitution. It says,

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

There’s one more related to religion: no appropriations can go to sectarian purposes—that is, to the benefit of a particular religious sect. No financial religious favoritism.

Next comes freedom of speech and press. Then no illegal searches or seizures. Then rights of the accused, which look similar to in the US. Listed separately are rights of bail, and denial of bail after multiple felonies, which is somewhat long and detailed, with a couple of sub-sections.

Then is the writ of habeas corpus, which shall never be suspended. And that is followed by an inclusive one with no excessive bail or fines; no cruel or unusual punishment; courts must be open; and there must be a remedy by due course of law. Then comes no double jeopardy, and the right to trial by jury.

Things are getting detailed. I’ll add that there are specific limits to imminent domain, including a definition of “public use” to prevent taking property for economic development purposes—which was an amendment in 2009.

There is no deprivation of life, liberty, or property except by due course of the law. There are a couple of others related to law and life. And then a definition of treason against the state:

Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

We can’t leave out the right to keep and bear arms. Then military is subordinate to civil authority, and there’s no quartering of soldiers in houses.

Let me add this one, added in 2005: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” And “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The US Supreme Court is currently at odds with the Texas Constitution.

President Oaks, by the way, mentions this, saying:

Despite the divinely inspired principles of the United States Constitution, when exercised by imperfect mortals, their intended effects have not always been achieved. Important subjects of lawmaking, such as some laws governing family relationships, have been taken from the states by the federal government.

He also mentions other infringements such as "The First Amendment guarantee of free speech has sometimes been diluted by suppression of unpopular speech," and some messiness concerning the separation of powers. People definitely make divine inspiration go awry when they don't follow it. 

Nevertheless, these principles, Pres. Oaks says, make it so all individuals are equal before the law. That is the goal. Unfortunately, that is not always the outcome.

The Texas Constitution has a total of 34 rights in that Article I, all coming ahead of the code of laws.

So are all five principles covered in Texas? Yes. We have rule by the people. We have rights of state government that have not been granted to the federal government. We have the separation of powers: executive, two-chamber legislative, and judicial (divided into civil and criminal state supreme courts). We have the Bill of Rights, which we’ve detailed. And we abide by the rule of law, rather than ruler’s law.

Hurray for Texas!

So what do we do about this love of the principles of the Constitution?

We use the moral agency God has given us to make the best decisions we can and use our influence for good. Pres. Oaks suggests some things good citizens can do:

In the United States and in other democracies, political influence is exercised by running for office—which we encourage—by voting, by financial support, by membership and service in political parties, and by ongoing communications to officials, parties, and candidates.

It’s a fine line, and he’ll be getting flack just for trying to carefully walk it. But he suggests both being politically involved and not criticizing others in how they are politically involved, or in the choices they make. As he says,

There are many political issues. And no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then, members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities.

You don’t know the thought processes another person has gone through, or what their particular priorities are—or even what they may or may not be aware of. So you shouldn’t decide someone is an unworthy church member simply because their political opinions may differ from your own. In a church where the membership heavily leans conservative, I guess that needed to be said.

Often when I hear Pres. Oaks speak, I am wondering which people is he speaking to concerning a particular point. In October 2020 he reminded us that our process is to accept the result of an election, and if disappointed work toward the next election. This was before the election was stolen, but I still took it to heart, since I saw election fraud as likely because of all the mail-in votes and other challenges to basic election integrity. But I couldn’t picture Latter-day Saints going out and protesting. This time he said,

Being subject to presidents or rulers of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully, within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues we should seek to moderate and unify.

I of course agree. But did we members of our Church really need reminding that we influence only civilly and peacefully, within the law? That seems like a given. Or maybe I’m unaware of some rabble-rousing Latter-day Saints somewhere?

I was heartened to hear him say, “We should trust in the Lord and be positive about this nation’s future.” I do trust in the Lord. But I haven’t lately been positive about this nation’s future. He says we should all of us, around the world, pray for our leaders. I do that.

It may be that, while I love the US Constitution, as Pres. Oaks clearly does, he knows more about the future than I do. In my assessment, we are at a stage where we could call what we have the Democratic-Socialist Tyranny of America (that appears to be the intention of those currently in power and trying to make their power permanent), as opposed to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.

If I continue to support Texit, it will be with an eye toward influencing, where I can, to live where we have the divinely inspired principles of the US Constitution. I want that for my beloved United States as well the nation-state I’m living in. But if I can't get it in both, I'll aim for where I live.

In Daniel Miller’s book on Texit, which I’ve been reading this past week, he points out that other places that have separated, such as Scotland from Great Britain and Catalonia from Spain, when you ask a person where they’re from they don’t say the larger unit they’re affiliated with; they say their home place. But here in Texas—well, we sometimes do say Texas before America, as people in probably no other state would do, but we still pledge allegiance to the US flag just before turning toward the state flag and pledging allegiance to Texas (pp. 174-177). The two didn’t used to seem incompatible. They certainly aren’t incompatible when considering the actual US Constitution. But that’s not really what we’ve been dealing with for quite a while.

So I’m considering President Oaks’ words. I am loving an honoring the US Constitution—and our equally principled Texas Constitution. And I’ll watch and hope for America’s positive future, while also pursuing freedom, prosperity, and civilization where I think I have influence to do so.

_____________

[i] As of today, this link of the full session was available, but later this week each speech should be available separately, along with the transcript, including footnotes.