Category Archives: Uncategorized

nationalmonument

The Proper Role of Government

I felt inspired to write this article as to what the proper role of governance should be, because I feel that as Americans living in this land of Liberty. We have strayed from some extremely important principles. When describing my thoughts on this important subject my mind drifts to one of our national monuments, a truly beautiful national treasure located in Plymouth, Massachusetts, The National Monument to our forefathers. Yep, you guessed it the same location that the pilgrims landed as they escaped Great Brittan the King and his church so that they may worship freely by the dictates of their own conscience. Once arrived to the new world, these extremely faithful pioneers of ours set up a system of governance for them as well as the secular few that traveled with them. A system of governance governed by law, known as the Magna Carta. This sacred document helped paved the way for equal protection under the law, mercy under the law, protections for our God given rights as laid out perfectly in the Bible. Those rights includes the freedom to own and be safe with in one’s property. The freedom to worship to the dictates of ones own conscience. The freedom to speak freely and to print what’s on our minds at any particular time. The right to migrate to and from different lands. The freedom to defend our family, friends and loved ones, to defend our property how ever we deem worthy. Lastly the freedom to buy and sell and trade freely. All of these principles were later laid out in the Declaration of Independence where we declared to the world that we were seceding from the British Empire, because the king was in violation of all of these God given rights.  After the bloody revolution where the founders defended their home land from the tyrannical king. They formed a new Constitution with these same truths that God gave unto us. That Sacred Constitution that they wrote in 1787 with the Bill of Rights in 1789 which is still the Supreme Law of the Land today, and it’s about time we start enforcing it once again.

The National Monument to the Forefathers, was first funded by the first Congress of these States united by donations, the State of Massachusetts also donated to the cause during the founding era, as did Abraham Lincoln some years later, and it was completed in August 1st 1889. It currently resides in a quite little neighborhood being forgotten about by most of America. Not even the citizens of the State of Massachusetts knows anything about it. She stands 81 feet tall and is the Nation’s largest pure granite monument, and yet she has and continues to be withering away into disrepair. Her fingers are missing and a birds nest that no one has bothered to clean up still is sitting upon her head. She doesn’t have any lights on her at nights, and the schools refuse to teach the children about her.

Now you may be wondering by now as to why I am calling this article the proper role of government, but yet talking about this important and yet forgotten and neglected monument? It is because after I have studied the monument in it’s entirety, I realized a whole slew of symbolism and how that symbolism matches the proper role of government. The set of symbols that I would like to start off with is with the lady named Faith.

faith

If you look carefully you will see that her finger is pointing to Heaven, symbolizing her faith in God in Heaven, and His guidance with in our nation’s affairs. Next you will see an open Bible symbolizing that she reads it continuously. Leading us to the star on her head, symbolizing knowledge from the Holy scriptures and of God with in Heaven. Lastly she is first, hence the reason why she is on top and the tallest one. It is because ones faith in God comes first in their belief in God, and with out faith it ALL falls apart.

-Morality
morality

If we now look carefully at Morality’s eyes, you will see them blank or empty. The reason being is because ones moral values starts with in the individual’s heart and not this top down approach much like the old church of England used to practice. Drawing a clear line in the sand as to what a real Christian was vs. one that is simply on the church’s rolls. Creating a real change of heart. Now what is she holding in both of her hands? It is the Ten Commandments and the book of revelation. This is one is tricky with out mentioning the side picture known as the evangelist.
evangalist
The Ten Commandments symbolize a basic standard of what to do and what not to do in a civil
society:
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not covet another man’s property.
Thou shalt not commit murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not have other Gods before me
Thou shalt not make false Idols
Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God’s name in vain
Remember and keep the Sabbath Day Holy
Honour thy Mother and Father
Thou shalt not bare false witness against another

The evangelist symbolizes the need for the gospels with in the new testament, the great liberating gospel, because it was Christ that came to set us free. Lastly the book of revelation is to symbolize that this Land of Liberty, this country, this time in history has been prophesied of by prophets of old and it is our job to go forth and preach the Doctrines of Christ and to raise the warning call to the world that the time of His second coming is nigh, and that this land is a refuge from the coming storms ahead. I also would like to personally add that part of morality is staying true and faithful to ones word, ones promises, ones covenants and oaths of alliance. To prove this fact the founders added two clauses with in the Constitution showing the complete importance of such concepts. Article Two Section 10 is the oath for the President, and Article Six Section 3 is the oath for all public servants even on down to the dog catcher. That oath (promise) is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies foreign and domestic. In fact when George Washington was sworn into the presidency for the first time  he added “so help me God”, making that promise binding between him, his country, and his maker. That line is still there today (thankfully).

- Law
Law

We just got done talking about morality, and the natural progression is Law. For it takes Law that is based off of God’s Laws to establish civility and order which we saw with in the Magna Carta, which we also saw with in our Declaration of Independence declaring to the world that we were establishing a new nation of safety and refuge from the storm, and which we saw with in the Constitution (which is still the Supreme Law of the land). If we look at the one hand he is holding up the law symbolizing the written law (the Magna Carta which later morphed into the Constitution) which is also based off of God’s laws. Then if we look at the other hand being held out, it is symbolizing mercy. For in a civil society both are necessary and important principles to have. The law showing what the law is, and mercy towards those receiving justice, everyone is supposed to  receive an equal amount of justice (equality under the law).
justice    mercy

Which leads us into the side pictures on both sides of Law. The one being of Justice and the her holding up the scales of justice. In order to administer justice equally under the law regardless of whom someone was (full equality under the law). Then on the other side Mercy which I covered a little bit on, but to go into a little more detail. In past societies there wasn’t much mercy applied to administration of the law. If the kings wanted to lock you up in the stockaid or sentence you to death that was the end of it. With in the new testament Christ fulfilled the law by stepping in as the mediator (atonement). He also forgave the sinner and not the sin. So given the fact that we as humans we can not atone for another man’s misdeeds. We have to have a means for mercy to be applied with in civil society. That means is known as juries and being tried by the a body of ones peers. Which we see in Amendments Five, Six, and Seventh amendments with in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. We also see mercy being offered up under Amendment Eight, no unfair or cruel punishment exceeding twenty dollars. Lastly the Fifth Amendment no person may be held to answer for a capital or  otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. As well as being free to not incriminate ones self or the theft of ones property.

- Education
Education
For the establishment of Faith in God, Society’s focus upon Morality, and with the establishment of Law, a society can now be free to educate their youth or future prosperity. As we look at this young woman you will notice that she is wearing a wreath of victory upon her head. Why? It’s because she is with in Victory knowing that she has raised her children up in the ways of truth and light, and how to keep a Free society. Teaching them out of the book of knowledge that she has opened up and pointing to.

youth

If we look at the side picture it shows her little boy with a scroll writing and her with a book. Symbolizing trained with in their youth. It is the parents responsibility to teach and educate ones own children, and no one else. No central public school system, and no other person may teach another’s children, it is the parent’s sole responsibility.
wisdom
As we look on the other side of lady education, we will find yet another picture. This time being of an elderly old man with a world globe on one side and the ten commandments and an open bible on the other side. This symbolizes the need for the older generation to teach their children and their grandchildren utilizing their wisdom, to teach them just how the world works from a biblical perspective. So with Faith in God, inner morality, the written law, education, we are now ready for the last and final statue. Known as Liberty man. Which is the end result of the matrix comprised of Faith in God, Inner Morality, Written Law, and Education.

-Liberty

libertyman libertydefeatingtyranny

Liberty Man is my favorite out of all the statues. He has a sword in one hand ready to defend his home, family, and country if needs be. In the other hand he is holding the chains and shackles of tyranny, symbolizing breaking the chains of tyranny and being a Free man. On his side you will see a lion’s head and a claw on his shoulder, symbolizing the tyrannical British Empire that we slew three separate times. Once peacefully by leaving the homeland and fleeing to this new world (the pilgrims). The second time was during the revolution, and  the third time was during the War of 1812. The picture on the side is Liberty man standing upon tyranny man, symbolizing victory.
libertypeace

Lastly the picture of peace, the prince of peace. For the purpose of seeking for peace first by all means before one fights. Much like what the founders of this nation did for about fifty years before the revolutionary war started. Even after the war had started they still attempted one last peaceful means of rectifying the wrongs committed by the king.

In closing we as a society must apply these five principles in order to remain free. We must return to these basic eternal principles in order to restore our freedom. We must remember who we are. I have faith in America, and her people, and together we can and will take back our country. For further reading as to the proper role of governance I recommend for your reading. The Law by Frederic Bastiat as well as The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson.

Legislation to Resolve the federal land issue regarding the BLM.

Introductory Statement Declaring the Historical Context of Nullification and the Intent of this Resolution:

Those who loved the Americanist concepts of a national government whose powers are limited, few, and defined (constrained by the specific powers enumerated in the United States Constitution to operate only within the jurisdictional scope granted by the Constitution) were appalled with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the United States Congress in 1798. The Congress and the Executive ignored the limits and bounds of the national government as established within the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their passage and signing of that act. Some States decided to exercise their right of refusal to this usurpation. Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” collaborated in assisting Virginia and Kentucky in their effort to protest and nullify this egregious act by the national government.

The Kentucky Resolution was adopted by the Kentucky Legislature 10 November 1798, and the Virginia Resolution was adopted by the Virginia Senate 24 December 1798. Those resolutions were abbreviated and collated together to preserve the language and intent expressed by Jefferson, Madison, and the Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures in the following modern resolution protesting against and expressing the intention of the State of Utah to nullify the current usurpation attempt by the national government in regards to .

The language of this resolution is the language of Jefferson and Madison—as expressed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, applied to the modern usurpation. It eloquently clearly explains, justifies, and expresses the constitutionally-sound doctrine as the original intent of those principle founders who established the United States of America. As enunciated in the following resolution, the doctrine of nullification was a sacredly-held power of the States to check and balance a national government that violated the charter which established it. The logic is concise, clear, and unassailable. The States which created the national government retained the constitutional right of refusal when faced by a usurping government. The doctrine of nullification was considered in many instances by several States during the founding era, and was taught in Constitutional Law classes at the United States Military Academy at West Point in the early decades after the Academy was established.

Many examples of nullification exist in the history of the United States. Some occurred because some States simply refused to comply with a federal directive (such as the “Real ID Act”), others when the courts ignored the directive, and others when individual juries refused to convict when faced with an individual who violated federal law (such as often occurred in cases involving the “Fugitive Slave Act”). In light of egregious usurpations of recent modern congresses and the executive branch, it is time reinvigorate the understanding and application of the sound doctrine of nullification!

The so-called “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution (Article VI, clause 2) only grants supremacy to the national government in the area of jurisdiction established within and by the United States Constitution. It does not create an overarching power to usurp power not granted within the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments explicitly reiterate this fact:

Amendment IX:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Appropriate Constitutional processes by which un-Constitutional acts may be corrected include:

1. Repeal of the offending matter in the national Congress via the normal process defined in Article I, Section Seven of the United States Constitution.

2. De-fund the offending act to assure that it may not be carried out. Article I, Section Seven requires congressional approval of all funds to be expended by the national government, and Article I, Section Nine, clause 7 requires that no monies be drawn but in consequence of a legislative appropriation. Congress controls the nation’s money, not the Executive.

3. Seek relief through the courts.

4. Nullification by State Legislatures.

Reprisals by the Federal Government?

States which nullify an unconstitutional law or refuse compliance with an order from an unlawful agency naturally fear reprisal by the national government. This could take the form of denial of federal funds (that is how conformance is often assured in the first place) or even imprisonment of token individuals. Thomas Jefferson proposed the solution to challenges such as this, saying:

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.

“This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power…” (Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 15, page 278)

Nullification is a valid Constitutional solution to a usurping national government.
An Act of the Legislature of the State of Utah to nullify The Enabling Act of 1934, Taylor Grazing Act, Stock Raising Homestead Act.

RESOLVED, That the Legislature of the State of Utah, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

Resolved, That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it’s existence and the public happiness.

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress specific, enumerated powers; and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the th day of , , and entitled, “ ” is altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to act in this matter is not granted to the United States Government by the United States Constitution.

Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of Utah doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Resolved, That this Legislature doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former Articles of Confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy their meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the States by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings, including recent acts of the national legislative, executive and federal court decisions) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles call for immediate redress.

Resolved, That this Legislature doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the case of the “ Act” passed at the last session of Congress; which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; additionally, the act exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by two of the amendments thereto.

Resolved, That faithful to the United States Constitution, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore the State of Utah is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, the State of Utah, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the act before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Act, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That the State of Utah does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the aforementioned act, plainly declaring whether this act is or is not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with the State of Utah in considering the said act as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring this act void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither this act, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.

Resolved, That the good people of the State of Utah, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other States; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the Legislature of the State of Utah doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this State in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the act aforesaid, is unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this State, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

Resolved, That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolution to the executive authority of each of the other States, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this State in the Congress of the United States.

Agreed to: —Date—

Why I am running for House District 64

The reason as to why I am running is out of concern for my country and my country men, and the direction that our nation is heading. I was also concerned at the direction that Utah is heading as well. I thought to myself what was one to do? Well the answer was and still is that we must cleanse the inner vessel if we were ever to save the Republic. After all, to preserve the nation first and foremost starts with the individual, then the local communities, then the States, and lastly the Nation. Like John Adams stated concerning our sacred US Constitution.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

If we look at the State legislature for example, they are a pretty poor example of what a Constitutionally limited government is supposed to look like. In fact I’d argue that our State is quickly moving towards California, in regards to political ideology. With an average of 600 new laws being passed per year, with the proposals of California styled same gender laws, and proposed six million dollar tax incentives being offered to the NSA. My wish is to unite upon common ground and repeal any law that is in conflict with the State and Federal constitutions. To reduce taxation and to balance our own books with in this wonderful sovereign State of Utah. I could speak as to many other issues and or threats with in this State, whether it be Common Core, expansion of Medicaid part D, or any other issue that the Feds are forcing upon our free will at this current time. Which may I add; I am opposed too and have a plan for each important issue. The issues that I would like to speak to you about today is the issues of calling for a modern day constitutional convention and Nullification.

The resolution to call for one ambiguous constitutional convention call, has started right here in Utah since 2010 by representatives Ken Ivory, former representative Brad Daw, current State Senator Wayne Niederhauser, Speaker of the House Becky Lockhart, Governor Gary Herbert and others. All of which are republicans and are a part of the republican establishment in our State. All have been strong arming behind closed doors other elected representatives and senators for this Con Con (Constitutional Convention) agenda. This last year they even blocked and censored public comment on this very subject. Since 2010 they have blocked all attempts to nullify unconstitutional federal laws, such as Obamacare (ACA), and future and past unconstitutional anti-gun laws which are in conflict with the 2nd Amendment, etc. Please see both of my articles on the Con Con and the principle of Nullification on my campaign website at jasonthepatriot.com.

It was, thanks to God the almighty, that we preserved that last thread of the Constitution instead of severing it, with the stopping of the Con Con call (for now). My question to you is Why would the republican establishment work to block nullification on any future anti-gun bills last year? Why would the republican establishment block the nullification of Obamacare last year? Why would they want the feds to dictate to this Great Sovereign State of Utah what is NOT in Utah’s best interest? Why would the republican establishment work repetitively to call for one ambiguous constitutional convention call, while calling it by another name (Article V Convention)? What is their agenda? In this race for the House District 64, before I sought for the council with the Lord, I noticed that we didn’t have a good republican choice that would have a back bone to stand up to the republican establishment in this State, and the feds. The question is why? We need Independent voices on the floor of the State House. We need Honesty and Transparency. We need Traditional Moral Values.

Therefore: I commit to the unraveling of the insidious Common Core standards! I commit to showing a back bone to the Feds and our State leadership! I commit to promote a policy of nullifying unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful Federal laws and acts. I will continue to work tirelessly against any call for a constitutional convention, as well as encourage other States to rescind their calls! I commit to Stand in Defense of all individual God ordained rights, such as the right to defend ones self, property, persons and family! As well as ones right to own and control their own property! I commit to exposing corruption from within! I commit to Stand with our duly elected County Sheriffs in their efforts to stand by and defend our constitutionally recognized God ordained sacred rights! I commit to a policy of repealing any law in conflict with our State and Federal Constitutions! I commit to a policy of voting “Nay” to any law that flies in the face of our State and Federal Constitutions! I commit to being Honest and forthright! I commit to having a clear channel for those that I would represent in contacting me and voicing their concerns and opinions. In closing lets heed to the wise counsel given by the illustrious George Washington (father of these States united) given Nov. 19th 1794.

“Let us unite, therefore, in imploring the Supreme Ruler of nations, to spread his holy protection over these United States; to turn the machinations of the wicked to the confirming of our constitution; to enable us at all times to root out internal sedition, and put invasion to flight; to perpetuate to our country that prosperity, which his goodness has already conferred, and to verify the anticipation of this government being a safeguard to human rights.”
I ask for your Prayers, your Support, your Help, and your vote. Please feel free and visit my website at jasonthepatriot.com. As well as my facebook page at facebook.com/jasonchristensenforhouse and or even call me anytime day or night at 801-400-1488. Thank you for your time and support.

Sincerely, Jason Christensen

Education, Our Current Problems And What Are The Solutions?

      It is my hope that Utah voters can unite behind the common goal of restoring our system of proper governance, as well as our treasured traditions of sound educational approaches.  We must stop the current abuses that have metastasized in our education system, and correct the problems that have become so widespread. I share the view which was held by many of the Founding Fathers, as well as so many other wonderful current patriots, that education should start first in the home.  The closer the education process is to the home, the more effective it is to facilitate sound education of the child.  Education carried beyond the home should be closely controlled and directed within the immediate community.  Instances requiring individual States to become involved in the direction of education within the State should be minimized.  In no case should education be handed over to the federal and or national government. Education in America used to be the most dynamic and best in the world until the national government over-stepped its constitutional bounds and began to usurp the local and State power to educate our children (see the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution).  Since the nineteen sixties the national government has become more and more involved in the rearing of our children.  This practice has traditionally been considered un-American, and evokes the doctrines espoused in the Tenth Plank of Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” and John Dewey’s “Humanist Manifesto.”  Both Marx’s and Dewey’s philosophies promote their socialistic agenda and an atheistic world view at the expense of the traditional “Americanist” perspective which promoted God and His Laws and Commandments.
John Dewey is considered by many to be the “Father of Modern American Education,” so his philosophies have come to permeate the modern education system.  John Dewey’s  following comments speak volumes about the disaster that threatens the American education system and facilitates the destruction America’s traditional values, attitudes and beliefs:“I believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements are transitory  and futile.”“I believe that the community’s duty to education is, therefore, its paramount moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But, through education, society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move.”

“Religious humanists regard the universe as self-excising and not created.”

“A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”

“We consider the religious forms of ideas of our fathers no longer adequate.”  ( John Dewey)

These  quotations are only the tip of the iceberg of what the progressives have envisioned for our educational system since the 1870’s, and by carefully reading these quotations it becomes clear that they promote force to require our children be submitted to the State for the State to re-educate them based on what predictably would become a politicized social agenda. Perhaps this understanding will help explain why there have been needless curfew and or truancy laws with Fourth Amendment violations written within ordinances purported to be “education ordinances.” Many examples could be cited of such egregious violations, such as fines and procedures for those that wish to home school their children. Many other previously un-American practices which have crept into the education system could also be mentioned, such as bans of certain books since the Wagner Act, or the fact that revisionists have successfully re-written American history (such as no longer teaching George Washington’s magnificent “Farewell Address” in the schools, and teaching that presidents Woodrow Wilson and both Roosevelts were good men that did great things for the nation). Astonishingly, a few years ago the Alpine School District in Utah County attempted to ban the teaching of the U.S. Constitution in the schools, and to teach more on a world democratic society (in conformance with the “Humanist Manifesto”).

In contradiction of nearly 150 years of historical and court precedent, and without ANY previous court rulings to justify their action, back in the early 1960’s the U.S. Supreme Court highhandedly stripped God out of the American public schools.  In Engel v. Vitale they banned school prayer, and in Abington School District v. Schempp, they banned the reading of scriptures over the intercom systems. Contravening one source of guidance the founders of our nation looked towards while drafting our Constitution and in their personal lives, they banned the Ten Commandments in the case Stone v. Graham.  Sadly, the list of instances where God has been stripped out of the rearing of our children and replaced with the State’s agenda of such theories as organic evolution and atheism is expansive.

It is my hope that we can as a nation return to a sound policy of parental rights, as well as returning to the God of this land, Jesus Christ himself. If we did, we as a nation could once again restore our education system to that of superiority over the entire world. Following the sound advice and counsel of religious teachers and leaders of years past will help us achieve these goals.

In 1887 Princeton theologian Dr. A. A. Hodge wrote:
“It is capable of exact demonstration that if every party in the State has the right of excluding from the public schools whatever he does not believe to be true, then he that believes most must give way to him that believes least, and then he that believes least must give way to him that believes absolutely nothing, no matter in how small a minority the atheists or the agnostics may be. It is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is consistently and persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the United States system of national popular education will be the most efficient and wide instrument for the propagation of Atheism [and humanism] which the world has ever seen.”

Utah religious and political leader John Taylor said:
“We must study from the best books…. Train your children to be intelligent and industrious…. They should also be taught regarding the earth on which they live, its properties, and the laws that govern it…. They should know how to cultivate the soil in the best possible manner; they should know how to raise the best kind of fruits adapted to the soil and climate; they should be induced to raise the best kinds of stock, and to care for them properly…. Again, the subject of architecture should receive attention from you; and your children should be encouraged to improve in the building of houses, and not be satisfied to merely copy after what their fathers did in the days of their poverty…. It is highly necessary that we should learn to read and write and speak our own language correctly; and where people are deficient themselves in education they should strive all the more to see that the deficiency be not perpetuated in their offspring.”

My vision of how to correct this very important issue of education needs to be attacked from all fronts:

The first step is for the State Legislature to nullify within the State the law that created the U.S. Department of Education, and return that responsibility back to the State of Utah. This would restore the way that Utah once managed our own education system before the federal government stepped into the picture.

Second, we must return the responsibility back to the parents and allow them to choose how and when to teach their own children.  Along with this step we must repeal the laws and penalties associated with the home school program as well as any other law and or penalty associated with the parents wanting to simply check their children out of public school for whatever reason.

Third and fourth, since it is written in our State Constitution to provide for public education, this will take money to do it right.  I propose to issue a repossession order on the federal government over the lands that they promised to cede to us at the time of Utah achieving Statehood in 1896, and then selectively selling off that land to individuals (not corporations) in order to pay for our State-mandated education system.

With our current State government’s addiction problems with federal money, and the certainty that the feds will withhold that money from our State as we start to show a legal back bone, the State must consider reversing the means of collecting the federal income tax. To do so I propose that the State Legislature exercise their constitutional responsibility and within our State nullify the law that created the IRS, repeal our own income tax, and then collect the federal income tax ourselves in our own ways to be forwarded to the national government in compliance with the 16th amendment.

Fifth, we must encourage the different churches to re-establish their own schools once again within the local communities. If we do all of this we can then dramatically reduce the class room sizes. These locally-controlled schools may hire skilled, God fearing teachers, and restore the individual responsibility and freedom to teach our own children in the ways that we as well as God knows best.

 

 

Nullification of Obamacare

Introductory Statement Declaring the Historical Context of Nullification and the Intent of this Resolution:

Those who loved the Americanist concepts of a national government whose powers are limited, few, and defined (constrained by the specific powers enumerated in the United States Constitution to operate only within the jurisdictional scope granted by the Constitution) were appalled with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the United States Congress in 1798. The Congress and the Executive ignored the limits and bounds of the national government as established within the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their passage and signing of that act. Some States decided to exercise their right of refusal to this usurpation. Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” collaborated in assisting Virginia and Kentucky in their effort to protest and nullify this egregious act by the national government.

The Kentucky Resolution was adopted by the Kentucky Legislature 10 November 1798, and the Virginia Resolution was adopted by the Virginia Senate 24 December 1798. Those resolutions were abbreviated and collated together to preserve the language and intent expressed by Jefferson, Madison, and the Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures in the following modern resolution protesting against and expressing the intention of the State of Utah to nullify the current usurpation attempt by the national government in regards to .

The language of this resolution is the language of Jefferson and Madison—as expressed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, applied to the modern usurpation. It eloquently clearly explains, justifies, and expresses the constitutionally-sound doctrine as the original intent of those principle founders who established the United States of America. As enunciated in the following resolution, the doctrine of nullification was a sacredly-held power of the States to check and balance a national government that violated the charter which established it. The logic is concise, clear, and unassailable. The States which created the national government retained the constitutional right of refusal when faced by a usurping government. The doctrine of nullification was considered in many instances by several States during the founding era, and was taught in Constitutional Law classes at the United States Military Academy at West Point in the early decades after the Academy was established.

Many examples of nullification exist in the history of the United States. Some occurred because some States simply refused to comply with a federal directive (such as the “Real ID Act”), others when the courts ignored the directive, and others when individual juries refused to convict when faced with an individual who violated federal law (such as often occurred in cases involving the “Fugitive Slave Act”). In light of egregious usurpations of recent modern congresses and the executive branch, it is time reinvigorate the understanding and application of the sound doctrine of nullification!

The so-called “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution (Article VI, clause 2) only grants supremacy to the national government in the area of jurisdiction established within and by the United States Constitution. It does not create an overarching power to usurp power not granted within the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments explicitly reiterate this fact:

Amendment IX:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Appropriate Constitutional processes by which un-Constitutional acts may be corrected include:

1. Repeal of the offending matter in the national Congress via the normal process defined in Article I, Section Seven of the United States Constitution.

2. De-fund the offending act to assure that it may not be carried out. Article I, Section Seven requires congressional approval of all funds to be expended by the national government, and Article I, Section Nine, clause 7 requires that no monies be drawn but in consequence of a legislative appropriation. Congress controls the nation’s money, not the Executive.

3. Seek relief through the courts.

4. Nullification by State Legislatures.

Reprisals by the Federal Government?

States which nullify an unconstitutional law or refuse compliance with an order from an unlawful agency naturally fear reprisal by the national government. This could take the form of denial of federal funds (that is how conformance is often assured in the first place) or even imprisonment of token individuals. Thomas Jefferson proposed the solution to challenges such as this, saying:

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.

“This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power…” (Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 15, page 278)

Nullification is a valid Constitutional solution to a usurping national government.
An Act of the Legislature of the State of Utah to nullify The Affordable Care Act

RESOLVED, That the Legislature of the State of Utah, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

Resolved, That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it’s existence and the public happiness.

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress specific, enumerated powers; and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the th day of , , and entitled, “ ” is altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to act in this matter is not granted to the United States Government by the United States Constitution.

Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of Utah doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Resolved, That this Legislature doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former Articles of Confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy their meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the States by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings, including recent acts of the national legislative, executive and federal court decisions) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles call for immediate redress.

Resolved, That this Legislature doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the case of the “ Act” passed at the last session of Congress; which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; additionally, the act exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by two of the amendments thereto.

Resolved, That faithful to the United States Constitution, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore the State of Utah is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, the State of Utah, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the act before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Act, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That the State of Utah does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the aforementioned act, plainly declaring whether this act is or is not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with the State of Utah in considering the said act as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring this act void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither this act, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.

Resolved, That the good people of the State of Utah, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other States; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the Legislature of the State of Utah doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this State in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the act aforesaid, is unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this State, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

Resolved, That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolution to the executive authority of each of the other States, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this State in the Congress of the United States.

Agreed to: —Date—

Ethics and Transparency in Politics

When an elected official is elected they swear Oath of Office to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America from Enemies foreign and Domestic. On the Local levels that Oath is added to with the Constitution of the State that they reside in, and if the City or County is Chartered that too is added to the Oath of elected local municipalities. Now what is an Oath? An Oath is a promise a contract, something that is supposed to be worth it’s weight in gold! Yet the travesty of the matter is so many elected officials constantly violate that oath over and over and over again. Take Provo for instance. Here in this city we have a governing body that is not Chartered “a constitution as it were” that has not only increased the ordinances more than doubled since 2002, but that constantly violates ones God given Right to own property! There has been nearly 5500 property rights violations by the city these last four years, and illegal use of eminent domain for projects that the people do not want! The utility bill continues to be used and abused by like an abused spouse in an abusive relationship. Property Tax hike of 8% is still on the radar by current elected officials. The RAP tax and the Care Tax are under the radar of certain current elected officials. Certain city officials likes the fact that the Justice Court generates half a million dollars per year. Which is a travesty by itself, because the courts are supposed to be there to administer Law and Order, not punishment to the citizens residing with in the Corporation of Provo City. When the Corporation of NuSkin went in to pay for the purchase of 100 west. Current Mayor John Curtis forgave the debt, because and “extra million dollars was found with in the Community re-development agency”. To top it all off there is one man left in the final run off against John Curtis this election cycle by the name of Jason Christensen, whom by the way is the complete opposite of these violations. Whom wants to Charter the City of Provo to bind the hands of current elected officials. To repeal at least half the size of the current code book and bring accountability back to the City of Provo once again. Something that the city has been missing for at least the past 30 years. He is someone that knows all the issues of all the neighborhoods around the city, because he has actually gotten out visiting with the people. Jason Christensen has sent countless of press releases to the numerous press agencies, he has spoken out at city council in front of the camera of Fox News TV, he has even tagged and sent private messages to certain journalists via twitter and facebook, and yet not one mention of his name, his stances, or comments. It is almost like that they are in bed with the current establishment politicians?! My hope in this statement is that accountability, responsibility, honesty, becomes renewed, and that the current media returns back to their roots of the Walter Crondike era.

Tale of Two Cities.

Well you might of guessed it, in this article I am going to compare two cites. The city of Detroit and my home town of Provo Utah, which by the way I am a candidate for the Provo City Mayor position. I know what you may be saying “well I do not live in Provo”. Well you can still apply what you learn in this article and this comparison to your own city, because if you look deep enough I am sure that there is a a good majority of other cities out there in the same predicament as Provo and or Detroit.

Before I get started let me first state what the proper role of governance is to protect ones Liberty and to Promote the general happiness. With such areas like police, fire, infrastructure. Infrastructure such as roads, sewage, water, etc. Another proper role that government should be involved with is not only providing a transparent republican form of governance, but one that performs routine audits of all the city programs so that the city is running lean and mean.

Think back to the 1950’s when Detroit was up 2 million in population, 6 auto manufacturers,   an extremely hustle and bustle time for the once great metropolitan cities. Now Detroit is bankrupt, ruined and looking to rebuild. Why and how could such a travesty occur in an American city that fostered such wonderful ideas using the free enterprise system?! America’s heart land?! Well I will tell you briefly. In the fifties politicians started “and had been” wasting money in areas that they had no right to. Areas such as the Fords Theater, Resonance Center, The People Mover, etc. Encouraging this tax and spend scam promoting their version of government ran business and or government ran welfare system. Funding these areas first before they funded the necessities allowing the crime to sky rocket the debt to sky rocket and the roads to waste away. Now they have about 40 billion dollar debt, a 1-2 month response time for the police, etc. Heck from time to time they even had rioting with in the city in the late sixties and seventies.

My home town of Provo Utah has many of the similar situations. Currently we have an Art’s Center with about 500,000 in tax subsidies. A 53 million dollar after interest Recreation Center that we will be paying on for the next 19 years. An 80 million dollar IProvo debt after interest “internet company”, and no Google is not paying a cent of that debt. Two past road bond debts totaling 15 million dollars after interest. A Library that will finally be getting paid off in February. A Golf course that sometimes loses money or breaks even. The city has seen over 240 different fee increases and or creation of new fees. There is talk of creating a separate road fund fee to add to the Utility bill, when the bill is supposed to be used for the power company which the city also owns. The city is still in threat of seeing property tax increase. In the year 2014 there will be discussions to implement a RAP Tax. According to the most recent proposal for the bicycle trail city wide project. The first phase will cost the city 5.5 million, and one can only assume that the other two phases will cost the same per phase totaling an estimate 17 million before interest. Which may I add the city just barely got done with a “truth in taxation” hearing looking for ways to fund the roads and at no time was this bicycle plan was mentioned as being apart of the road reconstruction. Which by the way that bicycle plan also eludes to a CARE Tax. The city has passed a mandatory opt out not in recycling program raising that those fees as well. The city has created a Poverty Fund declaring war on poverty. The city continues to reauthorize the HUD program. Which mandates the city to match any level of private donation to housing projects while keeping the addiction to the federal funds which I like to call crack cocaine. That program also forces the city to stay up on maintenance costs of the projects. In central/west provo in the area where the Boulders Apartment complex resides “federal government housing” crime is through the roof, I suspect it is because of that federal subsidized housing. The city has welcome UTA’s front runner with open arms and continues to do so with UTA’s rapid transit system. The citizens continue to be ignored while the corporations get their way, and over 30% property rights violations with in the city “violations of the Constitution”.   To top it off the Mayor took a 20 thousand pay raise from 100k to 120k per year.

Now if we look at what has gone on nation wide since the fifties, and what is coming down the pipe line. Looking at our currency since we first started going off the gold standard in the thirties and finally off of the gold standard under the Nixon years in the seventies.  We have seen an inflationary rate of our dollar since 1970 of 4.29% annually, and 3.22% annually since the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. We have seen this flawed Boom and Bust cycle thanks to Keynesian economics instituted since the turn of the century. Making the span of the busts between the booms closer and closer together. The last boom that we saw because of this form of Keynesian policy was President Obama’s Stimulus plan in 2009. Which lasted about a year is all.  Right now currently our nation is faced with yes the currency bubble that is expected to burst soon, the student loan bubble to burst soon. The Housing/derivative bubble that we still have not seen the bottom of, and over 100 trillion dollars unaccounted for world wide. Traditionally speaking it only takes one major event to get the ball rolling with all of these bubbles bursting.

What can we do now? Well it is simple get out of debt as a city and as individuals, build ones food storage from an individual level, build that relationship closer with God and his Laws, get involved now at your city and local government levels. Keep them in check! With that in mind we must awaken as a people to take the bare basic step and vote in our local elections. Situations like Provo’s 9% voting participation rate in the primary is not only pitiful and sad. We can do much much better. I know that we can and I have hope that we can.

Federal Government involvement in marriage?

 

 

A Review of the Proposed Amendment

to the

United States Constitution

Regarding

Marriage

by

Scott N. Bradley

July 2004

 

 

I believe that an amendment at the State level in support of “traditional” marriage is appropriate and sound, but hold grave concerns in regards to an amendment at the national level.  Further, I believe that the United States Constitution currently contains a solution to the polluted perspectives on marriage and the family (and many other topics) which have been emanating from various sources in recent years, and that the existing “constitutional” solution may be implemented more surely and immediately than what could be hoped for by following the Article V amendment process which is defined in the United States Constitution.  In addition, I am convinced that the amendment approach which is suggested at the national level is fraught with dangers which will ultimately place at even greater risk many of our most cherished institutions—especially the family—and our individual liberties which were vouched safe within the Constitution as originally brought forth under the inspiration of God.

 

From my perspective, the train of logic in recent months which has led to the conclusion that a national “Marriage Amendment” is necessary is sowing seeds which will lead to undermining  the Constitution, because the people will come to believe that our Constitution is filled with flaws which must be corrected by amendment or by constitutional convention.

 

Perhaps a brief review of the perspective from which I view this matter would help set the framework for my concerns, and for the solution which I believe is embodied within the Constitution.  I have taken President Ezra Taft Benson’s advice to seek to uphold the United States Constitution “in the tradition of the Founding Fathers” (“Our Divine Constitution,” November 1987 Ensign, p. 7), so it is from that perspective that I approach this issue.

 

The United States Constitution is The Charter of the Nation.  It defines the framework of the government which it establishes.  It delegates authority to act in specific areas.  It establishes the boundaries within which our national government may act.  It is not a grant of unlimited power to act carte blanch (with unrestricted discretion).  The primary purpose of our Constitution is to protect the people in their God-given unalienable rights, while delegating to the national government the powers necessary to perform that which is appropriate to that level of government, and no more.

 

The value of a written constitution is beyond measure.  Words have meaning, and those meanings may be known.  They are not open to arbitrary and unilateral interpretation or redefinition by those who would modify the Constitution to meet their whims.  The words and the intended scope of the government was clearly established by those who framed the Constitution.

 

In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster, one of the Founding Fathers, defined constitution thus:

 

“In  free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

 

The word paramount means: “Of chief rank or importance; primary; foremost; superior.”  In other words, the Constitution is superior to and takes precedence over all enactments of any legislature.  No act of the government may legally override the Constitution.  Only those laws which are enacted under the terms defined by the Constitution are enforceable as legal.  Every section of the established government is empowered to act only within the scope of power allowed within the charter of the Constitution.  If an act of the legislature contradicts the Constitution, or if the legislature or any another department or agency of the government (such as the courts) attempts to enact a “law,” or exercise a power which goes beyond the powers defined and granted within the Constitution, the act is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, null, and void.  Numerous statements by the Founders of the Nation confirm that this was their position.

 

In recent years a gross misunderstanding has become popular: that the Constitution may be modified upon the whim of the Supreme Court (some have called the Supreme Court a “constantly sitting constitutional convention”), or by the decree of a President, or by the vote of Congress.  These philosophies defy all logic, reason, and firmly established constitutional principle.  And yet, this position is fostered today by those whom the Founders of the Nation warned against.

 

Those who founded the United States understood well the concepts and inherent safety embodied in a written constitution, and promoted their understanding eloquently.  Following is a review of a few brief excerpts which clarify the position of the Nation’s Founders in these matters.  Their “original intent” is clearly stated, and so may be well understood by us today if we are willing to do our research and think of the wisdom which the Nation’s Founders offered to us.

 

In Federalist Paper No. 45, James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” eloquently and succinctly captured the concept of the scope of the national government which was defined in the U.S. Constitution:

 

“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.”

 

United States Constitution Ninth Amendment (Americans—the people—retain all of their individual God-given rights, whether or not they are specifically enumerated in this Constitution):

 

“The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

 

United States Constitution Tenth Amendment (if power was not specifically assigned in the Constitution to the national government, those powers are retained by the states or the people):

 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.”

 

In a speech delivered on the floor of the U.S. House on 07 February 1792, James Madison further clarified the dangers of modifying the Constitution by “interpretation.”  Today it would seem that his concerns were almost prophetic:

 

“….I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers—but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms….”

 

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson expressed his concerns with the suggestion that new meanings be incorporated into the Constitution by “re-construction” and interpretation:

 

“When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.” [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Bergh 10:418. (1803.)]

 

Without belaboring the point with additional quotations from the Founding Fathers, perhaps it will suffice to say that those who framed the government of this Nation intended the bounds of the national government to be limited to the specific powers which were delegated to that government within the Constitution.  The point in the case we are considering herein is that under the United States Constitution, the national government was never intended to exercise jurisdiction over the family unit.  Marriage is not currently within the purview of the national government.  An amendment at the national level would unequivocally result in a constitutional avenue by which the national government could claim some measure of jurisdiction within the family unit, and almost certainly would result, over time, in a growing influence and interference within the home by the national government.

 

I believe that change would ultimately result in grievous danger to the sacred and eternal family unit.  I do not believe that it is possible for mortal man to fully measure the risk of such a development.

 

The Constitution was the work of men who were raised up and placed on earth by God for the very purpose of creating this marvelous document, which captures God’s intent for proper mortal government.  The Founders of the Nation who were there-present during the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 recognized the hand of God in the effort, and understood that their accomplishments were beyond their natural abilities!

 

George Washington later wrote his feelings about this, saying that he felt he observed “the finger of Providence” in the effort to frame the Constitution. [letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.  The Writings of George Washington.  Edited by Fitzpatrick 29:507. (1788.)]

 

Washington also said that he could “trace the fingers of Providence through those dark and mysterious events which first induced the states to appoint a general convention, and then led them one after another…into an adoption of the system recommended by that general convention…” [letter to Jonathan Trumbull. Fitzpatrick 30:22. (1788.)]

 

And in his First Inaugural Address George Washington said he recognized the “great Author,” and “invisible hand,” and “providential agency” that brought this new system of government into being.

 

And in Federalist Number 37, in speaking of the outcome of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison stated:

 

“The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty handwhich has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.” (Emphasis added).

And, of course, modern-day revelation states unequivocally the Lord’s position on this matter:

 

In August, 1833, in Doctrine and Covenants 98:4-7 the Lord stated:

 

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

 

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

 

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

 

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

 

Of course, we know that the Lord, in His wisdom, establishes the bounds of all things proper, and that wisdom dictates we abide within those bounds.  Has the Lord set the bounds in this matter of proper government by stating that whatsoever is more or less than the Constitution would violate His established bounds?

 

In December, 1833, the Lord revealed the following in Doctrine and Covenants 101:77-80:

 

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

 

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, 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.

 

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

 

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I have raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith testified that the Savior revealed to him the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple.  That dedicatory prayer is recorded as Doctrine and Covenants section 109.  Verse 54 of that section reads:

 

54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever. (Emphasis added)

 

Among his many statements on the Constitution, Joseph Smith declared:

 

“We say that God is true, that the Constitution of the United States is true, that the Bible is true, the Book of Mormon is true, that Christ is true…”  (Times and Seasons vol. 1, page 134; also,Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 148)

 

It is of interest and note to me the close association which Joseph Smith makes with these great and important truths!

 

Among the many testimonies of Brigham Young regarding the United States Constitution is his following statement:

 

“I want to say to every man, the Constitution of the United States, as formed by our fathers, was dictated, was revealed, was put into their hearts by the Almighty, who sits enthroned in the midst of the heavens; although unknown to them, it was dictated by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and I tell you in the name of Jesus Christ, it is as good as I could ask for.” [Henry, D. “The Prophets on the Christ.”  Liahona: The Elders’ Journal (26 Dec 1908) 6:678; also in Roberts, B. H.Mormonism, 27-28]

 

What an incredible endorsement!

 

In addition, several of the latter-day prophets have asserted that the United States Constitution is part of their religion, and that “its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval upon it.”  (See Ezra Taft Benson’s “Our Divine Constitution,” October 1987 Conference Report, and November 1987 Ensign magazine, p. 7)

 

Were space and time permitting, we could review many hundreds of statements by latter-day prophets which endorse the United States Constitution.  This has been a major theme by the Lord’s anointed–from the Prophet Joseph Smith to our current prophet.  They have expressed their love of the document and the principles upon which this Nation was founded.

 

It is interesting to note that even the charter establishing the city of Nauvoo mentions the United States Constitution seven times.

 

In over 30 years of diligent searching, I have never discovered a shred of evidence that the Lord, through His latter-day prophets, has endorsed any other form of government.  Only in-so-far as other governments have emulated the United States Constitution has there been a measure of acceptance.

 

And those the Lord has called to be His mouthpiece on the earth have spoken many eloquent and powerful words of warning against false forms of government which flourish both here at home andabroad.

 

Perhaps I may quote only one relatively recent statement which President Gordon B. Hinckley made regarding his views of this Nation’s Founders and their principles:

 

“A news magazine writer asked me the other day during an interview concerning my belief in the Constitution of our country.  I replied that I felt it was inspired.  That both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were brought forth under the inspiration of God, to establish and sustain the freedom of the people of this Nation.  I told him that I looked upon the Founding Fathers as men who believed in God, as men who prayed to God, as men who recognized God, and wished to do His will.  What a singular and remarkable group they were.  As I look across the world today I search in vain for such a group as walked together across the stage of history, when this Nation was born….

 

Just think for a moment of George Washington, of Franklin, of Madison, of the Adams, of Thomas Jefferson and their associates who signed the Declaration of Independence, or participated in the Constitutional Convention.  Where in all the world today can even one or two such men be found, let alone the great aggregation who participated in the birth of America?  Can anyone deny that they were raised up unto this very purpose?  That working together they brought forth on this continent an independent nation, at the risk of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.  It is my conviction that while we’ve had a few great leaders since then, there has not been before or since so large a group of talented, able and dedicated men, as those who we call the Founding Fathers of this Nation.  For as long as they lived they acknowledged the hand of the Almighty in the affairs of this Republic.”  (President Gordon B. Hinckley, Fireside Address, BYU Marriott Center, 29 June 1997; also Standing for Something, pg xv)

 

So said President Hinckley.

 

By-the-way, President Benson warned us that those who cast doubt about the character of the Founding Fathers of this Nation will, in his words, “have to answer to the God of Heaven.”  (This Nation Shall Endure.  Deseret Book Co. 1977.  pg.18) Do we denigrate the Founders when we cast such doubts upon their words and works that we cause a movement to flourish which would undermine their inspired words and works and replace them with modern philosophies which are not endorsed by God?

 

It is my firm conviction that we do not have the wisdom to improve upon the dictates of God.  As noted above, President Hinckley said, “It is my conviction that while we’ve had a few great leaders since then, there has not been before or since so large a group of talented, able and dedicated men, as those who we call the Founding Fathers of this Nation.”  Dare we risk losing the delicate delegation of powers and authority (and inferred proscriptions of interference and involvement) by modifying the Constitution in such a manner as has been proposed?

 

Additionally, it is my firm conviction that, whether the Founders were aware of the exact purposes of God or not in the writing of the Constitution, God planted within the Constitution the tools and processes for its preservation and defense.  (See verses 3-7 of The Words of Mormon in The Book of Mormon, with particular emphasis on verse 7, for a review of how the Lord’s foresight preserved the message of The Book of Mormon in spite of the loss of the 116 page manuscript.)

 

Certainly Article III, Section 2 Clause 2 of the United States Constitution could fall into this category.  It states specifically:

 

“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

 

Regardless of opinions to the contrary, the United States Constitution actually states: “…with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”  We often speak of the “checks and balances” that were so wisely written into the document to prevent power from being consolidated into tyranny, but almost no one recognizes this “check” which may be exercised to balance against a usurping court.

 

And, of course, elsewhere the Constitution delegates to the Congress authority over the existence of all federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court (see Article I Section 8 clause 9 and Article III Section 1).  While Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution delegates specific authority for Supreme Court involvement in certain specified instances, it seems certain that in cases not specifically enumerated within the Constitution that the United States Congress has the authority to rein in the rogue court system which currently exists by simple majority vote in both the House and Senate.  By exercising this rarely-used authority, the United States Congress could remove all cases involving the marriage issue from the purview of the federal court system.

 

 

An example of how this could be accomplished is found in the 1868 Exparte McCardle case, which was taken to the Supreme Court by an individual seeking relief from an onerous act of Congress (but which act Congress had, under authority of Article III Section 2 clause 2, prohibited from being reviewed by the Supreme Court).  Following is the relevant excerpt from the declaration the Supreme Court made when McCardle sought to bring the case to them for redress:

 

​”We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature.

We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to

make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by

express words…. It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed

to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of

the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining

ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and

the laws confer.”

 

 

The irony is that this unanimous1868 Supreme Court decision is a good decision upholding a perfectly repellent act of Congress.

 

While this approach has been rarely used, and some would deny that the authority of Congress to act in such a manner is granted within the Constitution, it is there for all to read, and only awaits a courageous Congress to act upon it.

 

It is interesting to note that even among those who deny the effectiveness of such an approach, there is a grudging admission that this safety valve exists.  An example may be found in a recent article which was written by BYU law professor Richard Wilkins, one of the most ardent advocates of a federal “Marriage Amendment”:

 

“Article III of the Constitution indeed provides that

Congress can eliminate the jurisdiction of lower federal

courts (and the Supreme Court) over marriage.”  (Richard Wilkins

March 5, 2004, World Net Daily)

 

While professor Wilkins continues in his article (see comments in enclosed attachment) to expound upon problems he perceives with this approach, and to promote the “Marriage Amendment,” I believe that those concerns could be fully and satisfactorily addressed—allowing us to keep the family and marriage matters out of the hands of the national government.

 

Logic, reason, and historical precedent testify that the task of obtaining a simple majority in Congress is much easier than getting two-thirds of both houses and three-fourths of all the States to bring amendments forth that aren’t needed to begin with.  And the danger of seeking the amendment is magnified by huge orders of magnitude if the “good and well-meaning people” of the land become so frustrated and angry with a Congress that can’t bring them an amendment they wish to pass that they demand a constitutional convention be called.  Remember, Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to convene a convention if two-thirds of the States call for one (the Constitution says they “shall call” a convention, not that they “may call” a convention).  We are already dangerously close to that event, within only a few States.

 

Of course, the only national constitutional convention we have had in the entire history of the United States resulted in what we would call today a “runaway convention.”  While those who attended the Convention of 1787 had been called together to correct a few perceived flaws in the existing Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, they immediately saw within the purview of their authority as duly elected representatives of the people and States to set aside the existing constitution and write another one.  That is exactly what they did, and they even changed the unanimous consent required by the Articles of Confederation to a lesser level to assure easier ratification of the new constitution.  Fortunately, God had raised up men for this very purpose, and the results were endorsed by God.  Where are such men today?  Again, it is my strongly held conviction that among the prominent leaders of this Nation there is not one found who could hold a candle to the inspired works of those whom we call the Founding Fathers of this Nation.  The risk for such an action today cannot be measured.

 

The solution is to raise up a people who will uphold the document and philosophy endorsed by God and His prophets.  The solution is not to plant seeds of doubt about the form of government God inspired the Founders to establish.

 

Perhaps we are in a time which parallels the experience of the Nephites in which the lawyers and judges sought to destroy the great constitutional republic which God had inspired Mosiah to establish (see Alma chapter 10 verses 15, 17-18, 27, 32, and III Nephi 6:20-30 for examples).  It would seem timely to make known the fact that God, in His wisdom, inspired the Founders to write into the Constitution a solution to this scourge.

 

And in spite of contrary opinions, not only has Article III, Section 2, clause 2 been successfully applied in the past by the United States Congress, it may easily be applied today if Congress could be brought to exercise it by the outcry of an informed electorate.  The enclosed attachment suggests how such an act may be worded.

 

It is currently in vogue to suggest that the Constitution is somehow flawed, and that recent court cases demonstrate the truth of that position.  The real truth about “flaws” which are supposedly in the current United States Constitution is this:  Every single one of these so-called flaws have been brought about by usurpation of authority not granted by the Constitution.  The flaw is not in the Constitution—it is in those who seek power, and those who allow them to hold power.  The key to stopping this is in a courageous Congress, not in scrapping the Constitution, or in modifying it every time some tyrant seeks to usurp power not granted in God’s inspired document.  If we changed it for every whim of false philosophy which came along, we would have many thousands of amendments, and not a real Constitution.

In regards to the issue of who has the responsibility (Courts? Executive? Legislature?) to assure that all things are kept within the bounds set by the Constitution: Not withstanding opinions to the contrary, the Constitution requires all elected officials to abide by it (see article VI), and the President takes a specific oath that appears to me to have grave implications for one who would not do everything in his power to uphold it:

 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (United States Constitution Article II, Section 1) (emphasis added)

 

“…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  That sounds like a specific charge to keep all things within the bounds set by the Constitution, so the President certainly has the authority (and responsibility) to act to keep all actions of the government within constitutional bounds!  The responsibility does not reside solely within the purview of the courts, as some would have us believe.

 

In addition, as you know, George Washington promoted the idea that the people were the keepers of the Constitution, and therefore an informed electorate is the key to keeping all of their representatives in line with the proper constitutional principle.  The people have a responsibility to be “constitutionalists,” and it is a tragedy when those who so many look to for help in this responsibility are sowing the seeds of misunderstanding which will ultimately result in the destruction of this marvelous God-ordained document.

 

In brief summary of this matter of the “Marriage Amendment,” I believe the following concepts are worthy of consideration:

 

* The Founding Fathers (and, in my opinion, God) did not place any jurisdiction over the family in the hands of the National government.  There is grave danger in this today.  If this amendment is enacted I can see a cabinet level position within the Executive Branch being created to give government oversight of the family if we open the door.  The original constitutional concepts of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” considered the authority of the States, and the God-given rights of the individual.  The proposed amendment encroaches upon those essential principles.

 

* What will the proposed amendment say?  Marriage is between only a man and a woman?  At some time in the future, could some judge twist that to mean that even if a spouse died, or a divorce occurred, there could not be another marriage?  Ridiculous? Hopefully, but other court decisions are equally inane.

 

* What justification do we have in assuming that a marriage amendment would be held inviolate by courts and legislatures?  To date, the only amendment which seems to be upheld in this land is the III Amendment (quartering of troops).  Extreme and almost countless violations of every single one of the rest of the Bill of Rights could be cited.  The Tenth Amendment is probably the most violated amendment currently in existence.  Why should we expect the “Marriage Amendment” to suffer a different fate?

 

* Proper and timely application of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution could preclude the federal judiciary from ever involving themselves in the matter, including the Article IV Sections 1 and 2 issues.  The marriage issue could be kept entirely out of the jurisdiction of the federal judges, or federal agencies which would surely evolve.

* No impossible dream of obtaining approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and three-fourths of all States to enact the proposed “Marriage Amendment” would be necessary.

 

* No danger would be created for the “good and well-meaning people” to cry out for a constitutional convention in which we would surely destroy our existing Constitution.

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is our duty to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound.  ‘Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it….From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get.”  (History of the Church, 5:286).  Perhaps this marriage issue has a “sound and good” approach, and an “unsound” approach.  If it does, let us work to make the “sound and good” approach popular, and the “unsound” approach unpopular.

 

Perhaps you recall the scene from “A Man for All Seasons” in which Thomas More rebukes his son-in-law for wanting to cut down the laws to get to the Devil.  I believe that modifying the Constitution in the manner suggested will, in a very real way, apply to Thomas More’s warning remark.  It would seem that we need to consider the very real prospect of what will happen to our families, and even the Church, once we’ve cut down what remains of our constitutional protections, and we have a national government which would have constitutional authority to encroach into the very hearts of our families.  What will we do when the last vestiges of the delicate checks and balances have been abolished, and all power is accrued to Washington?  Thomas Jefferson’s eloquent warning should awaken within us grave concerns:

 

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” [Bergh 15:332. (1821.)]

There is so much more that could be said, but suffice it to say, I am very concerned that efforts to legitimize federal intrusion into the family circle by way of a federal amendment to the United States Constitution could ultimately have grave consequences for the effort to preserve the United States Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers and, most assuredly, for the family itself.

Enclosure: Marriage Amendment Details and Solution

 

 

 

Enclosure

Marriage Amendment Details and Solution

 

Wording of Proposed Amendment:

 

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a man and a woman.  Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

 

Re-wording Sought by Key Backers of the Amendment to Expand Congressional Support for the Proposal (as reported in the Washington Post 23 March 2004):

 

While the exact re-wording has not been agreed upon, the intent of the re-wording would be to allow states to establish civil unions or other partnerships for same-sex couples.  It has been reported that President Bush has indicated that he would not oppose such a change in order to broaden support for the amendment.

 

The article by BYU law professor Richard Wilkins which was referred to in the body of the enclosed document deemed national uniformity so critical to this issue that it was proposed that only a national amendment would suffice.  The proposed language change would absolutely result in non-uniformity from state to state, and therefore defeat the stated purpose of the proposed amendment.

 

If the re-wording were adopted as the accepted amendment wording, each state would ultimately be faced with Article IV Section 1 and Article IV Section 2 clause 1 (“Full Faith and Credit”) challenges—due to the fact that some states would unquestionably pass laws allowing same-sex unions which have the endorsement of that particular state, and those couples would most likely take on states which did not recognize their union.  What will we have gained but more confusion that will most assuredly (and absurdly) be endorsed by twisted court rulings?

 

The “Marriage Amendment” which is currently proposed to the Constitution of The State of Utah could be open to challenge, and could ultimately be ruled “unconstitutional” if challenged in a federal court if the proposed re-wording were adopted.

 

Possible Wording of Congressional Act Which Would Remove All Cases Involving Marriage From the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts:

 

“The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictions of the inferior federal courts shall not extend to hearing or determining the power of a state to define and regulate marriage.  Such jurisdictions shall not extend to hearing nor determining the refusal of any state to give full faith and credit to any marriage or other civil union performed or recognized under the law of any other state.”

 

This approach applies the U.S. Constitution “in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.”  It recognizes and applies the Congressional authority over the courts as allowed and found in Article I Section 8 clause 9, Article III Section 2 clause 2, and Article IV Section 1.

 

No “Full Faith and Credit” complaints could be taken to the federal courts, and the power to encroach into the family would be kept out of the hands of the federal government.  Each State would be responsible before God for their actions.

 

Some states would probably foolishly go forward with laws allowing same-sex unions, but they would not be forced upon other states which kept the God-ordained family sacred.

 

John Adams (the principle author of the Massachusetts Constitution, the first Vice President of the United States, and the second President) said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  (The Works of John Adams, ed. C.F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31).  True words, and essential to the survival of the Nation!

 

 

 

 

 

These are the times that tried men’s souls.

These are the times that tried men’s souls, a famous and historic line that Thomas Paine used in his famous poem “The Crises”. Where he also reference the terminology the Summer Soldier and Sunshine Patriot. The reason being is that during the Crisis which we know  as the Revolutionary War, men would often shrink from their duties fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom, because of the extraordinary pain anguish, continuous defeat, and yes deserted their posts from the army and went back home to be with their families. Was it a bad thing that these brave soldiers wanted to be with their families and go back to their daily lives earning a living? Of course not, but at specific times and places it becomes necessary to  rise above our temporal concerns, needs and to think about the future or the problems at hand. I am here to testify to you that the Founders did think of the problems at hand hence the phase from the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human Events, it
becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the
Political Bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the Powers of the
Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,
a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind
requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the Separation.

 

My fellow Americans we are living in a similar Times that Tried Mens souls today. Either if it is Martial law being declared in Boston, legislation such as Amnesty, gun bans, Obamacare, or the continuous drones over our heads, threats such as the National internet tax, and National Biometric ID Cards. Or our States legislatures and Governors “going along with” and are refusing to stand up and protect our inalienable rights. Both the Republican and Democrat parties are too interested in rhetoric and fighting against each other instead of where their focus should be, which is adhering to their Sacred Oaths of Office. Which is to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America against enemies foreign and Domestic, so help me God.

Now is the time for one party to Unite all other independents, other parties, and conservatives from all fields of life to not just educate, but to WIN in 2014. Yes, I did say win in 2014. See Constitutionally, legally the State legislature has far more power than the federal government. We can bind the hands of a tyrant in the Governor’s Mansion, or we can bind the hands of the federal government. It simply takes the fortitude to shrug off federal funds and to fully utilize and Stand with our Sheriffs to Nullify unconstitutional laws. My plan if you elect me is lead our party to have one candidate in every State House seat, every State Senate seat, and to be that man that leader to Unite our party with other independents in our state such as the Libertarian Party, and to Unite our party to go door to door preaching federalism to our neighbors friends and family, and to ultimately  WIN IN 2014!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Declaration of Rights.

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”  This statement is more than just a warning shot to both the Republican Parties and the Democrat Parties. This statement is a promise that we as Americans are looking for your jobs starting in 2014.

The reasons being that you have served yourselves with special favors off of the backs of the American Citizens. The national two parties have violated their own rules at their own conventions for the candidates of their liking, instead of the candidates that the people supported. The National government still will not adhere to the US Constitution and their own laws that they created in order to balance their books. They spew propaganda as if sequester is this all and terrible thing, when in reality it is only cutting approximately 10% of what they are spending. Only in Washington they can spend and claim that they are cutting. The National government continues sending our brave men and women to fight these illegal wars, but now receiving less funds and direction to fight those wars. The National government is still watching what we do online, and with over head drones, and grievous unconstitutional acts such as USA Patriot Act and NDAA of 2013 is still on the books, allowing the violations of our fourth and fifth amendment rights. The Federal government is still in the airports groping our genitals and viewing pornographic material of our children. Obamacare is still on the books and yes taxes have started to rapidly increase as of the new year. The National government is and has been buying up all the ammunition and guns that they can buy and yes even sell off guns and ammo to the illegal drug cartels south of the border. While on the other hand talk about gun control and gun seizure. The line in the sand is and always has been the Second Amendment, to which they have crossed over it similar to and or worse than King George of the late 18th century. Similar to the National level at the States, the State Republican and Democrat Parties have also violated the rules of their own conventions for the candidates of their choice instead of the candidates that the people wanted. Here in Utah the Republican Party establishment cheated by violating the rules of their conventions as well as their caucuses to ensure the victory of whom I consider to be traitors to the Republic and  to the US Constitution, candidates like Orrin Hatch and Gary Herbert. Through this cheating we ended up with a majority of Hatch/Herbert type republicans. In fact it’s so bad here that in this year’s legislature it was bad to talk about a completely legal and constitutional terms such as Nullification. This year the republican legislature substituted the text of the Nullification of Obamacare seven different times, watering it down each time to where the final passage of the bill left Obamacare on the books but also tied our federal funds to the expansion of medicaid. By doing so now the national government will dictate to us to expand medicaid or not using those strings that federal money is attached to.  The State legislature here in Utah also watered down another Nullification bill on any future gun laws that the national government may or may not pass, despite the support of our good County Sheriffs and populous. The provisions that were eliminated from the bill were the third degree felony charges to any federal agent that enforces any law contrary to the Second amendment, while in the process securing any regulation of arms to the State. Making this bill a statement bill ONLY, and yes did pass the House. However thanks to Republican obstructionists like Senate Majority leader Wayne Neiderhouser and our Republican Governor Herbert. They made this bill dead on the last day of the Senate floor with out a vote on the resolution, and only after it sat on the docket of the Senate for about two weeks. Our Republican Governor Herbert and Legislature has also allowed the health care exchanges into our state which Obamacare calls for. They have allowed Obama’s newest educational curriculum with out passing the congress known as Common Core into the State. They passed a resolution that spends 2.5 million dollars to study moving the State Prison, while back in 2005 we already know that it would have cost the tax payers a minimum of 5 billion dollars to move it. The governor is currently seeking for another 20 million dollars from the federal government for education while spending 20 million here off the backs of the tax payers. Lastly the gun bill known as Constitutional Carry, would have allowed all citizens with out permit to conceal carry, yes was watered down to not allowing a round in the chamber but allowing the fully loaded clip to be in the gun. Unanimously passed both the House and the Senate, only to face a strong veto by our governor despite the will of the people who wanted it. Legally the House and Senate could override the governor’s veto, but will they? The simple answer is no, because of the no back bone with in the majority of the House, Senate, as well as the leaders.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these States, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States are, and of right ought to be free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to their respective political parties, and that all political connection between them and the two great political parties, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to enforce the US Constitution through completely peaceful means such as Nullification,  establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.