The Divinely Inspired Constitution
lds.org ^ | Elder Dallin H. Oaks
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 2:03:02 AM by sevenbak
The Divinely Inspired Constitution
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, The Ensign, Feb 1992
Not long after I began to teach law, an older professor asked me a
challenging question about Latter-day Saints=92 belief in the United
States Constitution. Earlier in his career he had taught at the
University of Utah College of Law. There he met many Latter-day Saint
law students. =93They all seemed to believe that the Constitution was
divinely inspired,=94 he said, =93but none of them could ever tell me what
this meant or how it affected their interpretation of the
Constitution.=94 I took that challenge personally, and I have pondered
it for many years. 1
I hope I will not be thought immodest if I claim a special interest in
the Constitution. As a lawyer and law professor for more than twenty
years, I have studied the United States Constitution. As legal
counsel, I helped draft the bill of rights for the Illinois
constitutional convention of 1970. And for three and one-half years as
a justice of the Utah Supreme Court I had the sworn duty to uphold and
interpret the constitutions of the state of Utah and the United
States. My conclusions draw upon those experiences and upon a lifetime
of studying the scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets.
My opinions on this subject are personal and do not represent a
statement in behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.
Creation and Ratification
The United States Constitution was the first written constitution in
the world. It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and
prosperity during the changed conditions of more than two hundred
years. Frequently copied, it has become the United States=92 most
im****tant ex****t. After two centuries, every nation in the world
except six have adopted written constitutions, 2 and the U.S.
Constitution was a model for all of them. No wonder modern revelation
says that God established the U.S. Constitution and that it =93should be
maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to
just and holy principles.=94 (D&C 101:77.)
George Wa****ngton was perhaps the first to use the word miracle in
describing the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In a 1788 letter to
Lafayette, he said:
=93It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates
from so many different states (which states you know are also
different from each other in their manners, cir***stances, and
prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government,
so little liable to well-founded objections.=94 3
It was a miracle. Consider the setting.
The thirteen colonies and three and one-half million Americans who had
won independence from the British crown a few years earlier were badly
divided on many fundamental issues. Some thought the colonies should
reaffiliate with the British crown. Among the majority who favored
continued independence, the most divisive issue was whether the United
States should have a strong central government to replace the weak
=93league of friend****p=94 established by the Articles of Confederation.
Under the Confederation of 1781, there was no executive or judicial
authority, and the national Congress had no power to tax or to
regulate commerce. The thirteen states retained all their sovereignty,
and the national government could do nothing without their approval.
The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the
unanimous approval of all the states, and every effort to strengthen
this loose confederation had failed.
Congress could not even protect itself. In July 1783, an armed mob of
former Revolutionary War soldiers seeking back wages threatened to
take Congress hostage at its meeting in Philadelphia. When
Pennsylvania declined to provide militia to protect them, the
congressmen fled. Thereafter Congress was a laughingstock, wandering
from city to city.
Unless America could adopt a central government with sufficient
authority to function as a nation, the thirteen states would remain a
group of insignificant, feuding little nations united by nothing more
than geography and forever vulnerable to the impositions of aggressive
foreign powers. No wonder the first purpose stated in the preamble of
the new United States Constitution was =93to form a more perfect union.=94
The Constitution had its origin in a resolution by which the
relatively powerless Congress called delegates to a convention to
discuss amendments to the Articles of Confederation. This convention
was promoted by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two farsighted
young statesmen still in their thirties, who favored a strong national
government. They persuaded a reluctant George Wa****ngton to attend and
then used his influence in a letter-writing campaign to encourage
participation by all the states. The convention was held in
Philadelphia, whose population of a little over 40,000 made it the
largest city in the thirteen states.
As the delegates assembled, there were ominous signs of disunity. It
was not until eleven days after the scheduled beginning of the
convention that enough states were represented to form a quorum. New
Hamp****re=92s delegation arrived more than two months late because the
state had not provided them travel money. No delegates ever came from
Rhode Island.
Economically and politically, the country was alarmingly weak. The
states were in a paralyzing depression. Everyone was in debt. The
national treasury was empty. Inflation was rampant. The various
currencies were nearly worthless. The trade deficit was staggering.
Rebelling against their inclusion in New York State, prominent
citizens of Vermont had already entered into negotiations to rejoin
the British crown. In the western territory, Kentucky leaders were
speaking openly about turning from the union and forming alliances
with the Old World.
Instead of reacting timidly because of disunity and weakness, the
delegates boldly ignored the terms of their invitation to amend the
Articles of Confederation and instead set out to write an entirely new
constitution. They were conscious of their place in history. For
millennia the world=92s people had been ruled by kings or tyrants. Now a
group of colonies had won independence from a king and their
representatives had the unique op****tunity of establi****ng a
constitutional government Abraham Lincoln would later describe as =93of
the people, by the people, and for the people.=94
The delegates faced staggering obstacles. The leaders in the thirteen
states were deeply divided on the extent to which the states would
cede any power to a national government. If there was to be a strong
central government, there were seemingly irresolvable differences on
how to allocate the ingredients of national power between large and
small states. As to the nature of the national executive, some wanted
to copy the British parliamentary system. At least one delegate even
favored the adoption of a monarchy. Divisions over slavery could well
have prevented any agreement on other issues. There were 600,000 black
slaves in the thirteen states, and slavery was essential in the view
of some delegates and repulsive to many others.
Deeming secrecy essential to the success of their venture, the
delegates spent over three months in secret sessions, faithfully
observing their agreement that no one would speak outside the meeting
room on the progress of their work. They were fearful that if their
debates were re****ted to the people before the entire do***ent was
ready for submission, the opposition would unite to kill the effort
before it was born. This type of proceeding would obviously be
impossible today. There is irony in the fact that a constitution which
protects the people=92s =93right to know=94 was written under a set of
ground rules that its present beneficiaries would not tolerate.
It took the delegates seven weeks of debate to resolve the question of
how the large and small states would be represented in the national
congress. The Great Compromise provided a senate with equal
representation for each state, and a lower house in which
representation was ap****tioned according to the whole population of
free persons in the state, plus three-fifths of the slaves. The vote
on this pivotal issue was five states in favor and four against; other
states did not vote, either because no delegates were present or
because their delegation was divided. Upon that fragile base, the
delegates went forward to consider other issues, including the nature
of the executive and judicial branches, and whether the do***ent
should include a bill of rights.
It is remarkable that the delegates were able to put aside their
narrow sectional loyalties to agree on a strong central government.
Timely events were persuasive of the need: the delegates=92 memories of
the national humiliation when Congress was chased out of Philadelphia
by a mob, the recent challenge of Shay=92s rebellion against
Massachusetts farm foreclosures, and the frightening prospect that
northern and western areas would be drawn back into the orbit of
European power.
The success of the convention was attributable in large part to the
remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates.
As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the
Constitutional Convention:
=93There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous
trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or
anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.=94 4 Truly, the U.S.
Constitution was established =93by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord]
raised up unto this very purpose.=94 (D&C 101:80.)
The drafting of the Constitution was only the beginning. By its terms
it would not go into effect until ratified by conventions in nine
states. But if the nation was to be united and strong, the new
Constitution had to be ratified by the key states of Virginia and New
York, where the opposition was particularly strong. The extent of
opposition coming out of the convention is suggested by the fact that
of seventy-four appointed delegates, only fifty-five participated in
the convention, and only thirty-nine of these signed the completed
do***ent.
It was nine months before nine states had ratified, and the last of
the key states was not included until a month later, when the New York
convention ratified by a vote of thirty to twenty-seven. To the
=93miracle of Philadelphia=94 one must therefore add =93the miracle of
ratification.=94
Ratification probably could not have been secured without a commitment
to add a written bill of rights. The first ten amendments, which
included the Bill of Rights, were ratified a little over three years
after the Constitution itself.
That the Constitution was ratified is largely attributable to the fact
that the principal leaders in the states were willing to vote for a
do***ent that failed to embody every one of their preferences. For
example, influential Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris negotiating a
treaty and therefore did not serve as a delegate, felt strongly that a
bill of rights should have been included in the original Constitution.
But Jefferson still sup****ted the Constitution because he felt it was
the best available. Benjamin Franklin stated that view in these words:
=93When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage over their
joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their
prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local
interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a
perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to
find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does. =85 The
opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.=94 5
In other words, one should not expect perfection=97one certainly should
not expect all of his personal preferences=97in a do***ent that must
represent a consensus. One should not sulk over a representative
body=92s failure to attain perfection. Americans are well advised to
sup****t the best that can be obtained in the cir***stances that
prevail. That is sound advice not only for the drafting of a
constitution but also for the adoption and administration of laws
under it.
Inspiration
It was a miracle that the Constitution could be drafted and ratified.
But what is there in the text of the Constitution that is divinely
inspired?
Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that
sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the
same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it
necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For
example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the
minimum age or years of citizen****p for congressmen, senators, or the
president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution
as =93part of my religion,=94 6 also said that it was not part of his
belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a
=93fully grown do***ent.=94 =93On the contrary,=94 he said, =93We believe
i=
t
must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing
world.=94 7
That was also the attitude of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He faulted the
Constitution for not being =93broad enough to cover the whole ground.=94
In an obvious reference to the national government=92s lack of power to
intervene when the state of Missouri used its militia to expel the
Latter-day Saints from their lands, Joseph Smith said,
=93Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them.
=85 Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect
themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the
misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of
popular fury.=94 8 This omission of national power to protect citizens
against state action to deprive them of constitutional rights was
remedied in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted just after the Civil
War.
I see divine inspiration in what President J. Reuben Clark called the
=93great fundamentals=94 of the Constitution. In his many talks on the
Constitution, he always praised three fundamentals: (a) the separation
of powers into three independent branches of government in a federal
system; (b) the essential freedoms of speech, press, and religion
embodied in the Bill of Rights; and (c) the equality of all men before
the law. I concur in these three, but I add two more. On my list there
are five great fundamentals.
1. Separation of powers. The idea of separation of powers was at least
a century old. The English Parliament achieved an initial separation
of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain
powers from the king in the revolution of 1688. The concept of
separation of powers became well established in the American colonies.
State constitutions adopted during the Revolution distinguished
between the executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Thus, a
do***ent commenting on the proposed Massachusetts Constitution of
1778, speaks familiarly of the principle =93that the legislative,
judicial, and executive powers are to be lodged in different hands,
that each branch is to be independent, and further, to be so balanced,
and be able to exert such checks upon the others, as will preserve it
from dependence on, or a union with them.=94 9
Thus, we see that the inspiration on the idea of separation of powers
came long before the U.S. Constitutional Convention. The inspiration
in the convention was in its original and remarkably successful
adaptation of the idea of separation of powers to the practical needs
of a national government. The delegates found just the right
combination to assure the integrity of each branch, appropriately
checked and balanced with the others. As President Clark said:
=93It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches=97
legislative, executive and judicial=97and of the governmental functions
possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of
this unrivalled do***ent. =85 As I see it, it was here that the divine
inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.=94 10
2. A written bill of rights. This second great fundamental came by
amendment, but I think Americans all look upon the Bill of Rights as
part of the inspired work of the Founding Fathers. The idea of a bill
of rights was not new. Once again, the inspiration was in the
brilliant, practical implementation of preexisting principles. Almost
six hundred years earlier, King John had subscribed the Magna Charta,
which contained a written guarantee of some rights for certain of his
subjects. The English Parliament had guaranteed individual rights
against royal power in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Even more
recently, some of the charters used in the establishment of the
American colonies had written guarantees of liberties and privileges,
with which the delegates were familiar.
I have always felt that the United States Constitution=92s closest
approach to scriptural stature is in the phrasing of our Bill of
Rights. Without the free exercise of religion, America could not have
served as the host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which
began just three decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified. I also
see scriptural stature in the concept and wording of the freedoms of
speech and press, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches
and seizures, the requirements that there must be probable cause for
an arrest and that accused persons must have a speedy and public trial
by an impartial jury, and the guarantee that a person will not be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
President Ezra Taft Benson has said, =93Reason, necessity, tradition,
and religious conviction all lead me to accept the divine origin of
these rights.=94 11
The Declaration of Independence had posited these truths to be =93self-
evident,=94 that all men =93are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable Rights,=94 and that governments are instituted =93to secure
these Rights.=94 This inspired Constitution was established to provide a
practical guarantee of these God-given rights (see D&C 101:77), and
the language implementing that godly objective is scriptural to me.
3. Division of powers. Another inspired fundamental of the U.S.
Constitution is its federal system, which divides government powers
between the nation and the various states. Unlike the inspired
adaptations mentioned earlier, this division of sovereignty was
unprecedented in theory or practice. In a day when it is fa****onable
to assume that the government has the power and means to right every
wrong, we should remember that the U.S. Constitution limits the
national government to the exercise of powers expressly granted to it.
The Tenth Amendment provides:
=93The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States
respectively or to the people.=94
This principle of limited national powers, with all residuary powers
reserved to the people or to the state and local governments, which
are most responsive to the people, is one of the great fundamentals of
the U.S. Constitution.
The particular powers that are reserved to the states are part of the
inspiration. For example, the power to make laws on personal
relation****ps is reserved to the states. Thus, laws of marriage and
family rights and duties are state laws. This would have been changed
by the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.). When the First
Presidency opposed the E.R.A., they cited the way it would have
changed various legal rules having to do with the family, a result
they characterized as =93a moral rather than a legal issue.=94 12 I would
add my belief that the most fundamental legal and political objection
to the proposed E.R.A. was that it would effect a significant
reallocation of law-making power from the states to the federal
government.
4. Popular sovereignty. Perhaps the most im****tant of the great
fundamentals of the inspired Constitution is the principle of popular
sovereignty: The people are the source of government power. Along with
many religious people, Latter-day Saints affirm that God gave the
power to the people, and the people consented to a constitution that
delegated certain powers to the government. Sovereignty is not
inherent in a state or nation just because it has the power that comes
from force of arms. Sovereignty does not come from the divine right of
a king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is forced
to concede, as in Magna Charta. The sovereign power is in the people.
I believe this is one of the great meanings in the revelation which
tells us that God established the Constitution of the United States,
=93That every man may act =85 according to the moral agency which I have
given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in
the day of judgment.
=93Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to
another.
=93And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this
land.=94 (D&C 101:78=9680.)
In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective
exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom
and responsibility. In this condition men are accountable for their
own sins and cannot blame their political conditions on their bondage
to a king or a tyrant. This condition is achieved when the people are
sovereign, as they are under the Constitution God established in the
United States. From this it follows that the most im****tant words in
the United States Constitution are the words in the preamble: =93We, the
people of the United States =85 do ordain and establish this
Constitution.=94
President Ezra Taft Benson expressed the fundamental principle of
popular sovereignty when he said, =93We [the people] are superior to
government and should remain master over it, not the other way
around.=94 13 The Book of Mormon explains that principle in these words:
=93An unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. =85
=93Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye
may be judged according to the laws. =85
=93Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything
contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part
of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall
ye observe and make it your law=97to do your business by the voice of
the people.=94 (Mosiah 29:23=9626.)
Popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility.
Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or other sovereign, all
citizens must share the burdens and responsibilities of governing. As
the Book of Mormon teaches, =93The burden should come upon all the
people, that every man might bear his part.=94 (Mosiah 29:34.)
President Clark=92s third great fundamental was the equality of all men
before the law. I believe that to be a corollary of popular
sovereignty. When power comes from the people, there is no legitimacy
in legal castes or cl***** or in failing to provide all citizens the
equal protection of the laws.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not originate the
idea of popular sovereignty, since they lived in a century when many
philosophers had argued that political power originated in a social
contract. But the United States Constitution provided the first
implementation of this principle. After two centuries in which
Americans may have taken popular sovereignty for granted, it is
helpful to be reminded of the difficulties in that pioneering effort.
To begin with, a direct democracy was impractical for a country of
four million people and about a half million square miles. As a
result, the delegates had to design the structure of a constitutional,
representative democracy, what they called =93a Republican Form of
Government.=94 14
The delegates also had to resolve whether a constitution adopted by
popular sovereignty could be amended, and if so, how.
Finally, the delegates had to decide how minority rights could be
protected when the government was, by definition, controlled by the
majority of the sovereign people.
A government based on popular sovereignty must be responsive to the
people, but it must also be stable or it cannot govern. A constitution
must therefore give government the power to withstand the cries of a
majority of the people in the short run, though it must obviously be
subject to their direction in the long run.
Without some government stability against an outraged majority,
government could not protect minority rights. As President Clark
declared:
=93The Constitution was framed in order to protect minorities. That is
the purpose of written constitutions. In order that the minorities
might be protected in the matter of amendments under our Constitution,
the Lord required that the amendments should be made only through the
operation of very large majorities=97two-thirds for action in the
Senate, and three-fourths as among the states. This is the inspired,
prescribed order.=94 15
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention achieved the required
balance between popular sovereignty and stability through a power of
amendment that was ultimately available but deliberately slow. Only in
this way could the government have the certainty of stability, the
protection of minority rights, and the potential of change, all at the
same time.
To summarize, I see divine inspiration in these four great
fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution:
=95 the separation of powers in the three branches of government;
=95 the Bill of Rights;
=95 the division of powers between the states and the federal
government; and
=95 the application of popular sovereignty.
5. The rule of law and not of men. Further, there is divine
inspiration in the fundamental underlying premise of this whole
constitutional order. All the blessings enjoyed under the United
States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law. That is why
President J. Reuben Clark said, =93Our allegiance run[s] to the
Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to
individuals.=94 16 The rule of law is the basis of liberty.
As the Lord declared in modern revelation, constitutional laws are
justifiable before him, =93and the law also maketh you free.=94 (D&C 98:5=
=96
8.) The self-control by which citizens subject themselves to law
strengthens the freedom of all citizens and honors the divinely
inspired Constitution.
Citizen Responsibilities
U.S. citizens have an inspired Constitution, and therefore, what? Does
the belief that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired affect
citizens=92 behavior toward law and government? It should and it does.
U.S. citizens should follow the First Presidency=92s counsel to study
the Constitution. 17 They should be familiar with its great
fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in
the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of
the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. They should
oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals.
They should be law-abiding citizens, sup****tive of national, state,
and local governments. The twelfth Article of Faith declares:
=93We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.=94
The Church=92s official declaration of belief states:
=93We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of
man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to
them. =85
=93We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the
respective governments in which they reside.=94 (D&C 134:1, 5.)
Those who enjoy the blessings of liberty under a divinely inspired
constitution should promote morality, and they should practice what
the Founding Fathers called =93civic virtue.=94 In his address on the U.S.
Constitution, President Ezra Taft Benson quoted this im****tant
observation by John Adams, the second president of the United States:
=93Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.=94 18
Similarly, James Madison, who is known as the =93Father of the
Constitution,=94 stated his assumption that there had to be =93sufficient
virtue among men for self-government.=94 He argued in the Federalist
Papers that =93republican government presupposes the existence of these
qualities in a higher degree than any other form.=94 19
It is part of our civic duty to be moral in our conduct toward all
people. There is no place in responsible citizen****p for dishonesty or
deceit or for willful law breaking of any kind. We believe with the
author of Proverbs that =93righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a
reproach to any people.=94 (Prov. 14:34.) The personal righteousness of
citizens will strengthen a nation more than the force of its arms.
Citizens should also be practitioners of civic virtue in their conduct
toward government. They should be ever willing to fulfill the duties
of citizen****p. This includes compulsory duties like military service
and the numerous voluntary actions they must take if they are to
preserve the principle of limited government through citizen self-
reliance. For example, since U.S. citizens value the right of trial by
jury, they must be willing to serve on juries, even those involving
unsavory subject matter. Citizens who favor morality cannot leave the
enforcement of moral laws to jurors who oppose them.
The single word that best describes a fulfillment of the duties of
civic virtue is patriotism. Citizens should be patriotic. My favorite
prescription for patriotism is that of Adlai Stevenson:
=93What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? =85 A
patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not
short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady
dedication of a lifetime.=94 20
I close with a poetic prayer. It is familiar to everyone in the United
States, because U.S. citizens sing it in one of their loveliest hymns.
It expresses gratitude to God for liberty, and it voices a prayer that
he will continue to bless them with the holy light of freedom:
Our fathers=92 God, to thee,
Author of liberty,
To thee we sing;
Long may our land be bright
With freedom=92s holy light.
Protect us by thy might,
Great God, our King! 21
[illustration] Signing of the U.S. Constitution
Notes
1. A version of this address, given at the Freedom Festival, Provo,
Utah, was printed in Utah Forum, Fall/Winter 1989, pp. 1=9611.
2. See =93The Constitution,=94 Wilson Quarterly, Spring 1987, pp. 97, 126.
3. Letter from Wa****ngton to Lafayette, 7 Feb. 1788, quoted in
Catherine Drinker Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia, Boston: Little,
Brown and Co., 1966, p. xvii.
4. Quoted in William O. Nelson, The Charter of Liberty, Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book Co., 1987, p. 44.
5. Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Re****ted by
James Madison, p. 653, quoted in Nelson, The Charter of Liberty, p.
57.
6. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Stand Fast by Our Constitution, Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book Co., 1973, pp. 7, 172.
7. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., quoted in Martin B. Hickman, =93J. Reuben
Clark, Jr.: the Constitution and the Great Fundamentals,=94 in Ray C.
Hillam, ed., =93By the Hands of Wise Men,=94 Provo, Utah: Brigham Young
University Press, 1979, p. 53.
8. History of the Church, 6:57.
9. Quoted in Gerhard Casper, =93Constitutionalism,=94 Occasional Papers
from the Law School, The University of Chicago, no. 22 (1987).
10. Church News, 29 Nov. 1952, p. 12, quoted in Hillam, =93By the Hands
of Wise Men,=94 p. 48.
11. Ezra Taft Benson, The Constitution, a Heavenly Banner, Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book Co., 1986, p. 6.
12. First Presidency letter of 12 Oct. 1978.
13. Benson, The Constitution, a Heavenly Banner, p. 7.
14. U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 4.
15. J. Reuben Clark: Selected Papers on Religion, Education, and
Youth, ed. David H. Yarn, Jr., Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University
Press, 1984, p. 165.
16. Ibid., p. 43.
17. First Presidency letter of 15 Jan. 1987.
18. Benson, The Constitution, a Heavenly Banner, p. 23.
19. The Federalist, no. 55.
20. Adlai Stevenson, speech given in New York City, 27 August 1952,
quoted in John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, Boston: Little, Brown
and Co., 1955, p. 986.
21. Hymns (1985), no. 339
|
