How Does Religious Freedom Bless All God’s Children?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the ways that religious freedom blesses all of God’s children. The Savior wants us to defend the religious rights of all people – including those who believe differently. He declared to Joseph Smith that the freedoms preserved in “the laws and constitution of the people … should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77. Here are the words of several prophets, apostles, and others about religious freedom in America blessing all God’s children. 

Prophet Joseph Smith

I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.

It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul – civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race. (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2011], 345)

President Dallin H. Oaks

Religious teachings and the religiously, motivated actions of believers benefit society and deserve legal protection.

For example, there are many needs for humanitarian assistance – hunger, disease, and lack of education to mention only a few. Religious liberty enables believers and faith communities to provide this aid to society’s neediest members. Most religions exhort their believers to give to the poor. Most also teach their believers that they are accountable to God for this duty.

Religions also play a vital role in contributing to social stability. Societies are not held together primarily by law and its enforcement, but by those who voluntar8ly obey the unenforceable because of their sense of accountability to God….

When citizens learn to live together with respect – despite important religious differences – they are also more likely to live peacefully with others with whom they have important secular differences.” (“Pursuing Religious Liberty Worldwide [address given at the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit, July 20, 2022], newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org)

President D. Todd Christofferson of the First Presidency

For centuries, people fought over religious differences, often with government suppressing one religion in the name of another. Religious liberty has allowed people of diverse religious traditions to live together in peace and friendship despite profound disagreements…. Governments that protect religious freedom have fewer social conflicts and greater levels of social cohesion. (“Religious Liberty: The Basis of a Free and Just Society” [address given at the First Forum on Religious Freedom in the Southern Cone, Oct. 29, 2021], religiousfreedomlibrary.org)

Elder Ronald A. Rasband of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

If religion is not there to help with shaping character and mediating hard times, who will be? Who will teach honesty, gratitude, forgiveness, and patience? Who will exhibit charity, compassion, and kindness for the forgotten and the downtrodden? Who will embrace those who are different yet deserving, as are all of God’s children? Who will open their arms to those in need and seek no recompense? Who will reverence peace and obedience to laws greater than the trends of the day? (“To Heal the World,” Liahona, May 2022, 93)

President Camille N. Johnson of the Relief Society

I believe that the most important and impactful work of women continues to be done when we are for our own children, teach a friend to read, patiently address the needs of an elderly neighbor, prepare a meal for the sick, or cry with a sister who is grieving. The universality in the way we bear and nurture humanity connects women across cultural divides and language barriers, laying a foundation for peace.

I strive to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. I believe He came to earth to save humanity from sin and death and to lift us in our sorrow and distress….

The work of defending the United States Constitution, religious freedom, and the family is not just for legal scholars and academics. It is for … Relief Society presidents and non-lawyers and people of every religious persuasion….

Let us follow the Prince of Peace and practice, in our personal and professional lives, His perfect example…. He wants to engage with us – and will as we joyfully engage in His great work. (J. Reuben Clark Law Society, “2026 JRCLS Annual Fireside,” YouTube, Jan. 16, 2026, youtube.com/@JReubenClarkLawSociety)

Why Are America’s Founding Documents Selling So Fast?

An interesting phenomenon often happens when the national administration changes. When a newly elected President of the United States starts making policy changes, people are understandably concerned. People wonder if the actions are constitutional – especially if the President represents a different political party.

Market research firm Circana began keeping track of purchases of America’s founding documents in 2004 and claims that they are selling faster in 2025 than in any previous year since 2004. Joshua Arnold believes that “the tumultuous state of America’s political affairs” could be the reason for the “rising civic interest.” 

The U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers have sold a combined 162,000 copies this year, Circana noted – and that’s only through mid-April. This is 76% higher than the same period in 2017, President Donald Trump’s first term in office, when these documents sold 92,000 copies, more than twice as many as in 2016. Sales totaled 58,000 over the same period in 2024 and 33,000 over the same period in 2023.

Circana analyst Brenda Connor said the record-high interest “is likely in response to the recent change of administration,” noting rising intrigue in other books about government as well. “We generally see increased sales of editions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution every election cycle,” said Shannon DeVito, Barnes & Noble’s senior director of book strategy, “but particularly this year.”

In addition to the cyclical election spike in sales, DeVito also noted that the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, which will take place next July, may also play a role in the spiking demand.

Yet multiple analysts still suggested the record-high orders were due to “the fast and furious current political conversations and policy changes,” as DeVito put it. Indeed, political changes have been fast and furious, as the Trump administration swings the pendulum back from the Biden administration’s lawless leftism.

In less than 100 days, the Trump administration has undertaken massive downsizing and restructuring within the federal bureaucracy, slashed through one agency after another with the DOGE chainsaw, overhauled America’s tariff regime, and nearly abolished both USAID and the Department of Education. As if that weren’t enough, the Trump administration has picked fights with universities like Harvard over their rampant antisemitism, punished states like Maine over their refusal to protect girls’ sports, and played chicken with the federal court system on a host of issues. Not only has the Trump administration embraced rapid political changes, but it has also done so in ways that challenge longstanding liberal assumptions about how government is supposed to work and what it is supposed to do.

These changes evoke a range of emotions across the political spectrum. The Left is outraged, Trump’s base is enthused, while many ordinary Americans – those with only a casual understanding of politics – are merely bewildered. The question that pops into their head is, “Wait a minute, can they do that?”

And that is a legitimate question. Many Americans are not rabid political activists who broach the question merely as a prelude to a more hostile political broadside. They genuinely want to know.

But – due to another seismic shift that helps account for the record-high interest in

America’s founding documents – these curious Americans no longer trust the media to answer this question for them. In days gone by, they were too busy to research arcane legal issues for themselves. They trusted those whose job it was to research and report on the news to track down the answer for them.

Not anymore. In October 2024, Gallup recorded that a record-low 31% of Americans had “a great day/fair amount” of trust in mass media, compared to 33% who had “not very much” trust, and 36% who had “none at all.”

So, if Americans want to know what the Constitution allows, but they don’t trust the media to tell them the truth, the simplest solution is to return to the founding documents and read them for themselves….

Yet the more important – and salutary -- trend is that the increased demand for America’s founding documents indicates increased civic awareness. When Americans are studying the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, and when they analyze the actions of their elected representatives through that lens, then they are thinking like citizens, not subjects. They will recognize the self-evident wisdom of our system of government. And these ordinary Americans will thereby be empowered to defend their system of government against all manner of authoritarian assaults.

Were Judge Juan Merchan’s Instructions According to the U.S. Constitution?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the instructions given by Judge Juan Merchan to the jury about the New York case against Donald Trump. Numerous criminal attorneys, former prosecutors, and law professors have spoken out against the case in New York, saying that there is no case. However, a jury in New York convicted Trump on 34 counts last week. Jason Cohen published an article about the judge’s instructions to the jury. 

Defense attorney Randy Zelin and former Trump attorney Time Parlatore said on Friday that Judge Juan Merchan violated the U.S. Constitution with his instructions to the jury in former President Donald Trump’s trial.

Merchan instructed the jury that it is not a requirement for them to be in unanimous agreement about what “other crime” Trump committee, instead receiving a choice of three separate crimes they can select to convict the former president.

The two attorneys on “CNN Special Report” said Merchan’s jury instructions were flawed to the point that an appeals court could conceivably overturn the conviction.

“I hate to do this, but I would be remiss if I didn’t,” Zelin said. “Whether you are driving in a Ford or a Ferrari, if someone gives you bad directions, you’re going to end up lost. And those jury instructions were just a complete, just take the Constitution, throw it out a window, burn it, shoot it, and hang it.”

“I think that the jury instructions had a very key flaw here, which is the falsification of business records had to be in furtherance of some other crime and there wasn’t really great instructions on what that other crime was,” Parlatore said s appeals court overturning the verdict.

“Under New York state law, they’re not required to say which it is. But when they do, the judge has to instruct them on that specific crime. And the problem here is they don’t have to prove that they actually committed that other crime. They don’t have to prove that they actually had [Federal Election Commission] violations, but they have to show that what they intended to do was in fact a crime. And that I think is really the shortfall in the jury instructions is the lack of an explanation to this jury as to the federal election law.”

As most people in the world know, Donald Trump was convicted by a jury on Thursday in a case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. The entire trial was questionable, but there some numerous complaints about the judge’s handling of the jury. Cohen’s article continued with the following.

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig and criminal defense attorney Michael O’Mara on Friday said Trump’s appeal will plausibly be based on the case’s unprecedented nature and Merchan not sequestering the jury.

“I think there’s a great likelihood, and the reason why is there are a number of issues,” O’Mara said in response to a question about the likelihood of the appeal succeeding. “I have always complained about the way this jury was or was not handled during the trial. I think with the massive focus on this case that they should have been sequestered. They certainly should have been sequestered during the deliberations. I think they should have been sequestered for the week before.”

Trump’s attorneys indicated that the case is not over and will be appealed to the appeals court. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) called on the Supreme Court on Friday to “step in” to settle case. Meanwhile, supporters for Trump are flocking to donate to his campaign fund with more than $200 million being raised in less than 48 hours.

 

 

Why Is Knowledge of the Constitution Important?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the need for Americans to know the content of the United States Constitution. Yesterday, we celebrated Constitution Day. Did you consider the Constitution yesterday? Did you take the time to study the Constitution? Did you even know that it was Constitution Day?

            According to The Hill, the Annenberg Public Policy Center took its annual Constitution Day Civics Survey. The results are interesting as well as discouraging. 

About a quarter of Americans surveyed could not name a single branch of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial).

Fewer than half of the respondents could name all three branches of government.

Around 26 percent of respondents could not name any First Amendment freedoms (religion, speech, press, peaceably assemble, and petition the government).

            The understanding of Americans of “basic facts about the U.S. government declined for the first time in six years.” The percentage of Americans who could name all three branches of government dropped by 9 percentage points from last year. There was also “a decline in the number of respondents who could name any of the five freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment.”

Freedom of religion was named by 24 percent of those surveyed, falling from 56 percent from the previous survey [drop of 32 percent]. Those who named freedom of the press also declined sharply down by 30 percentage points from 50 percent in 2021.

Around 26 percent of respondents could not name any First Amendment freedoms. And the percentage of respondents who listed the right to bear arms – a right protected under the Second Amendment – as a First Amendment protection tripled from 2021 rising to 9 percent.

But respondents did exhibit significant knowledge in several areas, including some aspects of firearm ownership and search and seizure laws. More than 80 percent knew the Supreme Court upheld citizens’ rights to own a gun, while around 78 percent know that the Bill of Rights protects Americans from illegal searches and seizures.

Moreover, nearly three-quarters of respondents know the Constitution prevents the federal government from establishing an official religion – a percentage statistically similar to the previous year’s survey.

            Why is it important for each American to know what the Constitution says? According to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, “When it comes to civics, knowledge is power.” She continued, “It’s troubling that so few know what rights we’re guaranteed by the First Amendment. We are unlikely to cherish, protect, and exercise rights if we don’t know that we have them.”

            In an article posted to American Thinker, Eric Utter compared the knowledge of Americans about the Constitution to their knowledge in other areas. 

Nearly all Americans can name three or more genders, one or more of which don’t even exist. I am nearly certain that the vast majority of Americans can name three HBO shows, three characters from Game of Thrones, three adult movie stars, three rap musicians, and three brands of candy bars. But can even half of us name all 50 states? 30…?

            I could add a few other categories of knowledge that Americans can recite at a moment’s notice: football teams – both professional and college, basketball teams – both professional and college, superheroes, dinosaurs, and many others. There is not much knowledge in this world that is more important for us to know than what is in the Constitution – with the only exception being the information needed to achieve salvation.

The results of the above referenced survey show the consequences of taking civics out of our schools. We now have several generations of Americans who do not know their rights, or what they should expect from government. In addition, they do not know their personal responsibilities in keeping America free. There is little wonder that there is so much crime in liberal cities, or so many idiots being elected to Congress. God help America if we do not start teaching essential information to the rising generations!

What Can We Expect from Supreme Court in the Future?

            The United States Supreme Court has been much in the news over the past two months. The 2021-2022 court term has been described as a “block buster” one and “absolutely historic.” Of course, the term was capped by the overturning of Roe v. Wade, “the greatest victory of the conservative legal movement” to save the lives of unborn babies. 

            The Supreme Court had mixed decisions among the one hundred or so cases, some supported by conservatives and some that supported by liberals. However, the decision causing the most consternation among liberals was the one sending the abortion issue back to the states. In the aftermath of the decision, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing about the post-Roe legal landscape in America, and a leftist pro-abortion group offers to pay a bounty for information about the location of any conservative justice that dares to go out in public.

            The current Supreme Court found that Roe v. Wade was not decided on a constitutional basis. There is nothing in the Constitution to support the abomination known as Roe v. Wade. The overturning of Roe v. Wade fixes the mistake made by a previous Court.

            Virginia Allen hosted a podcast with Heritage Foundation legal experts Zack Smith and GianCarlo Canaparo to discuss what is ahead for the Supreme Court.

Smith: And I think it’s interesting, Virginia, because each term there’s typically one, maybe two cases where I think you look at and you say, “Wow, students will be reading this case in their first-year law classes, 10, 15 years from now.” But it seems like this term, there were many, many of those cases, not only the Dobbs case that [Canaparo] was talking about. But there was also an important Second Amendment case, also several important religious liberty cases. And so this really was a blockbuster term in the history of the court.

Canaparo: And don’t forget the sleeper issues were some of the administrative law cases, which we can talk about in some detail. But those, they don’t tend to get noticed as much because they don’t implicate sort of the high-profile political issues of the day. But in many ways, those are actually some of the most important cases the Supreme Court decided this term.

            Allen asked for a brief discussion about the “significance of some of those cases. Canaparo began with the “very beginning … the Constitution.” He discussed the “great genius” of the Constitution being the fact that “it was written law.” Other countries, including Great Britain had constitutions, but none of them were written. Another important thing about the U.S. Constitution is “the idea that power is separated.” You “can’t protect freedom as long as the power over that freedom is in one person or one institution’s hand. So they cut out power.”

            According to Canaparo, the second genius of the government created by the framers of the Constitution is that of the three branches of government. The legislative branch was given the authority to create the laws, the executive branch was given the authority and power to enforce the laws, and the judicial branch was given the authority to interpret the laws and to determine if they are constitutional.

            Canaparo continued by explaining that some presidents, such as Woodrow and Franklin D. Roosevelt, usurped power from Congress and consolidated power in the executive branch. “So these executive branch agencies, the alphabet soup of Washington, have the power to essentially write laws.” There were tasks that legislators did not want to do, so they passed their authority to a willing executive branch. So, the executive branch now has power to make laws, enforce them, and even “power to hear cases and trials about those laws.” He continued:

So you’ve got an enormous amount of power conglomerated in the administrative state and like any sort of power-hoarding body, it grows, it expands its own power. And for many years the judiciary has been OK with that under a doctrine called Chevron and Auer. These re deference doctrines the court has said, “Look, as long as the agency is doing something, that’s sort of reasonable. We’re going to let them just do whatever they want.”

And that has been a big problem for a lot of reasons. Not only is it sort of, as a matter of first principles, wrong on the Constitution, but you get a lot of very progressive types who stock administrative agencies because they tend to be the kinds who think that the government is the salvation of the people and you have just seen the administrative state run away with itself.

And this term, we got a number of cases where the Supreme Court put the [brakes] on that in a pretty big way and said, “Look, no, the legislative power belongs to the people and their representatives in Congress and the executive agencies need to stop this runaway power grab.”

Allen then asked some questions about “this particular Supreme Court as a whole.” She said that people are claiming that this Supreme Court is “much more conservative, maybe in their political views, than other Supreme Courts in past history. She wanted to know if this is “a fair assessment” and how this Court compares to “some of the past sitting courts we’ve seen.” Canaparo explained that there is a small “C” conservative and a big “C” conservative.

So yeah, let me start pushing back on the narrative that what the court does is inherently political. The court is conservative in a small “C” way. But what that really highlights is that there’s two aspects to conservatism.

There is conservatism with a big “C,” where you’re striving for political outcomes, which are conservative. But conservatives have done a good job of developing a method of doing what judges do that is conservative in a small “C” way, but not reaching for politically conservative outcomes.

And what that is, it’s called originalism, when we’re talking about the Constitution or textualism, when we’re talking about statutes. And the principle’s simple. It’s that judges have the power to interpret the law, not the power to make law. And so they need to be constrained by what the law actually says. The meaning of the words on the page.

And this is typically a small “C” conservative position, although there are a lot of very thoughtful, smart, liberal law professors out there, some of the best ones, some of the smartest ones, even on the left, who agree that originalism and textualism is the way to go.

But that process of limiting judges to the text of statutes is often going to produce conservative big “C” political outcomes, simply because it means that the legal process isn’t going to lend itself to new and liberal expressions of the law that don’t preexist them. Right?

So if you want to change the law and you are a liberal and you want a judge to change the law for you, rather than the legislature to rewrite a law, a judge isn’t going to have that power if they are a textualist judge.

So it’s going to lend to small “C” conservative outcomes oftentimes, but not always, but it is a mistake to say that this is political conservatism at work. What it is, it’s judges being restrained. It is judges saying, “The text of a statute, which may have been set down many years ago when social mores were different, for instance, controls until Congress or the people change it themselves.”

So in that way, we have seen a shift. This is really the first time since originalism really took off as an idea and a theory in the ‘80s with Ed Meese and [Robert] Bork and Justice [Antonin] Scalia, this is the first time we have had a majority of the court that is really committed to that idea. And that is really heartening.

There will be growing pains as some of the really aggressive activist decisions of the past are reversed because the court used to think that the judges were philosopher kings who could do what they wanted. But so, we’re going to have some growing pains as we correct those mistakes. But that, in the long run, is a very good thing.

            The discussion then went to the appointment and swearing in of a new justice – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She is the first Black woman to become a justice on the Supreme Court, even though there have been two Black men on it. Justice Jackson is expected to join the liberal side of the court with liberal ideology, although she “echoed to some extent some of those originalist textualist talking points” given by other justices currently on the court. Since she replaces another liberal on the court, Justice Stephen Breyer, the court is still considered to have a “conservative” majority.

Separation of Church and State

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns that sometimes overrated idea of Separation of Church and State that is not even in the United States Constitution. Atheists and other non-Christians have been fighting Christian symbols and beliefs for many years. The first one to fall was prayer in school. The Supreme Court issued its decision on prayer in school in Engel v. Vitale on June 25, 1962. Prayer was taken out of school, and the crusade against Christianity has continued ever since.

            The latest religion-based ruling came recently about a cross that was erected in Bladensburg, Maryland, nearly 90 years ago to honor approximately 50 men from the community who died during World War I. Many of the men were buried in France, and their loved ones desired a place where they could go in their grief to remember and to mourn the loss of their loved ones. There were multiple fund-raising events before a 40-foot “Peace Cross” was finally erected in the community. “At its base sits plaque inscribed with the names of each of the men who did not make it home. The seal of the American Legion is also found on the cross along with four words: ‘Valor,’ ‘Endurance,’ ‘Courage,’ and ‘Devotion.’” (All details and quotes are from this same source.)

            The cross stood for 90 years without anyone objecting to it. In fact, it was often the staging ground for other events, such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day celebrations. Then the American Humanist Association decided in 2014 that “the cross violated the Establishment Clause due to its location on public property and the expenditure of city funds for its upkeep.”

            It did not seem to matter to the opponents of the cross that it was erected on private land, land that was taken by Maryland by eminent domain. The State wanted the land to expand a nearby highway, and the land grab included the parcel where the cross is located. Even though Maryland owned the land, there were no objections against the cross for another 50 years.

            The case finally reach the Supreme Court, and it issued a recent 7-2 decision that the 40-foot-tall cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, could stay. The decision on this case is sure to impact decisions about other religiously-based monuments in America.

            The fact that the Court ruled 7-2 should make a big statement. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented on the case. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority of the court.

For nearly a century, the Bladensburg Cross has expressed the community’s grief at the loss of the young men who perished, its thanks for their sacrifice, and its dedication to the ideals for which they fought.

It has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of “a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions.”

            There is no doubt that the cross originated as a Christian symbol and keeps that meaning. However, it has added secular meaning in World War I memorials. It also has historical importance because it is a reminder of loved ones and their sacrifices in a long-ago war. It has become a part of the community and represents veterans from all the foreign wars following World War I.

            The U.S. Constitution, and the Religion Clauses of the Bill of Rights in particular, was written to bring people of all beliefs or no beliefs together, and the Cross in Bladensburg has fulfilled that purpose for many years. It is only in recent years that the small minority of people who take offense with the cross and other memorials have had power to do anything about their offense. I agree with the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch who discussed how tired he is of hearing the “I-take-offense” reason for suing.

In a large and diverse country, offense can be easily found. Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody. No doubt, too, that offense can

be sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise. But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation. Instead, in a society that holds among its most cherished ambitions mutual respect, tolerance, self-rule, and democratic responsibility, an “offended viewer” may “avert his eyes” … or pursue a political solution.

            Justice Gorsuch suggests that offended people take their gripe to Congress instead of filing a legal case with the courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh seems to believe in the same course of action because he added in his opinion, “This court is not the only guardian of individual rights in America.”

            Even though millions of Americans call the court decision a win, there are some people who say that the Supreme Court did not go far enough. Emilie Kao at The Heritage Foundation gave credit to the Court for its decision but added some criticism.

While the court decided this case correctly, it did not clarify its own confusing and contradictory standards for deciding other Establishment Clause cases. Even though four justices criticized the long-discredited 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman and its “shortcomings,” they did not vote to overturn this distortion of the Constitution.

The Constitution as written, not the personal views of judges, should guide how the American people express their religious faith in the public square.

            Most Americans agree that memorials should be protected and that our religious heritage, history, and symbols are an integral part of the founding of our nation. However, other faith-based monuments are in danger until the Supreme Court scraps the “Lemon test.” Justice Clarence Thomas writes the following about Lemon.

Nearly half a century after Lemon, and, the truth is, no one has any idea about the answers to these questions. As the plurality documents, our “doctrine [is] in such chaos” that lower courts have been “free to reach almost any result in almost any case.” Scores of judges have pleaded with us to retire Lemon, scholars of all stripes have criticized the doctrine, and a majority of this Court has long done the same. Today, not a single Member of the Court even tries to defend Lemon against these criticisms – and they don’t because they can’t… It is our job to say what the law is, and because the Lemon test is not good law, we ought to say so.

            While Christians and millions of other Americans are rejoicing at the decision for this case, we should not – and cannot – rest on our laurels. The American Humanist Association declared after the decision that “Our legislative efforts will be redoubled.” Conservatives and all people who are willing to fight to protect and preserve our Constitution need to stay awake and alert. The Constitution has served our nation well for more than 235 years and will continue to do so if we will but protect and preserve it.

Need for Informed Citizens

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the need for citizens of the United States to be well informed. When citizens do not know the contents of the founding documents – Declaration of Independence and Constitution – and the laws of the land, they can be easily be deceived by those people who want to control them. This is one reason why immigrants who want to become citizens must take a test and get a certain percentage of the answers correct.

            During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, the American colonists were happy being members of the British Empire. None of the people wanted to become a separate nation. Yet, after the publication of the Declaration of Independence and a pamphlet called “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, the people began to realize how their freedoms were slipping away through the different acts of Parliament. They were willing to act only after they were informed of their situation.

            The Founding Fathers were quite concerned about the importance of having an informed citizenry. Here are a couple of quotes attributed to Thomas Jefferson. 

A well informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

            Jefferson must have had some sense of what would be happening in the United States today. Many people – myself included – believe that Donald Trump was elected by the people because they were concerned about what was happening in the nation during the Obama administration. In other words, the people took steps to right the government. That is why we are seeing so much violence and chaos in the nation. The liberals who were taking the country down the wrong road are violently opposed to Trump turning the nation around, and they are fighting the change with everything that they have – lies, chaos, and violence. We The People elected Trump to do the work that he is doing.

            In 2012 the Center for the Study of the American Dream at Xavier University conducted a study to see how informed Americans are. The study found that one of every three citizens of the United States fails the civics portion of the test for immigrant naturalization. 

The survey of more than 1,000 voting-age Americans asked respondents 10 random questions from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services civics exam, which is administered as part of the immigration process, finding that 35 percent answered five or less questions correctly. More than 97 percent of immigrants applying for citizenship pass the test.

Native-born citizens fared best on questions related to history and geography and struggled most with questions about the function of government, specifically on questions about the Constitution and those that asked to identify current policy-makers. Other parts of the study show respondents were overwhelmingly confused about powers granted to the federal government and those granted to individual states.

Here are some questions that gave respondents the most trouble:

. 85 percent could not define “the rule of law.”

. 75 percent did not know function of the judicial branch

. 71 percent were unable to identify the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.”

. 63 percent could not name one of their state’s Senators.

. 62 percent did not know the name [of] the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

. 62 percent could not identify the Governor of their state.

. 57 percent could not define an “amendment.”

            I can almost understand a situation where a person would have a senior moment and not remember the names of Senators, Governor, or Speaker of the House, but I believe that every American should be able to answer the other questions. A favorite cry whenever President Trump does anything people do not like is “That’s unconstitutional!” How do they know whether something is constitutional or not if they do not know the Constitution?

            I am grateful that President Trump is nominating judges for the federal courts that know the Constitution and are willing to make their decisions according to the Constitution as it is written. Liberals do not want judges and justices that follow the Constitution because they know that they cannot pressure such judges to go against the supreme law of the land.

            I believe that every citizen of the United States should be able to pass the citizenship test given to immigrants. I also believe that students in every school of the land should be taught civics. The rising generation must know the founding documents and other important papers, or they must be prepared to lose freedoms.

Concerns for the Constitution

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the Constitution itself. There are so many attacks against the Constitution that one wonders if there will be any Constitution left.

            The First Amendment is constantly being attacked. There is persecution against Christians in many places in the U.S., such as on college campuses where Christian students are forbidden to share their beliefs. There are cases about free speech currently being considered in the Supreme Court. There are encroaches on freedom to assemble, also mostly on college campuses where conservatives can only speak about their issues in “free speech zones.”

            The Second Amendment is constantly under attack. A social worker was recently fired because she owns a concealed carry permit. She does not yet have a gun, but the fact that she has a permit as enough for her employer. The right to buy rifles has recently been taken from 18-20 years old by Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods.

            Rogue judges continually legislate from the bench against anything that Donald Trump wants to do that would protect Americans – such as stop entry of anyone from terrorist-producing nations which happen to also be Muslim nations. We no longer have freedom of the press because the leftist media prints only the talking points given to it by the leftists.

            As I was searching about something to post tonight, I came across the following question on Google: “What is the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?” In case you do not know, here is Google’s answer: “Though connected in spirit, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are separate, distinct documents. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. It was a list of grievances against the king of England intended to justify separation from British rule.”

            The first question is bad enough, but this one is even worse: “Is the Constitution a part of the Declaration of Independence?” The answer is a big NO! Google says, “The Declaration of Independence, which officially broke all political ties between the American colonies and Great Britain, set forth the ideas and principles behind a just and fair government, and the Constitution outlined how this government would function.”

            The third question is a little more understandable – for grade school children! “What is the difference between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? In terms of definitions, the difference is that the Constitution was ratified first and the Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments that were added to the Constitution. In terms of their content, the major difference is that the Constitution as a whole sets up our system of government” and the Bill of Rights protects Americans from their government.   

            I often wonder how long the Constitution can withstand all the attacks on it. Now I marvel that it has stood for as long as it has. The ignorance and apathy in this nation about the Constitution should have destroyed it long ago!

Patriotic Family Reunion

            Families, communities, and nations are strengthened when family members reunite to strengthen bonds and to enjoy each other’s company. It is time once again for the reunion for my parents’ posterity. Since the theme of the reunion is patriotic, some members of the family decided that I should make a presentation as part of a larger program. To fulfill this responsibility, I put together the following presentation.

            I introduce my presentation by explaining why I began studying about government and the Constitution in the first place. After the 2008 presidential election, I began to feel concerns for the future of our nation. As a result of these concerns I embarked on a study of the U.S. Constitution, government, etc. From what I was seeing and hearing in current events as well as what I was studying about how the government should work, I feared a possible question from my grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The question that so frightened me was: “What were you doing while the U.S. Constitution was being destroyed?”

            I felt a great need to share my new knowledge and understanding with my family, but I did not know how to do it. In May 2009 I began to feel promptings to write a blog in order to share this information. Since I knew nothing about how to set up a blog and had little writing experience, I procrastinated for several months. By September 2009 the promptings were so strong that I knew that I could no longer ignore them. So I set up a blog and started posting.

            This September will begin my ninth year of writing a blog, and I continue my blog for the same reason that I started it. I do not worry about who may read my blog or how many followers I have. I assume that what I write is being found by those people who need the information.

            During the past eight years I have read many books and articles in an effort to gain needed knowledge and then attempted to share that information with other people. I have probably forgotten most of what I learned, but I have retained basic understanding in some areas. I believe that following three topics are important information for all Americans.

I. There is a relationship or connection between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

            According to Rob Natelson at IndependenceInstitute.Org, the “Declaration is a statement based on natural law” – law that “consists of fundamental principles of justice and right.” Religious people believe natural law comes from God, and “Atheists who believe in natural law … view it as a collection of rules inherent in the way the universe works.”

            Natelson continues his explanation of natural law: “The men who approved the Declaration” believed that their natural rights came from God. They believed the following:

(1) people have equal dignity before God, (2) God grants people rights or powers, some of which are transferable (alienable) and others not transferable (inalienable or unalienable),

(3) government is erected primarily to protect people’s rights, (4) government is a fiduciary enterprise, subject to rules of public trust, and (5) the people may alter government when it does not serve their purposes.”

            According to Natelson, “The Constitution … is a statement of positive law. Positive law consists of rules enforceable by governmental authority. There are many positive laws, but the Constitution was designed to be the supreme positive law.

            “The Founders believed that in a perfect world, positive law would be the same as natural law. In an imperfect world that is impossible, but we should try to make positive law approximate natural law as closely as feasible.”

            The Preamble to the Constitution is basically a summary of what its writers wanted the document to accomplish: They wanted it to bring more unity to their new nation; they wanted it to provide justice for every person; they wanted it to bring peace to the people; they wanted it to bring the ability to fund a military to defend the nation, and they wanted it to bring prosperity to all citizens. In short, they wanted it to bring the blessings of freedom for themselves as well as all following generations.

II. God was behind the writing of the Constitution.

            In many places in the Book of Mormon, the writers state that God preserved and protected the American continents as a land “choice above all the lands of the earth” (Ether 13:42). The writers also tell us that the safety and prosperity of Americans lies in righteousness. The Book of Mormon tells us that Nephi saw a vision of the coming of Columbus, Pilgrims, and others to America, the Revolutionary War, and the success of the Americans in gaining independence from Great Britain. Of course, Nephi did not name the people or events as I have done, but any serious student can understand what Nephi saw.

            We read in the Doctrine and Covenants that God established “the laws and constitution of the people” and commanded that the Constitution be “maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” We also read that God “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [He] raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood” (D&C 101:77, 80). 

Even though the Constitution was inspired of God, not every word is divine in nature.

            The writers of the Constitution were wise men, but they were not prophets. The Constitution was inspired, but it is not scripture even though some of it sounds scriptural. The Constitution came about after much debate and compromise between learned and wise men.

            The February 1992 Ensign has an article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks titled “The Divinely Inspired Constitution.” and gave a list of five fundamental principles that were inspired.

1. Separation of powers. The inspiration for separation of powers came long before the writing of the Constitution. The idea of separation of powers had been around for at least 100 years and was well established in the American colonies. The various colonies adopted constitutions during the Revolution that “distinguished between the executive, legislative, and judicial functions.”

“The inspiration in the convention was in its original and remarkably successful adaptation” of this “idea of separation of powers to the practical needs of a national government. The delegates found just the right combination to assure the integrity of each branch, appropriately checked and balanced with the others.”

2. A written bill of rights. Again, the idea of a Bill of Rights was not new. Nearly 600 years before the Constitution, the Magna Charta “contained a written guarantee of some rights for certain” subjects.” Elder Oaks says that the “inspiration was in the brilliant, practical implementation of preexisting principles.”

“I have always felt that the United States Constitution’s closest approach to scriptural stature is in the phrasing of our Bill of Rights. Without the free exercise of religion, America could not have served as the host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of Rights, was ratified. I also see scriptural stature in the concept and wording of the freedoms of speech and press, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirement that there must be probable cause for an arrest and that accused persons must have a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and the guarantee that a person will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

            Before I leave Elder Oaks’ words on the topic of the Bill of Rights and move on to his next principle, I want to clarify that the Bill of Rights was written because the people were afraid that their new government would become a tyrant, such as the king from which they had just won independence. It is important for all to understand that we have the Bill of Rights to protect us from our own government!

            The Second Amendment, the right to own and use guns, is apparently the most dominant one because it is the power that protects the other rights. Once a government takes away the freedom to use guns for self-protection, the government can do whatever it pleases. This is the main reason for the assault on the Second Amendment.

            If you do not believe that there is an assault on the Second Amendment, Oregon’s House and Senate just passed a bill that allows the “confiscation of an individual’s firearms. [The law] creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.” The Oregon bill is based on a California law and allows a judge to decide “whether guns should be taken from [the individual] without due process of the law.”

3. Division of powers. “Another inspired fundamental of the U.S. Constitution is its federal system, which divides government powers between the nation and the various states. Unlike the inspired adaptations mentioned earlier, this division of sovereignty was unprecedented in theory or practice. In a day when it is fashionable to assume that the government has the power and means to right every wrong, we should remember that the U.S. Constitution limits the national government to the exercise of powers expressly granted to it [by the Tenth Amendment]. This principle of limited national powers, with all residuary powers reserved to the people or to the state and local governments, which are most responsive to the people, is one of the great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution.

“The particular powers that are reserved to the states are part of the inspiration. For example, the power to make laws on personal relationships is reserved to the states. Thus, laws of marriage and family rights and duties are state laws.”

4. Popular sovereignty. “Perhaps the most important of the great fundamentals of the inspired Constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty: The people are the source of government power. Along with many religious people, Latter-day Saints affirm that God gave the power to the people, and the people consented to a constitution that delegated certain powers to the government…. The sovereign power is in the people. I believe this is one of the great meanings in the revelation which tells us that God established the Constitution of the United States, `That every man may act … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land.’ (D&C 101:78-80.)

"In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility. In this condition men are accountable for their own sins and cannot blame their political conditions on their bondage to a king or a tyrant. This condition is achieved when the people are sovereign, as they are under the Constitution God established in the United States. From this it follows that the most important words in the United States Constitution are the words in the preamble: `We the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ …

"Popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility…”

5. The rule of law and not of men. “Further, there is divine inspiration in the fundamental underlying premise of this whole constitutional order. All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law. … The rule of law is the basis of liberty.”

            The U.S. Constitution was the first written constitution in the world, and it is the pattern for the constitutions in many other nations. It was written 230 years ago, and it is still relevant. It is the Supreme Law of our land and should be followed. It includes instructions on how to amend it if necessary. In more than 200 years, it has been amended only 27 times. I encourage all of my readers to embark on a study of the U.S. Constitution and join the effort to protect and preserve it for many generations to come.