Just and Holy Principles

222 years ago today, America’s founders signed the U.S. Constitution. Since 1787, this inspired document has been a bulwark of liberty and justice for Americans and a pattern for many governments around the world. We would all do well to re-read and study the Constitution so that we understand it and can defend it.

Now, perhaps you’ve heard mention of a quote attributed to Joseph Smith that the Constitution would one day “hang as by a thread.” Though no one knows for sure exactly what the Prophet said or what he meant by it, many other prophets and apostles have referred to the prophecy and expounded upon it. Orson Hyde, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from 1847 to 1875, offers probably the most reliable report of what Joseph Smith said. Hyde said this:

I believe he (Joseph Smith) said something like this–that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he: ‘If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the elders of this Church.’ I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, p. 326)

President John Taylor added his own interpretation later on:

When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men and extending the hand of fellowship to the oppressed of all nations. This is part of the program and as long as we do what is right and fear God He will help us and stand by us under all circumstances. (John Taylor, JD 21:8, August 31, 1879)

There has been a lot of speculation about whether or not the Constitution was once hanging by a thread and was saved or if it is now hanging by a thread and needs to be saved. Declarations that the Constitution is in peril have been common especially lately . Rather than fuel speculation regarding the status of the Constitution’s potentially precarious position, I’ll pass along a prudent statement pertaining to this issue from Rex Lee, former Solicitor General of the United States and president of Brigham Young University. In 1991, he said:

Seven presidents (successors to Joseph Smith) have either used the ‘thread’ metaphor or something like it. But in none of those quotations…has any Church leader ever been very specific as to the metaphor’s meaning. Unfortunately, some members of the Church have been all too ready to offer their own explanations. The only thing consistent about these explanations is that in each instance, it was the Church member’s own unresolved, often very private, grievance that supplied evidence that the thread was beginning to fray, sometimes beyond repair. Among some people, any problem from a tax increase to a failure to collect the garbage on time to a boundary dispute with one’s neighbor is likely to call forth the observation that it is certainly easy to see how the Constitution is hanging by a thread. A companion assertion is that the election or appointment of certain persons, often the person making the assertion, to designated positions provides the key to preventing the demise of our constitutional system.

In my view, this is another instance in which going beyond what our leaders have said can be misleading at best, and potentially fraught with mischief. Even though we have not been given the exact meaning of the prophets’ statements about the Constitution hanging by a thread, the scriptures do define the conditions on which freedom in the land of America ultimately depends. I am satisfied that whatever else may eventually hang in the constitutional balance, this much is clear: The continuation of the blessings of liberty depends finally on our spiritual righteousness. As the Lord told the Jaredites in the Book of Ether, this is a ‘land of promise.’ and ‘whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity,…if they will but serve the god of the land, who is Jesus Christ.’ If the people fail to keep this covenant, they ’shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity’ (Ether 2:9-12). (Rex E. Lee, “The Constitution & the Restoration,” 1991)

Certainly, I am concerned that judges, politicians in both major political parties, and others are slowly chipping away at the Constitution. As responsible U.S. citizens, we should do all we can to help maintain “the laws and constitution of the people…for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77). However, we need not speculate excessively regarding the “hanging by a thread” statement. The Lord will protect us as we strive to be righteous, and He will fulfill his divine purposes no matter what evil forces arise in opposition.

What do you think?

*To read more quotes about the Constitution from the Brethren and the Founders go here.

Independence Hall; Philadelphia, PA

The Fourth of July is almost here. To help get you in the spirit for it, you might want to read an article I recently wrote for Palacio Magazine. It’s called “Living the American Dream” and was published in both English and Spanish. Here’s the first paragraph:

Since the first colonists settled in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, millions upon millions of men, women, and children from all nations have come here to live what many today call “the American Dream.” Their quest to live this dream and to secure the same opportunity for future generations has come at no little cost, even their own blood.

You can read the whole article in English here or in Spanish here. Or if you want to see the article in English and in Spanish together in the actual magazine, then go here.

Happy Independence Day!

Ever since Barack Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his first selection for the U.S. Supreme Court, there has been vigorous public debate about whether or not the Senate should confirm her. I believe that the Senate should most likely confirm her.

I was working in Washington, D.C. during the confirmation hearings of both Justices Roberts and Alito. Their hearings were intense and debate was furious. Despite both being highly qualified to be on the Court, Democrats threatened to filibuster the Roberts nomination and attempted a filibuster against Alito but failed.

Democrat objections were not about the nominees’ qualifications but about their political stances on issues like abortion. The Democrats were wrong then, and, most likely, the Republicans would be wrong to try to hold up or reject the Sotomayor nomination now.

The Senate’s constitutional duty is to confirm or reject nominations, not delay them. Delay tactics have not always been common for Supreme Court nominations. In 1922, the Senate confirmed George Sutherland, the only Supreme Court justice from Utah, the same day he was nominated. Sutherland was in Europe and may not have even known about it.

From 1789 to 1949, the average time from nomination to confirmation was 13 days. Since then, the average has been 62 days. Perhaps the confirmation period has lengthened simply because the Senate is busier today or there are more resources available to research a nominee’s background, but, more than anything, the Court has become politicized. Both parties want justices to steer the Court in a direction that furthers their political views.

Is Judge Sotomayor qualified for the job? Probably, but I don’t know enough about her to say for sure. I do know that her ethnicity, gender, and political positions on abortion, affirmative action, or civil marriage don’t matter one whit when determining if she’s qualified. As long as she is honest and law-abiding, has appropriate and adequate experience, and hasn’t made any rulings that both parties would consider to be outlandish, then she, and any future nominee, should be confirmed.

Many Republicans don’t agree with what they believe is her judicial philosophy — a broad interpretation of constitutional principles — and I probably don’t either. But the truth is that judges rarely agree on every aspect of their judicial philosophies.

If the nominee meets the basic requirements described above, then the Senate should give deference to the president’s selection, regardless of his party affiliation.

As Rex Lee once said:

One of the most important acts of any president–some have said the most important–is to appoint members of the Supreme Court, whose average tenure has been several times that of our presidents.

Therefore, over the decades of your future careers as voting Americans, just remember that when you vote for a president, you are doing more than picking the person who will lead us in war and peace and have access to Camp David and Air Force One. You are also in effect making a decision as to what kind of person you want on the Supreme Court. (”The Restoration and the Constitution,” Jan., 1991)

Whether Americans like it or not, we have chosen Barack Obama to be our president. We should support any reasonable Supreme Court nomination he makes. So far, I haven’t heard or seen any strong evidence indicating that the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is unreasonable.

What do you think?

Resources:
Sotomayor Questionnaire (detailed background info.)
Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide
My paper on constitutional interpretation

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Preamble to the Constitution

Our liberty, and especially the liberty of our posterity, is in jeopardy. In general, Americans are becoming increasingly individualistic and short-sighted. Our concerns focus mostly on ourselves and less on our neighbors and on future generations. Our worthy pursuits of happiness for ourselves and for our families can quickly morph into selfish pursuits that bring unhappiness to others.

Putting today above tomorrow
Sometimes, we feel that our “entitlement” to certain rights or circumstances outweighs our responsibility to others in our community and to our posterity. Women want the right to have an abortion without regard to the rights of the person developing inside of them. Individuals want the right to marry a person of either gender and to adopt children without regard to children’s familial and social rights and needs.

We spew pollution into our air and water without regard to those who will someday inhabit the same land. We incur debt — personal and public — and other financial obligations without regard to who will pay for them.

For instance, 2.3 million American home loans foreclosed in 2008 because people borrowed more than they could afford. People buy cars, boats, vacations, huge flat-screen TV’s, and other goods they can’t afford. When they go bankrupt, taxpayers end up paying for their excess through government. This propensity for spending beyond one’s means extends to government.

“An unsustainable fiscal path”
Most state governments have massive debt. The national debt is currently $10.8 trillion. The U.S. Treasury has said that the federal government is on “an unsustainable fiscal path.” Because of entitlement obligations (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) and spending trends, the Treasury projects that the federal debt could reach as much as 170 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2040 and as much as 600 percent of GDP by 2080. We’re committing future generations (without their consent) to pay for these obligations, and if they cannot, to deal with the repercussions of not being able to do so.

Yesterday, President Obama signed a bill that will cost taxpayers $787 billion. This amount is equal to $2,600 for every American, 1.3 times the cost of the Iraq War so far, and 1.7 times the largest federal deficit in history ($455 B in 2008) (read more).

Nobody seems to know how we will pay for this “stimulus.” And nobody can know if it will actually improve the economy. In my view, the “stimulus” might help the economy in the short-run but will probably harm it in the long-run. This new $787 billion debt, and the regulatory strings attached to it, added to the obligations we’ve already incurred, will stifle economic activity and bind down future generations, perhaps beyond their ability to set themselves free.

The spending must stop
Government is necessary. It is ordained of God. But the great expansion of government that has taken place under the leadership of both political parties, and that will likely accelerate under Mr. Obama, will destroy “the blessings of liberty” that our posterity deserves. Even the Constitution, “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man”, cannot save us from our spending spree. Our short-sightedness, craving for constant security, and fear of failure will make the future bleak for us and for our posterity.

I hope this doesn’t sound too pessimistic. I believe things can “change.” But we must decide as individuals, communities, states, and a nation to restrain our passion for spending beyond our means. We must make decisions that take into account more than just ourselves; otherwise, the blessings of liberty that we still enjoy will be foreign to our posterity.

What do you think?

“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” Ronald Reagan, 1967

A responsible U.S. citizen knows the basics about U.S. government, history, and current events. Are you a responsible citizen? The Intercollegiate Studies Institute recently released a report card on America’s civic literacy. It administered a 33 question quiz about “America’s founding principles and texts, core history, and enduring institutions.” The average grade was an “F” (49%). Here are some of the major findings from the study:

Of the 2,508 respondents to the survey:

People from age 45 to 64 had the highest average score (52%)
People from age 25 to 34 and 65+ scored the lowest (46%)
Males scored 52% and females 45%
Liberals scored 49%, conservatives 48%.
Democrats scored 45%, Republicans 52%, Independents 52%, Other 46%

The average score by highest academic degree attained was:

Doctorate 72%
Master’s 64%
Undergraduate 57%
High School 44%
No High School 35%

Think you can do better than average? Take the quiz here and then enter your score in the poll below.





We can probably all increase our civics knowledge. One good way is to read more about history, government, and current events in books, magazines, newspapers, and online: another is to have more discussions about these topics with family and friends. We have a civic responsibility to do so.

What do you think?

Happy Constitution Day 2008! The U.S. Constitution is a masterful synthesis of enduring principles that has allowed everything that is great in America to become what it is today. Here are some of my favorite quotes on the Constitution:

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

Ezra Taft Benson:
“I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that the God of heaven sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and He has sent other choice spirits to preserve it.” (The Constitution: A Glorious Standard, Address delivered at Brigham Young University, 16 September 1986)

Neal A. Maxwell:
“Unexciting as a prescription, nevertheless, the best single way to improve the quality of life in America is to improve the quality of our own individual lives and our own neighborhoods…our inspired Constitution is wisely designed to protect from excesses of political power, but it can do little to protect us from the excesses of appetite or from individual indifference to great principles or institutions. Any significant unraveling of the moral fiber of the American people, therefore, finally imperils the Constitution.” (Freedom Festival Speech, Provo, 1993)

Read more here

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns for self-defense and hunting. This landmark case was the first in the Court’s history to address the Second Amendment explicitly. The Court’s ruling overturned a 32-year-old law that banned handguns in Washington, D.C.

The debate over the right to bear arms consists mostly of historical circumstances and the specific wording of the Second Amendment. Legal scholars have debated the meaning of the words “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” with excruciating detail for a long time. To me, the arguments on both sides were compelling for a long time. But recently, I came across a quote that made me lean in the direction of individual rights in gun ownership.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 says, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” This phrase uses the same construction as the Second Amendment and to me says, “because religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government and happiness, we must encourage schools and education forever.”

Schools and education in general have many uses, among which are to teach religion, morality, knowledge, skills, and other instruction. But schools and education are independent of the “religion, morality, and knowledge” that can be taught there. Other things can be taught in a school, but schools can also be used to teach things necessary for “good government and the happiness of mankind.” The institution of schools is separate and distinct from the goal of having an educated people; it is one means of achieving that goal but could be used for other purposes. But it is important to encourage schools hoping that they achieve that purpose.

In a similar manner, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” allows the people to organize “a well regulated militia,” but that right could be used for other purposes. The right is separate and distinct from the goal of having a militia to maintain the security of the state. Therefore, individuals have the right to bear arms, whether they use it to organize a militia, for hunting, or for self-defense, but it is necessary to protect that right so that a militia can keep the people free if necessary.

Of course, irresponsible people who have guns can injure or kill people. As the Supreme Court said, this interpretation of the Second Amendment does not mean that any person no matter what should be able to use any weapon in any way they please. Government should take measures to regulate the use of weapons. It is clear to me, though, that the individual right to bear arms is constitutional and necessary to maintain freedom in the U.S. in the case that attacks on an individual, their property, their family–whether by the government or another individual–require the use of arms.

Whether or not you agree with this decision, I think it highlights the truth of Rex E. Lee’s statement, “when you vote for a president, you are doing more than picking the person who will lead us in war and peace and have access to Camp David and Air Force One. You are also in effect making a decision as to what kind of person you want on the Supreme Court.” The Court’s opinion was split 5-4 with justices commonly described as conservatives in the majority. Remember this summer and fall that the most important consideration to make when voting for president may be the type of justices each candidate would select to be on the Supreme Court.

What do you think?

Below is the link to an op-ed that I wrote for Pepperdine’s student newspaper the Graphic. Here’s the first paragraph:

Americans must learn to cherish the Constitution
Matthew Piccolo

Many Americans celebrated Constitution Day by attending festive parades, holding scholarly conferences and teaching school lessons on the Constitution. This celebration is fitting given the document’s unique role as a standard of liberty worldwide. Still, many Americans take the Constitution for granted or are ignorant of its principles when, instead, they should appreciate it.

Continue reading…

September 17 is Constitution Day. The U.S. Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, 220 years ago. Joseph Smith called the Constitution a “heavenly banner”; Ezra Taft Benson called it a “sacred document”; and William E. Gladstone, former prime minister of Britain, said that “the American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”

The Constitution is not perfect, but it has permitted the growth of the most economically prosperous nation in the history of the world. Its protection of religious liberty made the restoration of the Gospel possible. We should all be grateful for the sacrifices made to draft and ratify the Constitution. We should study it so that we understand how it applies to us individually and how we can defend it. The Constitution of the United States of America is a standard of liberty for all nations.

Elder and Sister Samuelson recently gave a talk entitled Year of the Constitution; click here to listen.

A bill currently in the U.S. Senate would grant Washington, D.C. residents their first House representative and Utahns their fourth. The 23rd amendment allows Washingtonians to cast votes for president, but they have no representation in Congress, just a non-voting delegate who participates on committees and in debates. Utah missed gaining a fourth representative during the 2000 census by just 856 people. With its rapid growth, Utah will earn a fourth seat in 2010 regardless of what happens to D.C., but should Washington, D.C. residents have a voting representative in Congress?

Avoid undue influence
Most Americans would answer “yes” to that question, but the District’s history is quite unique. The Constitution designates Washington, D.C., founded in 1790, as federal land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress. Maryland and Virginia gave parts of their land to form the District and the Virginia portion was returned, or retroceded, in 1847.

The Founders wanted the nation’s capital to be independent from every state in order to avoid unnecessary political pressure. James Madison worried that if a specific state were involved in the affairs and protection of the federal government, then it “might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy” (Federalist 43).

Then again, 580,000 D.C. residents are now required to pay federal taxes without a vote in Congress. It seems just to grant them official representation, but finding appropriate means to do so is challenging. Many proposals have been offered but most are unconstitutional or impractical, including the current bill in Congress.

Options for change
Article I of the Constitution dictates that the states have representation in Congress, but the District of Columbia is not a state; thus Congress cannot simply grant D.C. residents representation as this bill attempts to do. According to my friend and former colleague Nathaniel Ward at the Heritage Foundation, lawmakers have six options to help D.C. residents gain representation:

1) Propose an amendment. We could change the Constitution itself to give them representation. Congress passed such an amendment in 1985, but not enough states ratified it.
2) Grant statehood. D.C. could apply for statehood, but a constitutional amendment may still be necessary. This option would also subject the nation’s capital to the danger of undue influence of which Madison warned.
3) Retrocede to Maryland. Congress could return its land to Maryland so that D.C. residents could share Maryland’s representation. This idea, though, has constitutional concerns since Congress holds “exclusive legislation” over the District.
4) Allow voting in Maryland. Congress could allow them to vote in Maryland but remain independent. This plan may also be unconstitutional and impractical.
5) End federal taxation. Congress could cease levying federal taxes on D.C. residents in order to eliminate their “taxation without representation” claim. But residents would likely still demand representation as a fundamental right.
6) Change of residence. D.C. residents can always move. Many have little means to do so, but no legal restraints prevent them from changing residence to a state.

Don’t bargain with voting rights
It appears that the most practical, legal solution is to ratify a constitutional amendment that grants D.C. residents a voting representative. But as Madison warned, I believe the nation’s capital should be independent from all states. If Washingtonians value representation enough, then they should relocate down the road to Maryland or Virginia.

As a Utah native and former Washington, D.C. resident, I am concerned that members of Congress, including Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, are using Utah and D.C. voting rights as a political bargaining chip. Democrats, knowing that a Republican would likely occupy Utah’s new seat, want to offset it with a D.C. representative who would most certainly be a Democrat. But Utahns should patiently await 2010 when they will receive a fourth representative and D.C. residents, if they wish, should lobby for a constitutional amendment to gain representation. We should not allow Congress to use our voting rights as a bargaining chip.

What do you think?