Are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution Racist?

             The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the recent announcement that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are racist. This is according to the agenda for the Biden administration, and the National Archives is working with the regime. It has added a “harmful language alert” to the images of the Constitution and Declaration. Imagine that! This regime is condemning our founding documents because they do not approve of the wording found in them. Fox News is reporting that references to the two documents should no longer be known as “charters of freedom.”

            This is another attempt to show that America has been a racist nation from its beginning, and that the founding documents are rooted in racism and slavery. They claim that the Revolutionary War was fought over slavery, which is patently wrong. The American colonists fought for freedom to live according to their own consciences. The Constitution did not immediately end slavery in the nation, but the Framers included in the Constitution instructions of how to end slavery. Michael Austin gave the following explanation. 

All of this feeds into a larger narrative pushed by President Joe Biden and the left in general: the idea that racism and slavery are both rooted in the founding documents and that, therefore, America itself was founded on racist principles.

This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

America isn’t rooted in racism or even slavery. Quite the contrary is true: This country was built on the ideals of freedom and individual liberty.

            Austin then quoted historian Matthew Spalding, who pointed out in a 2002 report for The Heritage Foundation that many of the founding fathers were against slavery and attempted to end it. However, they were forced to work around the demands of the representatives from the southern states. They did not end slavery, but they “designed the founding documents so that slavery could one day be abolished.” Spaulding’s statement is as follows:

In order to get the unified support needed for the Constitution’s ratification and successful establishment, the framers made certain concessions to the pro-slavery interests. The compromises they agreed to, however, were designed to tolerate slavery where it currently existed, not to endorse or advance the institution.

            The bottom line is that the Constitution included a deadline of twenty years to end the importation of slaves. The importation of slaves stopped in 1808, as soon after the ratification of the Constitution as could be done.

Birthright Citizenship

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is birthright citizenship. The Citizenship Clause of Amendment 14 says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The meaning of the clause seems clear, but it is now clouded.

            The candidacy and election of Donald Trump brought a question about birthright citizenship to the forefront of the national discussion. The question is, “Who becomes a citizen of the United States by birth?” A few weeks ago Amy Swearer wrote the following about the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and what it means today. 

Current policy broadly recognizes almost every child born within the U.S. as a citizen, but the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment undermines any claim that universal birthright citizenship is constitutionally mandated. Unlike nonimmigrant and illegal aliens, immigrant aliens enjoy many of the rights and are subjected to many of the duties that are normally reserved for citizens. They have taken a substantial and necessary step toward naturalization that is akin to previous laws regarding declarations of one’s intent to naturalize. They alone of the three general categories of aliens (immigrant aliens, nonimmigrant aliens, and illegal aliens) have both lawful and permanent domicile in the United States.

            Swearer indicated that there are three groups of aliens living within the borders of the United States. They are immigrant aliens, non-immigrant aliens, and illegal aliens. A person in the first group – immigrant aliens – is also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident and has the right to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions here.

            A person in the second group – non-immigrant aliens – seeks to enter the United States temporarily for a specific purpose. They must have a permanent residence outside the United States and qualify for the non-immigrant classification.

            A person in the third group – illegal aliens – is a person from a foreign country who enters or resides in the United States unlawfully and without authorization of the United States. There are thousands of people in this group entering the United States every day!

            Swearer wrote a more recent article in which she refers back to the first article. She explains that policy – not Amendment 14 – has driven the birthright citizenship problem, and policy – not another Amendment to the Constitution – can change it.

As I explain, however, in my recent Heritage Foundation legal memo titled “The Citizenship Clause’s original Meaning and What It Means Today,” Congress definitively settled that question in 1866 when it passed the 14^th Amendment. The problem is that Congress’ answer was far different from what Americans today often assume. Even though the U.S. government has long abided by a policy of universal birthright citizenship – that is, of treating all persons born in the United States as citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents – the reality is that the Constitution doesn’t mandate this policy.

In fact, while the Citizenship Clause eliminated race-based barriers to birthright citizenship, Congress expressly intended to limit birthright citizenship based on the strength of a person’s relationship to the United States.

More importantly, the government today needn’t amend the Constitution in order to restrict citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal or non-immigrant aliens. It could simply stop abiding by a broad policy never required by the Constitution in the first place.

            It seems that someone somewhere will have to challenge the current policy of bestowing U.S. citizenship upon most babies born on U.S. soil. If such a case were to go before a conservative-majority Supreme Court, the original meaning of Amendment 14 may be upheld. If it were to go before a liberal-majority Supreme Court, we can be certain that the status quo would continue. This is just one more reason why Americans must re-elect Donald Trump!

Joseph Smith and Freedom of Religion

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is once again the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As you most likely know already, freedom of religion is known as the First Freedom because it is listed first in the First Amendment. This amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Well, Congress has not made any laws against religion, but other folks are constantly making problems for people with religious conviction.

            Last week we learned that San Antonio International Airport refused to give a concessions contract to Chick-fil-a because the company made some donations to other business or organizations that do not serve people with same-sex attraction. Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General, is now investigating the situation. 

The City of San Antonio’s decision to exclude Chick-fil-A based on the religious beliefs associated with the company and its owners is the opposite of tolerance. It’s discriminatory, and not only out of step with Texas values, but inconsistent with the Constitution and Texas Law.

The Constitution’s protection of religious liberty is somehow even better than Chick-fil-A’s chicken….

Unfortunately, I have serious concerns that both are under assault at the San Antonio airport.

            Not to be outdone by San Antonio, this week the Buffalo Niagara International Airport in Cheektowaga, New York, made the same decision. One day it announced that Chick-fil-A would be coming to the airport, and the next day it withdrew the invitation on religious grounds. The airport wants a company that does not “discriminate” against people. Assemblyman Sean Ryan might have something to do with the reversal because he tweeted the following statement. 

We hope in the future the NFTA will make every effort to contract with businesses that adhere to anti-discriminatory policies, and we’re confident another vendor who better represents the values of the Western New York community will replace Chick-fil-A as a part of this project in the very near future.

            Religious discrimination and hostility is nothing new in America as shown in an article written by Spencer W. McBride. Christians have been fairly safe until the past few years, but that has not always been the case. In 1833 mob violence drove more than 1,000 members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from their home in Jackson County, Missouri. The Saints made their way to Clay County, Missouri, but they were driven from their homes there in July 1836.

            The Prophet Joseph Smith went to see Martin Van Buren in Washington, D.C. to ask for help for his people, but the President denied the request. The President gave the reason for his denial as being that it would hurt his chances for reelection. The Prophet then went to Congress for help. Congress held three days of hearings in February 1840 and then declined to help the Saints in reclaiming their property and receiving compensation for their losses. They told the Prophet to petition Missouri for redress, the same state that had expelled his people.

            Meanwhile, members of the Catholic Church were treated just as badly. About 1834 the Catholic Ursuline convent in Charlestown, Massachusetts, was burned to the ground. It seems that people did not like all Irish Catholic immigrants who had recently come to the United States. The government at least condemned this violence, but the Catholics received no financial compensation.

            As a result of the religious persecution against his own people, plus seeing the charred ruins of the Catholic convent, Joseph Smith became an activist for religious freedom. He advocated for peace, equality, and “religious freedom of all people.” He not only talked the talk of religious freedom, but he walked the walk also.

Amid these petitioning efforts, Joseph made strides toward establishing real religious freedom in his own community. As a member of the city council of Nauvoo, Illinois, he introduced an ordinance that “the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Latter-Day Saints, Quakers, Episcopalians, Universalists, Unitarians, Mohammedans [Muslims], and all other religious sects, and denominations, whatever, shall have free toleration, and equal privileges, in this city.” This declaration was passed and entailed more than a tolerance for those affiliated with other churches to reside in the city; it proposed religious freedom in its truest form by extending a guarantee of all citizenship rights regardless of one’s religious convictions. As the First Presidency explained, the Latter-day Saints were signaling that they would “claim no privilege but what we feel cheerfully disposed to share with our fellow citizens of every denomination.”

            The First Amendment guarantees the protection of freedom of religion. However, the government is made up of mere humans, and some of them get their priorities mixed up. President Van Buren was afraid that helping the Saints would affect his reelection, and the members in Congress apparently had the same concerns. Now we have city leaders San Antonio, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, who are pushing their own agendas against Chick-fil-A.

            The Jews have endured persecution for thousands of years. Christians in foreign lands are being murdered by the hundreds, while Christians in the United States are finding it more and more difficult to exercise their freedom of religion.   

   

            In a letter to a newspaper editor named Wentworth, Joseph Smith outlined the beliefs of his people. That list of beliefs is now known as The Articles of Faith. The eleventh Article of Faith states: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claim the right to exercise our freedom of religion and allow the same freedom to all other people.

The Genius of the Electoral College

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the Electoral College. Article 2 of the Constitution is specifically about the Executive Branch. Section 1of that article is specifically about the President. Clause 2 of Article 2, Section 1 states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

            In plainer words this clause tells us that the Electoral College consists of a certain number of electors. This number corresponds to the number of Senators and Representatives in the U.S. Congress – 535. Each state is represented in the Electoral College with the same number of representatives as it has in Congress. For example, Alaska has two Senators and one Representative. This means that Alaska has three electoral votes.

            There are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives for a total of 535 members of Congress. However, Amendment 23 gave the District of Columbia three votes in the Electoral College – the same number that it would have if it were a state but no more than the “least populous State.” This means that Washington, D.C. has the same number of electoral votes as Alaska. This brings the total number of electoral votes to 538. When we divide 538 by half, we get 269. A candidate must receive more than half of the electoral votes to become President, so this means that the lowest number possible is 270.

            Democrats are upset because the candidate from the Democrat Party twice lost the electoral vote while gaining the popular vote. Al Gore supposedly received more of the popular vote than George Bush did, but he lost the election because Bush had more electoral votes. The same thing happened in 2016 when Hillary Clinton seems to have received more popular votes but Donald Trump received more electoral votes.

            One of the first things that Democrats did after regaining the U.S. House of Representatives was to introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. One of the reasons that they use is that Americans expect the winner of the popular vote to become President. This simply means that too many Americans do not understand the Constitution and how the Electoral College works.

            Another reason given for the attempt to eliminate the Electoral College is the Seventeenth Amendment. This amendment changed the procedure to elect Senators from election by state legislature to a popular vote by the people. The writers of the Constitution gave Americans two legislative houses – the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate was supposed to represent the states with Senators being elected by the state legislatures, while Representatives were elected by a popular vote. This gave the states total control over their representatives in the Senate. If the Senator was out of line with the goals of the state, the state legislature could recall them. The Seventeenth Amendment made the election of Senators by popular vote and destroyed all means of controlling them. This writer is not so sure that we got the best of the deal.

            An important reason why this argument does not meet the test of the Electoral College is the population of the state. The Alaska state legislators are residents of Alaska, and they basically think like the majority of Alaskans. It was not such a large step to move the election for Senator from the legislature to the people. However, abolishing the Electoral College would change our constitutional republic to a democracy and set the stage for the destruction of our constitutional way of life.

            Author, lawyer, and Electoral College expert Tara Ross made a video for PragerU that explains how the Electoral College works and why it is better than a majority-rule voting system. To put it in very simple words, the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in every part of the nation. A simple majority vote would allow candidates to stay in the population centers of the nation and silence the voices of Americans living in other parts of the nation. Do you want the people of California, New York, Florida, and Texas selecting your next President and Vice President, or do you want to have a say in the matter? The Founding Fathers thought that every person should have a vote, so they created the Electoral College to make it happen.

            The Blaze published the following statement about the importance of the Electoral College. It may or may not be part of the transcript from the PragerU video.

The key benefit of the Electoral College system is that it decentralizes control over the election. Currently, a presidential election is really 51 separate elections: one in each state and one in D.C.

These 51 separate processes exist, side-by-side, in harmony. They do not – and cannot – interfere with each other.

California’s election code applies only to California and determines that state’s electors. So a vote cast in Texas can never change the identity of a California elector.

NPV [National Popular Vote] would disrupt this careful balance. It would force all voters into one national election pool. Thus, a vote cast in Texas will always affect the outcome in California. And the existence of a different election code in Texas always has the potential to unfairly affect a voter in California….

We would see the end of presidential candidates who care about the needs and concerns of people in smaller states or outside of big cities….

            The Founders of our nation were geniuses. In addition, they were humble, teachable, and willing to follow inspiration from heaven. The Constitution of the United States is a brilliant document that has kept the United States strong for over 235 years and will continue to keep it strong for many more IF the republican principles of our democratic republic – such as the Electoral College – are not taken out of it. If the nation becomes a pure democracy, it will be on the road to ruin because no true democracy can avoid eventual destruction.

Eligible to Be Vice President

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:  “… no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”  This provision was necessary to defend and support the eligibility of the President.  It also gives Americans the right to have a replacement if something should happen to the President.

                W. Cleon Skousen explained, “It will be recalled that originally no one ran for Vice President.  All candidates had to qualify for the office of President.  The one who came in second was designated as Vice President.  Under the Twelfth Amendment, however, the Vice President is elected separately.  It was therefore important to specify that his required qualifications as a candidate for Vice President must be identical with those of the President, whose place he might someday be required to occupy.”  (See The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 717.)

Tree of Liberty

                The topic of discussion for this Freedom Friday is the simple fact that the Constitution of the United States is like a giant tree protecting Americans and all other peoples.  Americans commemorated Constitution Day on September 17, marking 227 years since it became the Supreme Law of our nation.

                An elm tree standing near Boston Common in Boston, Massachusetts, was known as the Liberty Tree before Americans revolted against Great Britain.  In 1765, the tree was the site of the first act of defiance against the British government.  “The tree became a rallying point for the growing resistance to the rule of Britain over the American colonies and for that reason it was felled by British soldiers in 1775.”  As it turned out, the felling of the Liberty Tree did not stop the creation of the Tree of Liberty, the U.S. Constitution.

                Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have long considered the U.S. Constitution to be divinely inspired.  More than 2,500 years ago, Nephi saw a vision of future events.  He saw Columbus and his inspired discovery of a new land.  He saw the Pilgrims colonize the new land.  He saw the inhabitants of this new land fight a war against their mother land.  He saw that a climate of religious freedom would be established in the land that would enable the gospel of Jesus Christ to go to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.  (See Book of Mormon – Another Testament of Jesus Christ, 1 Nephi 13.)

                The Doctrine and Covenants, another book of modern scripture, explains how “wise men” were raised up to establish a new type of government for this new land.  This new standard would be acceptable to God and would also allow mankind to use moral agency to “be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.”  This standard of freedom and liberty is the U.S. Constitution.

                The Prophet Joseph Smith said that the U.S. Constitution would inspire a spirit of constitutionalism that “is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun.”  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book Co., 1976, p. 147.)

                Jay Todd wrote in 1987 that “this is yet one more of the seemingly unending array of fulfilled prophecies that flowed from the Prophet Joseph Smith.  Today, two hundred years after the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, one of the nation’s preeminent constitutional scholars can write that `the United States Constitution is the nation’s most important export… [and that] just by being first, the United States Constitution has inevitably been an influence for constitutionalism.  Every nation that has a one-document constitution (or is committed in principle to having one) is inevitably following the United States precedent – model.  And that applies to all but six countries.’”  (Albert P. Blaustein, internationally-known scholar of the U.S. Constitution and professor of law, Rutgers – The State University School of Law in personal papers, 1984, published in edited form in National Forum, Fall 1984, p. 14.)

                Another prophet, President Wilford Woodruff, also spoke about the tree of liberty:  “As far as constitutional liberty is concerned, I will say, the God of haven has raised up our nation, as foretold by his prophets generations ago.  He inspired Columbus, and moved upon him to cross the ocean in search of this continent….  It is also well known how our forefathers found a home and an asylum in this land from the hand of persecution, and how they planted here the tree of liberty and jealously guarded it from the attempt of the mother country to uproot and destroy it.  The hand of God was in this; and it is through the intervention of his providence that we enjoy today the freest and most independent government the world ever saw.  And what was the object of this?  It was to prepare the way for the building up of the kingdom of God in this the last dispensation of the fulness of times; and as long as the principles of constitutional liberty shall be maintained upon this land, blessings will attend the nation.”  (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City:  Bookcraft, 1946, 51:801, pp. 188-89.)

                Prophets are not the only ones to speak of the Tree of Liberty.  President Thomas Jefferson liked parts of the new Constitution but did not like other parts and shared his feelings with William Stephen Smith in Paris, France, on 13 November 1787.  Jefferson was sure there would be another rebellion in twenty years.  “…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure….”

                The Constitution of the United States has become a great Tree of Liberty and is spreading its branches to protect freedom and liberty throughout the world; however, it in danger of being destroyed by those who desire to destroy the government of the United States.  The day may come when Americans must defend the Constitution by the shedding of the blood of those who love liberty more than life itself.

Searches and Seizures

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:  “The right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….”  This provision guarantees that Americans will be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

                W. Cleon Skousen explained that “legalized searches and seizures connected with the regulatory and taxing laws has seriously strained the protection intended by this provision.  There has also been a serious invasion of privacy through the use of telephone wiretaps, electronic listening devices installed in offices and homes, and tampering with the mail.

                “It should be noted that this provision protects a person only in cases where the invasion of privacy is `unreasonable.’  Consider, for example, these situations:  (1) It is not considered unreasonable for the police to check an offender’s car or immediate premises at the time of his arrest and pick up any property belonging to the offender that is considered to be `evidence.’  (2) It is not considered unreasonable for the police to pursue a suspected criminal across private property in order to apprehend him.  (3) It is not considered unreasonable for a person to check out a vacationing neighbor’s premises under suspicious circumstances.

                “Obviously, however, it would be unreasonable to open the mail, tap the telephone wire, or put another citizen under electronic surveillance.”  (See The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, p. 702.)

                Skousen published his book in 1985.  I am sure he would have included data gathering on our telephones by the NSA and drones flying around our homes on his list of “unreasonable” searches and seizures.

                Gerald V. Bradley of The Heritage Foundation explained the “primary mechanism for enforcing the Searches and Seizures Clause is the exclusionary rule:  evidence seized illegally may not be used against the one whose privacy was invaded, at least where there is a criminal trial against him, and there only in the prosecutor’s case-in-chief.  Apart perhaps from the required Miranda warning … the exclusionary rule is the most criticized Warren Court criminal justice innovation….

                “Did the Framers intend the exclusionary rule?  Even the rule’s most ardent supporters admit that they did not.  Virtually no one doubts that, until the twentieth century, criminals did not go free, as Judge (later Justice) Benjamin N. Cardozo put it, `because the constable blundered.’  … The criminal would have been convicted, and the offending constable would have been liable as a tort-feasor for trespassing upon a person’s privacy without proper authority or cause.

                “The central argument in favor of exclusion is that it is necessary to give the Fourth Amendment real, as opposed to theoretical, meaning.  If police officers were allowed to offend the Constitution with impunity (which, it is alleged, they would if a defendant could be convicted on tainted evidence), the Fourth Amendment would be a `mere form of words.’  This argument presupposes that illegal searches and seizures are deterred by the prospect of exclusion.  If the evidence cannot be used at trial, what is the point of seizing it?”  (See The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 325.)