Antonin Scalia, May We Find His Jurisprudence Peer Someday

Justice Antonin Scalia

Like many conservatives (and liberals too!), I was saddened to learn of the sudden and unexpected death of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia over the weekend. The accolades and the tributes for him will go on for some time, I suspect. He is being widely lauded as the finest writer, legal mind and staunch defender of the originalist point of view when it comes to interpreting the Constitution that the Court may have ever seen. Finding his peer to replace him will be difficult. He has served longer than anyone else on the current Court.

The news had barely broken before the political wrangling had begun, including the opening moments of silence followed by "thermonuclear war" among the combatants at the latest Republican debate last Saturday night. Even before the ink was dry on the story of Scalia's death, President Obama signaled his determination to move ahead with his nomination "in due time."

In the one corner you have the liberals, who would love nothing more than putting forward yet another progressive judge through the nominating process President Obama will no doubt undertake at his earliest opportunity to cement his legacy in place.

In the opposing corner you have Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who immediately put out a press statement indicating the nomination belongs to the next president of the United States, and not the current lame duck one. McConnell's argument is certainly valid based on history.

Whoever Obama nominates, the smart money says it's dead on arrival. Anything less than a strict constructionist like Scalia will most certainly tilt the Court in favor of judicial activism. We've already witnessed that unlikely phenomenon with Chief Justice John Roberts surprising everyone by steering the Court with his majority opinions when Obamacare was upheld first, then the legalization of gay marriage.

It is not political hyperbole to state the intensity of this election season has shifted into high gear. While mildly entertaining until now, what with an avowed Communist Bernie Sanders challenging Hillary Clinton, who is almost certainly guilty of felonies over her e-mail handling while Secretary of State (but not likely to face any jail time), and billionaire Donald Trump continuing to suck all the oxygen out of the Republican nominating process, the tone of the debate will likely change where all three branches of government - the executive, the judiciary and the legislative - will all be involved.

Of course, few would doubt the ongoing dominance of the Republicans in maintaining control of both houses of the legislative branch (but even that is always an open question). The political divide over what will happen in debates over this POTUS nominating process will be epic, but not unheard of in the past. That said, we will see the Senate's role looming larger than ever in the coming months leading up to the election. Unless the Republicans close ranks and refuse to act on President Obama's nomination, the makeup of a new Court before the election would undoubtedly compromise the historical precedents of waiting to fill the post until after the election.

Let's look at the facts as they exist under the Constitution:

There is ample precedent in our past history on the side of those who advocate waiting until the next president is selected. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the so-called "Appointments Clause," allows a president to appoint specified public officials only with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, and the key word here is "consent." Though he may try to make this appointment on his own as a "recess appointment" when the Senate is not in session, he would exceed his authority in attempting it. Only the Senate may ultimately confirm the president's nominee to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

Historically, it has almost universally been the case that the closer we get to the end of a president's term, the more a delay has been viewed favorably. I read this morning that from President John Tyler forward, we have seen sometimes extended delays in filling vacancies on the Supreme Court. We think the country is deeply divided now, but probably no more than it was in Tyler's time. The same conditions certainly are in place today.

There are a number of practical reasons for delay, not the least of which is giving the American voters one more chance in getting it right. The crux of the Roberts' majority opinion in upholding Obamacare was in essence, "Don't look to the Court to bail you out, America, when you make poor political choices." He was concerned about the Court not being politicized, but his rulings may have done exactly what he did not intend. Perhaps by waiting for the next president to be chosen, American voters will respect the Court more and the new president's choice for the Supreme Court will be more widely embraced by the majority, assuming the Senate majority remains in the same hands as the new president's. At least that is the most optimistic view of the matter.

In my extensive reading this morning, someone even suggested if the new president were a woman (let's hope it isn't THAT woman), by putting forward a nominee now Obama would preempt her preference. If the next president were a strict constructionist like Scalia, then that new president should have the right to put forward a nominee more in the vein of Scalia. All of that in my mind suggests that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would undoubtedly be more reliable choices certainly than Hillary Clinton. Who knows for sure what a President Donald J. Trump or a President Bernie Sanders would do? If for no other reason, undertaking a deliberative and thorough search for finding the peer of Justice Scalia is worthwhile and should not be rushed. We've had ample precedents for waiting longer than a year.

It would certainly be in keeping with Obama's nature to try to ram through a first-ever recess appointment, but he would likely run head-long into a legal wall of his own making that has held such appointments cannot be upheld without Senate consent.

Supreme Court Building, Washington D.C.

I'm remembering this morning that there was a 2014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, where the SCOTUS, led by Scalia's brilliant writing in concurrence, ruled against recess appointments. It wasn't even a close vote (9-0), where they struck down three of the president’s recess appointments. In essence the high Court ruled them unconstitutional. Those appointments were attempted by Obama during a "pro forma congressional break" of only three days.

Talk about prescient irony, it was Scalia himself who wrote what some dubbed a “withering” concurrence opinion, when he warned against transgressing against the text of the U.S. Constitution. Scalia vigorously stated: “The Court’s decision transforms the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates,” and be believed the real intent of the Founders was to limit, not allow recess appointments beyond what they had intended.

Bristling at the sudden and arbitrary "10-day" recess invention attempted by Justice Breyer in the majority decision, Scalia added: “A self-aggrandizing practice adopted by one branch well after the founding, often challenged, and never before blessed by this Court - in other words, the sort of practice on which the majority relies in this case - does not relieve us of our duty to interpret the Constitution in light of its text, structure, and original understanding.” His biting accuracy will be missed.

My hope for our country is that we will find Scalia's peer in Constitutional integrity somewhere in this country. I am not one who is horrified at the thought of losing the Republic over this latest development, however. Scalia's death came out of left field and was surprising, when easily two or three other "expected" deaths might soon occur in the next few years, adding even more slots to fill on the SCOTUS, and raising the presidential sweepstakes to an even higher level. Remember, elections have consequences, as President Obama was so fond of reminding us all.

In sum: There is no precedent for taking this pending nomination out of the hands of the next president after the election of November 2016. Neither is there any legal foundation upon which a recess appointment could be justified.

I've used the word "precedent" a lot in this post. But my final word is that if the election season of 2016 has taught us anything, it is that relying upon historical precedents is shaky ground at best.

Thoughts on Independence, Moral Agency, SSM and Eternal Truth

I've been asked by more than a few followers of this page why I haven't posted anything about the recent ruling of the SCOTUS on same sex marriage. The short answer is that Patsy recently decided to exchange her bad knee for a cobalt steel replacement part, and her surgery and recovery have pre-occupied my free time. Now it's Independence Day weekend and I have a chance to reflect.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America

I find these latest developments in the LGBTQ (yes "Q" has been added - meaning "questioning" my sexuality) agenda to be so ironic. On the one hand we find advocates asserting their independence and exercising their moral agency to choose homosexuality. And on the other hand they could not be more anti-Christ than they are.

It was Christ in the pre-existence who championed our moral agency. We who walk the earth today were there as pre-mortal spirits. We sanctioned the plan of our Father in Heaven, the centerpiece of which was the ability to choose between right and wrong here in mortality. The consequences for our choices are not always immediately in evidence. Sometimes years go by before we reverse course and repent. Knowing there would be universal opposition to the truth, promoted and advocated by Satan and his minions, we accepted the offer of our Elder Brother, Jesus Christ, to come to earth, live the perfect life, and sacrifice Himself for all of us to satisfy all the demands of justice under the laws of God. There weren't "two plans" put forward - only one plan - and our Lord and Savior became the Chosen One to implement that plan.

So I find it sadly ironic, because there seems little more that I could offer at this point that I haven't already said on the matter. The plan of salvation, referred to as "the great plan of happiness" (see Alma 42) by Alma, has as the bedrock principle the creation of mortal bodies to house the spirits created by God. In order to bring to pass the immortality and the eternal life of man (see Moses 1:39), God's stated purpose for His existence, we must assist in His work by bringing to pass the mortality of man by providing the mortal bodies for those spirits. Gender identification is also imprinted as part of the plan. Males and females are distinctly unique in the creative process. Each contributes a piece to make a new human body. The two parts are joined together in a holy union, a holy matrimony, to complete the plan.

The perversions around human sexuality are no longer secret, nor spoken in hushed secret corners. In fact, those perversions which until a few years ago were against the laws of most states, are now freely available to all who would choose them. The SCOTUS, make that one justice of the SCOTUS in a 5-4 vote, who wrote the majority opinion, has chosen for the whole nation based upon the popular opinion of the electorate as registered in recent polling data about same sex marriage. I accept the ruling of the SCOTUS as the supreme law of the land in the highest court, even though I would side with those four justices who dissented.

You can herald the triumph of so-called "equal rights" and "equal access" to marriage if you choose - that is your right as well - but this latest decision has little to do with a Constitutional right. This wasn't about the Constitution, observed Chief Justice Roberts, writing in his minority opinion. Roberts correctly observed the Court had overturned the voice of the people who had voted to retain the definition of traditional marriage in the several States through their elected representatives in the Republic established under the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution can an "equal right" to gay marriage be found. You won't even find a definition of traditional marriage there. Instead, the Founders wisely left to the States the definitions and resolutions of those kinds of issues. At the federal level, power of, by and through the people's voice has been trampled upon once again.

This was about advancing the anti-Christ agenda, nothing more, nothing less. He didn't say that, I did.

Why anti-Christ? Because the argument that "God made me this way and there's nothing I can do about it," is fundamentally flawed. Those who so assert also claim there is no need to repent of their perversion because God made them that way. "I'm not sinning because there's nothing I can do about the way I am." How convenient. Those of us who were also made by God, by the extension of that reasoning must also get a "free pass" for repentance. We truly live in a day of "live and let live" and "God will beat me with a few stripes in the end" (2 Nephi 28:8) but I'll eventually be saved in my sins because God loves me just as much as He does you. But as scripture reminds us, no one is saved in their sins. (Alma 11:34-37). The subtle rejection of the need for a Redeemer and the need for repentance is what is at the core of the LGBTQ agenda. However, you won't hear it expressed in those terms from them. Being "anti-Christ" isn't subtle enough for them. Instead, they seek to "normalize" the perversion so revulsion evaporates.

The perversions in the flesh are analogous to the perversions they make in the Word. A lawyer asked the Savior a question: "Master which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:35-40).

In the name of "loving our neighbor" tolerance reached its pinnacle under hashtag #lovewins on word of the SCOTUS decision. It may be "love" in the eyes of homosexuals, but it still classifies as perversion as it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. The legal definition of love now having been defined by the courts notwithstanding, marriage between a man and a woman is God's law.

I find it nothing short of stunning how quickly this agenda has advanced in public opinion. Even among members of the Church there seems to be a "no big deal" attitude. "If gay people want to get married, that's fine with me, what's the big deal?" they seem to repeat among themselves, as though there will be no consequences for those who have chosen their perversions. The weakening of the moral fiber not only in America but world-wide, is well-documented and now continues without much resistance it seems. What was once the silent sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is now splashed boldly in rainbow colors illuminating the White House.

There is no other word than "stunning" to describe it. People forget that in both elections in 2008 and 2012, President Barack Hussein Obama was elected by stating his support for traditional marriage to avoid risking the alienation of voters in the Hispanic, Black and other religious communities who also favored traditional marriage. And now a rainbow colored White House in celebration of same sex marriage? Well, there you have it. . . that's stunning! You can ask yourselves why it happened so quickly, but the easy answers might be the influence of media, including television sitcoms and the attempts by advocates to "normalize" homosexual behavior. "We're just like you are," they will claim, and being the tolerant neighbor-loving and embracing people we are, and not wanting to be classed as "homophobic" we have come to the conclusion it can't be all that bad. That's how public opinion shifted so easily. One author called it "The Big Gay Lie."

The First Presidency

The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Either this week or the following week, congregations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be discussing a lengthy letter produced by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We sustain these fifteen men as living prophets, seers and revelators. The topic of their letter to the Church will be the recent SCOTUS decision. Once again members of the Church will be given an opportunity to absorb, digest, discuss, and either support or oppose their leaders on this topic. It is not the first chance, nor will it be the last to weigh in.

The assaults on religious freedom will continue unabated. I would expect the Church to continue to be the bastion of eternal truth it has always been. They constantly warn against being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of [false] doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (See Ephesians 4:11-15). These fifteen men are the very reason Apostles were chosen and ordained in the meridian Church by Christ, and they are the modern-day counterparts.

I have read a lot, the ruling itself, all the dissents and much more while Patsy has been rehabbing her new knee. I have seen the comments of a lot of "good" members of the Church on forum boards and their social media postings. There are many who assert that like the question over Blacks receiving the priesthood and even longer ago with the rescission of plural marriage in the late 1800s, the Church will eventually come to its senses and bow to public opinion and political pressure on this issue too. They foresee a day when same sex marriages will be performed in the temples, just as Blacks were eventually granted equal access to all priesthood blessings.

But sadly, they will be wrong. Some say the Church will be on the wrong side of history unless it yields to public pressure. The passage of time will prove otherwise. Unless God has it in His mind to alter the bedrock doctrine of the great plan of happiness that has been revealed since the Creation without equivocation in Holy Writ, this question of "marriage equality" is nothing more than a cleverly crafted sophistry devised by Satan and his minions to separate the man from the woman. Since the plan was announced by our Father in Heaven and Satan opposed it in the pre-mortal council where we all upheld the plan, that has been his aim. (Moses 4:1-4). Don't forget that every single professed homosexual today is the product of the union of a man and a woman. Life is possible in no other way. If Satan succeeds in separating the man from the woman, if he undermines and erodes the underpinnings of traditional marriage, then the Father's announced purpose of His work and His glory can indeed be thwarted. That is Satan's aim, and he is making stunning progress toward achieving it. But in the end, he doesn't win if scripture is to be believed. (See a sampling in Revelation 19-22).

Don't seek to become an erudite so-called "Devil's Advocate". He has plenty of help already. Instead, seek to become a true disciple of Jesus Christ, not an anti-Christ who promotes and hails the LGBTQ agenda under the banner of political progress or equal rights. It is none of that. When you support and encourage their agenda you are in the ranks of the anti-Christs. You can't have this both ways any longer. The gulf between the two worlds is widening and can no longer be straddled comfortably as in the past.

I sound the warning voice here to those of you who are blindly advocating for something you don't fully understand - don't swallow the Kool-Aid by filling up your social media posts with exultation over what appears to be a "victory" for equal rights under the law. There are many examples of morally reprehensible behaviors that are legally protected. Abortion rights might be the most obvious example. This SCOTUS same sex marriage ruling is a short-term victory, like everything else that resembles a Satanic idea in opposition of eternal truth. Here's a sample from the Church's response:

"A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.

"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.'

"Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there."

Just as I have exercised my freedom of speech rights here, those of you who oppose my point of view are also free to express your opinion. We are all independent and we are free to choose whatever position we would like. We can do so respectfully but vociferously in whatever forum we elect. Remember, the blessing of moral agency, the freedom to choose and the subsequent consequences that go with those rights are all part of the plan of salvation. All of it has a root in God our Heavenly Father and in His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who is our Redeemer. When you exult in choices outside the parameters of God's perfect plan, please stop to think twice before going further down that path.

I've had occasion recently to review every single entry in the personal journal of President Harold B. Lee. It has provided great insight into the inner workings among the men we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators. As part of that reading I also spent last Sunday re-reading the General Conference sermons of all the General Authorities during the 18-months tenure of President Lee. I discovered this statement in the General Priesthood Meeting of October 1972:

President Harold B. Lee, 1972

"I want to warn this great body of priesthood against that great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which has been labeled as a sin second only in seriousness to the sin of murder. I speak of the sin of adultery, which, as you know, was the name used by the Master as he referred to unlicensed sexual sins of fornication as well as adultery; and besides this, the equally grievous sin of homosexuality, which seems to be gaining momentum with social acceptance in the Babylon of the world, of which Church members must not be a part.

"While we are in the world, we must not be of the world. Any attempts being made by the schools or places of entertainment to flaunt sexual perversions, which can do nothing but excite to experimentation, must find among the priesthood in this church a vigorous and unrelenting defense through every lawful means that can be employed.

"The common judges of Israel, our bishops and stake presidents, must not stand by and fail to apply disciplinary measures within their jurisdiction, as set forth plainly in the laws of the Lord and procedures as set forth in plain and simple instructions that cannot be misunderstood. Never must we allow supposed mercy to the unrepentant sinner to rob the justice upon which true repentance from sinful practices is predicated."

Note in his statement, there is no "special class" that eludes the demands of justice because "I was born this way." As President Lee suggested way back then, "every lawful means" to oppose same sex marriage has been undertaken, and time and again the courts have struck down those attempts. Losing in the court of public opinion, however, is no new development the Church is seeing for the first time. It has been the unrelenting reality of the Church's existence since 1830. The Savior faced rejection daily during His mortal ministry. The rejection of the world is the inherent theme of walking the straight and narrow path leading to the tree of life, and those who mock today may find in their ranks the members of the Church who have been deceived even when they were once among "the very elect". (See 1 Nephi 11-14; D&C 45:57-59; Matthew 24:24; JST Matthew 22; 37; D&C 33:16-18).

One son asked me last week if this assault on religious liberty would force the Latter-day Saints into the seclusion of our religious practice in our homes. I reminded him of the Church's missionary mandate. We cannot invite the world to "come unto Christ" by living like cloistered monks behind the protection of the walls of our homes. We as Church members must vigorously defend eternal truth as only found in the revealed word of God. Anything outside that scope, while legal and politically progressive (even correct!), may not be, and often is not, moral.

Even the SCOTUS does not have the final word on the moral code as defined by our Creator.

The Devil's Advocate

I started to make a comment to Rich in the last post, and as usual it turned into another post, since the allocation of words for a comment was exceeded (a common failing of mine). Verbosity can be such a burden.

Your comment about the electronic versions of scriptures is worth expanding. I've settled on the convenience of taking my iPad when I don't have a teaching or speaking assignment. However, what I've observed in others attempting to use them from the pulpit while giving a talk, teaching a class, or giving a presentation in the stake center with the big screen is that there is invariably a technology hiccup of some kind. The downtime while we wait for the interruption to be corrected is always awkward and tends to drive the Spirit right out of the meeting. For that reason I always use my "low-tech" version of the scriptures when I talk or teach.

But even then it's important to be easily familiar with your tools as you transition from scripture to scripture when you are being guided by the Spirit in what you say in your teaching. We've all witnessed speakers fumbling with notes or losing their place when reading their talks word for word, and that too can be distracting. "Read yourself full, think yourself empty, speak yourself clear," is still good advice in preparation for a speaking, teaching or presenting assignment.

Since we're all amateurs in the Church where there is no paid clergy, as I see it the only answer is to become familiar with the tools we use, whatever our personal preference may be, in fact, so familiar that for all of us we can aspire to the day when we're all finishing each others' sentences because we all know what we know from the same sources. That blessed day will come when we all have come to know Him.

Joseph Smith

"This principle" — that of having one's calling and election made sure and of being sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise — "ought (in its proper place) to be taught," the Prophet Joseph said, "for God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them, for the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, know ye the Lord; for all shall know him (who remain) from the least to the greatest. How is this to be done? It is to be done by this sealing power, and the other Comforter spoken of, which will be manifest by revelation." (TPJS, 149).

The scriptural passage alluded to by the Prophet in this statement is from Jeremiah, who stated: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34). When that day finally arrives, we will have ceased doing home teaching and visiting teaching ;-)

We live in a time when it seems the membership of the Church is being sifted and separated and families are divided in the debate. In case you're living under a rock and unaware, the critics are among you in your own congregations everywhere and even among your aunts, uncles and cousins in your families. There have always been critics of the leaders of the Church - ALWAYS! The great divide that is setting up over LGBT issues and women and the priesthood, while often interesting to observe and debate among ourselves, is really nothing new at all. "Equal rights" is such an appealing notion, isn't it? And because I doubt there's a family left on earth that hasn't identified at least one family member with same-gender attraction tendencies, we're all enlisted in this latest skirmish. The topics may change, new advocates may arise, but the critics never seem to subside. However, I'm going to stand with Joseph Smith and his successors.

The Brethren are not on trial here. God our Eternal Father is not on trial, nor is our Savior and Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ. He was already dispatched to a cruel Roman cross and those who opposed Him thought that would be the end of it. But He arose from the dead. He restored His gospel in these last days. He continues to feel after us and invite us to come unto Him through obedience to His laws, His gospel and His humble servants.

It is we as members who are on trial. It is so much easier to be a critic than a contributor when it comes to building faith among ourselves in the Church. When we take the role of the "Devil's Advocate" to spice the debate and do others a service by "testing their faith," we sometimes fail to recognize the Devil already has millions of willing minions who followed him in the pre-existence and they continue to afflict and torment us here in mortality. The earliest reference I've been able to find for the term "Devil's Advocate" is a canon lawyer in the Roman Catholic Church appointed to argue against the canonization or beatification of a person. Then as now, the reasoning seems to go, let's doubt the motives and goodness of a person first, question everything they represent and let's stand against goodness as the loyal opposition to everything that suggests righteousness. That is so progressive, so smart, so forward-thinking, or so they say! Those who are already doing that as unembodied spirits easily outnumber those of us here on earth in physical bodies today. Why would we ever volunteer to do their work for them?

Satan and his followers are always willing to welcome new Advocates within their ranks. Hey, if you've got a body, you're going to offer them much more than they have. Those who defect here in the second estate and fail to remain valiant in their testimonies of Jesus, and especially when they're offering commentary about their long-standing tendency as individuals to question everything first are valuable assets to Satan's cause! They are easy targets for deception. (See D&C 76:75, 79). Let us not be blinded by "craftiness".

In the sanctuary of our dedicated chapels and classrooms, may I suggest that we seek higher ground and stand with the living oracles first? We all have doubts, but let's doubt our doubts before we doubt our faith, as President Uchtdorf suggested recently:

"To those who have separated themselves from the Church, I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here.
"Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result.
"Some might ask, 'But what about my doubts?'
"It’s natural to have questions — the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith — even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true. (See Hebrews 11:1; Alma 32:21).
"Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters — my dear friends — please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. (See F. F. Bosworth, Christ the Healer [1924], 23). We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." (emphasis mine).

Since that invitation from President Uchtdorf, some are now positing with the most recent federal court judge in Utah striking down Amendment 3 to the Utah State Constitution that the judge has somehow nullified the living prophets among us. "If the prophets were truly inspired," the latest reasoning goes, "why didn't they know the Amendment they advocated would be declared unconstitutional?" Similar arguments were made when Proposition 8 and DOMA were also overturned, but with an important distinction. California's governor made the decision not to challenge the rulings there, but in Utah the Attorney General under the direction of Governor Herbert will make a vigorous defense of Amendment 3, since 2/3 of Utahns voted in favor of Amendment 3 and the will of the electorate in defining marriage cannot be so easily ignored. I know good members of the Church who are now taking public stands on their social media platforms in exultation over the courts' rebukes of the Church. Really? Why?

When one makes a moral argument, as the Church did over gay marriage rights, we must be cautious to make the leap that the legal authority may have the last word. Remember, there is a higher unseen tribunal. It is as though some in the Church never seem to have been introduced to the LAWGIVER, you know, the One the Founders accepted in the founding documents for America who has given us our rights as free men and women.

The Devil's Advocates today would like you to believe they have made a clear and logical argument, except what is NOT clear at this writing is how the appellate courts will decide. Will they uphold the first federal judge's ruling or set it aside? The Tenth Circuit Court and eventually the SCOTUS will ultimately adjudicate the law of the land, but the law of the Lord is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. THAT law is eternal, unchangeable, unamendable and immutable.

Upon THAT law of holy matrimony - that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman - rests the eternal plan of salvation. Does one presume to assert eternal law can somehow be altered by popular opinion or a court decision? There is no earthly tribunal in America, even the SCOTUS, that can compel the churches to solemnize a wedding ritual in violation of its religious beliefs under Constitutional safeguards. And certainly, the highest courts in the land will never be able to rule effectively in matters of conscience and righteousness. That's why the Founders were so explicit that America could never be governed except if the people remained righteous. But Satan will not rest. Since the Garden, he has sought to separate the man from the woman, and he has sworn in his wrath he will never retreat.

We are admonished to gather together in our meetings "to AGREE upon my word." (D&C 41:2). When our high priest groups descend into nothing more than a debating society where we mingle the philosophies of men with scripture, and never once during a lesson cite a single sentence from the prophets' teachings that are laid before us, we are opening ourselves up to being deceived. I suspect this is all in fulfillment of sorting out the wise virgins from among the foolish ones. (See Matthew 25). They were all good girls - virgins! - waiting for the Bridegroom. As members the Church in the last days, we are good girls too for the most part. But about half of us tend to be wise, and about half tend toward foolishness.

President Thomas S. Monson

The demarcation line will likely be those who have embraced the word, honored and defended the humble prophets God has raised up from among our congregations to lead us in the latter-days, and who put their covenants ahead of all other considerations. Whenever I am asked who I think the greatest prophet in this dispensation is, most are surprised when my knee-jerk reaction isn't "Joseph Smith," or "Harold B. Lee." They are both dead prophets, and great as they were, the greatest prophet for me will always be the one who is living on the earth and leading the Church TODAY, Thomas S. Monson. And when he is gone, it will be his successor. I find obedience to the covenants we have made with God leaves me no other option in answering that question.

Those who will yet lose their way in the mists of darkness will be those who treat casually the glorious gifts we have received in the Restoration. It's a marvelous flood of light for those who choose to live in the light.

So no matter which version of scripture you favor, electronic or paper, feast upon the word, familiarize yourselves with their contents, and avoid the winds of deception that are blowing at gale force all around you. In this course there is safety, light and LIFE.

Remember - eternal life comes only from the Lawgiver, and it is given on His terms.

Moral Agency, Rebellion and Reconciliation

This has been an eventful week. Two stories from real life have become a useful metaphor for me in helping to describe what has just happened in our country.

TUACHAN, Ivins, UT

My wife and I took a long weekend trip to a distant city for a little R&R. We had a delightful weekend enjoying the splendor that is Southern Utah's color country. Without being too specific to protect the identity of the family we witnessed in action, a small drama played out in front of me that has some metaphorical value.

We attended a sacrament meeting while we were away. We happened to pick a ward where the ward conference was happening. Presiding at the meeting was the stake president. Their stake theme was published in the program - "Coming to understand the use of priesthood keys in the Church and our personal lives." Maybe it was because it's a topic with which I am very familiar and I've written about extensively, but I had a feeling their stake was in good hands and they were well-led by the man from whom we would be hearing later in the meeting. I was not disappointed in my early assessment.

The bishop bore a brief five-minute testimony. Then the stake president called on a youth leader and a young woman, both of whom had attended the stake girls' camp that week. They reported on the camp, their feelings about it, and what a spiritual uplift it had been in their lives.

Then a mini-drama played out in front of me. A mother and one of her daughters (it was a family of five children seated in the row in front of me), began exchanging hand-written notes on the front of the printed program. Because I was situated a row behind and between them, I could easily read their written exchanges.

The mother began, "Did you feel anything at girls' camp this week?" I should mention this was her oldest daughter whose natural hair color was red. But this daughter had dyed the front of her hair blue.

The daughter took the proffered note from her mother and returned it without comment, a look of loathing and rebellion on her face as she handed it back defiantly.

By now the stake president was at the podium and was developing a topic, ironically, of standing firm in our faith by choosing correct principles and aligning ourselves with the Lord and His admonitions through living prophets.

The mother then wrote: "You will NEVER be able to feel the spirit in your life with such a BAD ATTITUDE!"

The stake president from the pulpit: "Even God had to bow before the agency of His children in their poor choices, because He decreed that each would have the freedom to exercise moral agency. When our children rebel, it must never be because we have failed to teach them or to berate and judge them harshly for those choices. We must love and succor unconditionally as He would each of His children. His patience with us must mirror our own with our children."

The daughter had finally had enough. She grabbed the program and the pen and screamed on paper, "STOP IT!"

The stake president, continuing to develop his theme: "Obedience is the key to having the spirit in our lives to direct us. As we obey, as we love one another in our families, and as we give heed to the counsel of our living oracles, we develop the power of the priesthood in our individual lives to weather the storms of adversity and sin that will continually beat upon us until the Lord comes again."

The mother, seemingly oblivious to the counsel of their stake president and determined to have the last word with her daughter, then wrote: "You will NEVER be happy until you obey the commandments." This time the daughter refused to even pick up the program or look in her mother's direction. She simply ignored the note. The icy exchange had ended and her mother put away her program. I was struck by the fact that this blue-haired daughter had gone to girls' camp and she was sitting in Church. She could not be considered in my quick calculations as a total loss.

Another human drama between a 91-year-old father and a son who has rejected him as a father was also playing out last week. A copy of a letter from the father to the son was shared with me. This is a father whose history with this son has been tempestuous their entire lives. Now, the father, attempting a final reconciliation in the gathering sunset of his life writes in part:

"Your refusal to accept my telephone calls makes my efforts to reach you very difficult. . . I have faithfully written to you each month to express my love and to plead and beg for some response from you. All this has been to no avail and only painful silence has resulted. After a year I am still bewildered by your failure to respond [he then postulates on the possible reasons for being ignored]. . . There are other possibilities of course, but I have concluded that I cannot continue on with my practice of writing letters to you each month when I never know after a whole year whether they are even read, welcomed or useful in any respect. So, unless I receive an answer to this fervent inquiry, I will cease formal writing. Then, what are we left with? A father-son relationship that only I acknowledge and treasure. That is so saddening and empty. Only you can make it otherwise and I pray with all my heart that you will do so."

Two real-life examples of the painfully poignant feelings of distraught parents who are grappling with the rebellion and rejection by children of their parenting efforts. I would suspect these examples are not isolated. Perhaps they are universal.

Now take those two stories and imagine that pathos and the disappointment of our Father in Heaven who looks down on the SCOTUS rulings against DOMA and Prop 8 in California last week, having the effect of further bolstering the LGBT agenda for gay marriage in the name of "marriage equality." He has given revelation upon revelation, following centuries, even millennia since creation's dawn, of confirming conformity from the majority of His children with respect to marriage being defined as between one man and one woman, then having His doctrine ridiculed, derided and decried as "discriminatory." Imagine the patience, the irony, the disappointment and the long-suffering of God who is also a Parent. Yet how does He react? Does He harshly condemn, berate, brow beat, work with guilt to compel His children to do what He commands? No. He bows beneath the rod of moral agency. He warns, He continues to instruct through His living oracles upon the Earth today, and He continues to patiently nurture until the day of the final harvest. He must submit, even the God of the universe, to the immutable principle of moral agency. Even He. And so must we.

There are natural consequences involved with poor choices. It is Parenting 101. Children must be taught correctly to see and to learn what those consequences will be. Sadly, they must often suffer painful experiences to learn those natural consequences. Only last night, little munchkins living for the weekend with their parents under our roof for the holiday weekend, were reminded gently by their parents that failing to eat their dinner resulted in the natural consequence of having to forego Grandma's homemade cookies for dessert. Screams of how HORRIBLE their parents were rang through the house. Screams of protest and anger, harsh judgments about their abilities as parents were rendered. "You are the MEANEST mother in the whole world!!" But the consequences stood. They were learning as little ones, not having to wait until they had dyed their hair blue, or were still stoutly refusing the impassioned entreaties of aged parents after a lifetime of rejection.

It was Kahlil Gibran who wisely stated: "We choose our joys and sorrows long before we experience them."

And so it is. The day will come when America will pay a terrible consequence in its rebellion against God and the natural law of marriage between a man and a woman. I hope before the final judgment day arrives I will be living on the other side of the green, green grass in the cemetery. There is nothing in the scriptures suggesting to me things are going to get dramatically better before we see the Second Coming.

But I am cheered by the hope that out of all this chaos will someday emerge the Zion for which I long:

"And now I give unto you a word concerning Zion. Zion shall be redeemed, although she is chastened for a little season. . . Therefore, let your hearts be comforted; for all things shall work together for good to them that walk uprightly, and to the sanctification of the church. For I will raise up unto myself a pure people that will serve me in righteousness; And all that call upon the name of the Lord, and keep his commandments, shall be saved. Even so. Amen." (D&C 100:13, 15-17).

I suspect before that day comes even young ladies with blue hair and recalcitrant sons who refuse to accept their aged father's earnest entreaties will also submit.

An additional valuable insight was reinforced the other night as we were participating in a sealing session. "I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection." Fathers will someday resurrect their children. The keys of the holy resurrection are a patriarchal priesthood entitlement to the faithful. And knowing the patience of our Father in Heaven, I suspect patient patriarchs seeking to become just like Him will also wait for as long as it takes for their children to be given every possible chance to repent and align themselves with the revealed gospel of Jesus Christ even beyond the grave.

Just a thought. . . sometimes reconciliation takes a very long time, but it is ALWAYS possible.

Political Quote of the Day

From the pen of Paul Jacobson at American Thinker:

Yes, we have been deceived with regard to ObamaCare, but the Great Deceit happened in 2008, when many Americans let themselves be duped by the "hope and change" lies and propaganda shoveled out by Obama and his Democrat henchmen.  We the people have only ourselves to blame.  There has been no deception by Roberts or anyone else on the Supreme Court.

Justices like John Roberts epitomize the vast difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy/tyranny.  In the ObamaCare ruling, he has dumped the health care issue right back into the laps of the American people and their elected representatives.  That is exactly where it belongs.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/john_roberts_v_obamacare_an_apologia.html#ixzz1zlAXnzVq

A Look at our Founders' Beliefs in Light of Today's Politics

The Federalist Papers

On this 4th of July 2012, with nothing better to do on our national holiday, I have been reviewing selected statements from the writings of our founding fathers. Many of the statements in this post will leap off the page at you if you have your eyes wide open to the strife swirling about us in this election season. Do not become discouraged. Do not fear the future. Put into its proper perspective with a healthy dose of hindsight to guide our thinking, contention and opposition has forever been part of our political process, and will be forever as long as free men agree to disagree agreeably in the end.

George Washington

America is astoundingly resilient as these quotes will demonstrate, but first to a bit of history to put it all in a framework everyone can understand.

The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System. George Washington abhorred the thoughts of his infant republic being torn asunder by partisan bickering, and remained independent, but the Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801.

Alexander Hamilton

The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who was committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams, who followed Washington as the second POTUS, who was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson.

The Federalists favored a strong national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank, and vehemently criticized anyone who expressed remaining sympathy with the British monarchy. The Federalists won most of the major legislative battles in the 1790s. Their supporters were mostly in the nation's cities and in New England. The Democratic-Republicans, drew support from the rural South, and Jefferson eventually won the ugly and nasty election of 1800, defeating his lifelong friend John Adams, whose party never returned to power.

One thing leaps out as you read these excerpts, primarily from Hamilton and Madison: Despite their differences in the beliefs of their respective parties, both men believed the ultimate power of America rested with THE PEOPLE, and each gives us ample justification for taking steps to correct any form of tyranny that may arise. They wrote their essays along with Chief Justice John Jay to promote the ratification of the Constitution, and each in his writings gave us the intellectual arguments sufficient to change the government if it were ever to encroach upon our freedoms. As you read, don't be surprised if you learn how prophetic their writings have become!

John Adams

The Federalists left a lasting legacy of a strong new government with a sound financial base, and simultaneously Chief Justice John Marshall decisively shaped the Supreme Court policies for another three decades.

Today, the ongoing national debate about the relative powers of the federal and the state governments continues. As I write today  state governors, granted the ability to do so in the latest SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Healthcare Act, are pushing back and refusing to implement the expansion of Medicaid under the law because of the enormous financial hardship it imposes. The more things change in America, the more they remain the same, it seems.

Thomas Jefferson

The infant republic survived those tumultuous years, and it is from their writings I was seeking inspiration this morning as we celebrate yet another American birthday. Share with me their prescient awareness of the very threats we face today:

* * *

James Madison

Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the governments of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the old world, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the new, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.  Madison, Number 45

The States will retain all pre-existing authorities which may not be exclusively delegated to the federal head; and that this exclusive delegation can only exist in one of three cases: where an exclusive authority is, in express terms, granted to the Union; or where a particular authority is granted to the Union and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States; or where an authority is granted to a Union with which a similar authority in the States would be utterly incompatible.  Hamilton, Number 82

It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several legislatures, it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers, and has in some instances given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.  Hamilton, Number 22

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. Madison, Number 39

The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an overmatch for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights.

The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people. Hamilton, Number 8

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. Hamilton, Number 28

John Jay

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, that absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for purposes and objects merely personal, such as a thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. John Jay, Number 4

It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions.  Madison, Number 41

Wilful abuses of a public authority, to the oppression of the subject, and every species of official extortion, are offenses against the government, for which the persons who commit them may be indicted and punished according to the circumstances of the case. Hamilton, Number 83

Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. Madison, Number 40

. . . If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning. I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate their respective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed. Madison, Number 44

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained. Madison, Number 45

There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. Hamilton, Number 78

The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty. Madison, Number 57

For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion. Hamilton, Number 25

I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that their confidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration. Hamilton, Number 27

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Hamilton, Number 28

It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people. Madison, Number 52

No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable.  Madison, Number 62

* * *

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY, AMERICA! NEVER DOUBT WHO YOU ARE!

And the SCOTUS Upholds. . . WE THE PEOPLE!

No one in their right mind would say they didn't get their money's worth in drama last week. The SCOTUS handed down a ruling that was universally loathed on both sides of the aisle, but under the hood this was a finely-tuned engine poised for full power to be unleashed. The people of the United States of America have had the power returned to them if they can seize it.

Benjamin Franklin

It calls to mind the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, a representative to the original Constitutional Convention. Their deliberations gave us, for perhaps the first time in all history, a republic with the three basic divisions of government, the legislative, executive, and judicial, mutually and completely independent the one from the other, under which it is not possible for any branch of government legally to set up a system by which that branch can first conceive what it wants to do, then make the law ordering its doing, and then itself, judge its own enforcement of its own law, a system that has always brought extortion, oppression, intimidation, tyranny, despotism, a system that every dictator has employed and must employ. May we never unravel those underpinnings.

And when it was done, a questioner asked Benjamin Franklin, the first American, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?” To which Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” In the sweltering record-setting heat (an apt metaphor) of the SCOTUS ruling handed down last week in Washington D.C., Franklin's response still resonates. We know we can keep our Republic, the question looms. . . Will we?

I wrote about us having to take a stand and stop having it both ways some months ago. We are at the inflection point now as never before, thanks to the SCOTUS ruling this week. The hint it was a historic court decision was all the histrionics that followed from both sides. Clearly, the legal victory belonged to the Obama administration. On a 5-4 decision the Affordable Healthcare Act was upheld by the finding that the individual mandate was indeed a tax, it was constitutional and Congress had the full authority to do that. Predictably both sides claimed victory.

The Republicans were delighted on three counts - the Commerce Clause, long abused with its meanings expanded beyond belief for decades was finally curtailed. You cannot mandate activities of the American people for something no one has done yet, the Roberts opinion stated. Medicaid expansion being forced upon the states was also slapped down. And they even found something to like in the Court's definition of the mandate as a tax, not a penalty. They will be able to remind everyone that Obama lied about there being no new taxes here, when in fact (as I stated repeatedly) this represents the largest tax increase to pay for the largest entitlement program in the history of the world.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

The Obama administration, of course, loved the legal victory of the Obamacare law being declared constitutional after all. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), however, argued it will be a short-lived and hollow victory in the end. Why? Because he believes the American people will rise up in revolt and revulsion over this decision and slap down the legislators who gave us this monstrosity of a law in the middle of the night without one single opposition vote to sustain it. Love the optimism there.

Here's what Chief Justice Roberts did for the nation last week. He actually said something no one had predicted he would say. Everyone in the nation was poised for the ultimate arbiter, the Supreme Court, to finally settle the argument once and for all, and to tell all the children that "father knew best." Instead, here's what John Roberts said that will enshrine him in the pantheon of American jurisprudence forevermore: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” 


Wow! How refreshing is that? This is a restatement of the plan of salvation: Men are free to choose. Free agency, the power to choose, is a gift of God. We are endowed with it by our Creator. In 2 Nephi we read: "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself" (2:16). Further, "Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves — to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life" (10:23). And in modern revelation the Lord said, "Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself" (D&C 29:35).

Joseph Smith

The Prophet Joseph Smith described agency as "that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts"(TPJS, 49). The word "free" is also used to describe free agency in this hymn Latter-day Saints have been singing since our first hymn book in 1835:

Know this, that ev'ry soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be;
For this eternal truth is giv'n
That God will force no man to heav'n.
He'll call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love and light,
In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.
— Hymns #240

We made a political judgment with our freedom of choice in 2008. The pendulum swung in favor of the Democrats. Both houses of Congress and the White House were swept. No one, even the Supreme Court, was available in the end to change those consequences. John Roberts reminded Americans last week it was time to grow up, take off the training wheels from our wobbly attempts to ride the bicycle of freedom of choice and to stop looking for a savior to fix things. The savior did not emerge in Barack Obama, and Roberts wasn't about to insert himself or his court into that role either. Ultimately, Roberts declared, the power for good or evil is in your hands America. Choose well.

Mitt Romney

Conservatives should be dancing in the streets. Roberts gave us exactly what we believe in - a battle cry for freedom, less top-down, government-and-courts-driven dictum, and actual liberty for the people who can decide (if we will) to elect people to Congress who won't tax us and obligate us to unsustainable spending with debts we cannot pay. The choice, said Roberts, is all yours. And the big winner here, I have to believe, is Mitt Romney. Perhaps never since George Washington has a presidential candidate represented that political philosophy more eloquently and completely.

President Barack Obama

Liberals who believe in a cradle-to-grave entitlement existence under the "parental" control of an empowered tyrannical executive run rampant on individual freedom got exactly what THEY wanted - additional control of another 18% of the GDP - the healthcare industry. They now have the funding mechanism under the taxing authority of the United States government to make their progressive agenda a reality after 100 years of trying. Victory at last! Power to the oppressed! And it's all constitutional. The Constitution was crafted by the people, for the people and of the people. It granted enumerated and limited powers to the government and virtually everything else to the people. When government asserts powers it does not possess and encroaches into our individual freedoms, the only way tyranny can be curtailed is by the people. It may yet be the case that no one in the history of this Republic may be judged in the final analysis to represent tyranny more completely than Barack Obama.

Only the people are empowered to adjudicate the winner of this debate on November 6th.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Roberts just did exactly what the nation could not have foreseen. He has literally handed back to the free people of America a very unpopular piece of legislation (I'm intentionally using restraint here) that was crammed down our throats against the wishes of the majority by a minority suddenly emboldened with the votes to do it. Now, if we really mean it and we are truly unhappy with the results of the election of 2008, we can either fix this aberration (if I'm right and that's all it is) at the polls on November 6th, or if I'm wrong we can live forever with the consequences. It seemed the electorate rose up in the 2010 mid-terms and put a stop to the runaway train by returning control of the House to the Republicans. Will the trend continue in 2012? Victory in the Senate races is paramount.

I am setting aside all the punditry and the loud protestations I've heard from both sides in the aftermath, and I will make this bold declaration: I liked what happened and what I've read in the actual opinions of the justices since the ruling was handed down. I like it because it retrieves accountability for our actions as a free people from the Executive Branch and the Courts. Our elected representatives in the Congress should now be right where they belong, in the cross hairs of every freedom-loving person in America with a ballot in their hands.

I like the idea of having a Mulligan, a chance to re-educate Americans with the reality our policy and process should begin and end with us. It starts with an informed vote, and electing representatives more carefully than ever before, people who will actually represent our collective will in Washington D.C., and will resist the few who represent the minority who would destroy us from within.

So now it's "game on" time. I hope we can throw off the idea that government is somehow the benevolent dictator of our future and the dispenser of our freedoms. The people in Washington are there only because we put them there.

Forget that routinely a minority of the electorate show up to vote. That should and must change if we are to preserve the Republic Benjamin Franklin and the others gave us. They must become our willing minions, not the other way around.

I suspect Roberts knew full well what the risks would be in handing down the majority opinion that the Obamacare law was found constitutional. Too many people will see that headline and continue to quietly go about their lives without further adieu. Factor in the complacency of many who have grown to love the idea of government checks flowing into their mailboxes on a regular basis. That is precisely what Obama and the left will bank on.

The spin has already begun. Astoundingly, what do we hear from the White House after the definition of the word "tax" has been rendered? "It's not a tax." Really? No one has done more damage to their loose familiarity with truth, justice and the American way than this administration. Well, they are transparent to anyone with eyes to see.

Between now and November little will change to measurably improve the anemic economic recovery with which we are saddled because of the policies of this White House. The MSM will continue to remind us of the "victory" in this bill being upheld constitutionally, but in the end the court of pubic opinion will prevail.

In their heart of hearts, surely Americans realize there is no free lunch, no "something for nothing" reality. . . don't they?

I'm not one who is going to bash John Roberts into oblivion. I prefer instead to think he just punted the ball deep in his own territory on fourth down with the game clock expiring and said to the American people, "If you want a touchdown, you now have the final possession and go make it happen."

We may be confused as a people with the cacophony of political rhetoric, but in his case Chief Justice Roberts was clear-eyed and deliberate. We, the people, brought the ball to the game and after the final buzzer sounds we still own the ball regardless of how battered and bloodied it may be.

I'm often wrong on political predictions. I certainly could not have envisioned what Justice Roberts just did. But I do know God is still invested in America, and her destiny will not be denied if the people who sustain her and all her ideals are still alert. Who knows, this loathsome burden on the American taxpayer may not even be the law of the land come January. Already governors are rising up in opposition and refusing to implement its provisions in their states.

If you're still reading, I advise taking the long view here. Resist the desperate voices, tune out the pundits, turn off the TV, instead listen to the quiet whisperings of your soul. John Roberts may have just saved the Republic. . .if you can keep it.

I think we can.