Nobody Should Leave the LDS Church. But if Conservatives Need an Excuse . . . .

My Bishop is a really great guy. In one recent visit, I was expressing my exasperation over so many who leave the church because their liberal-leaning souls are hurt. I exclaimed, "Why don't more conservatives who don't follow church teachings leave!"

His response that we didn't want anyone to leave calmed me somewhat. And then he went on so tactfully to encourage my responsibility to offer service and Christian love because that's what the Gospel of Christ is really all about. I was sufficiently humbled and chastened. And in spite of my weaknesses, I will carry on.

Sometimes, though, I just can't help poking the hornets nest. (I should stick to the beehive.)

The recent turmoil I felt over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and the serious criminal charges including some relating back to the armed confrontation with public officials at the Bundy Ranch got me thinking. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a strong condemnation of the armed take-over at the refuge expressing concern about the attempt to justify the illegal and dangerous action by an unfounded appeal to LDS Scripture. It didn't help much. The perpetrators were arrested and one tragically shot while resisting arrest (he ran not one but two police stops, and it didn't look to me that he was attempting to surrender peacefully.)

I do find it odd that extreme, right-wing Conservatives can find a more comfortable home staying in the Church than leaving. In my opinion, a lot on the left leave because they feel so uncomfortable around so much conservatism. Frequently, those on the conservative right use LDS scripture and teachings to justify their extremely conservative views. So I just thought I would remind one and all of some fairly progressive and official positions taken by the LDS Church that seem at odds with this extreme conservatism.

My sources generally come from Mormon Newsroom at LDS.org where it states,"The official resource for news media, opinion makers, and the public." I guess as a blogger, I could be considered an "opinion maker" even if I don't have that much influence as a voice crying in the wilderness.

On Immigration and Refugees, the LDS Church takes a compassionate and welcoming approach in support of  the principles of the Utah Compact in support of families and with charity toward refugees. This is a far cry from the current scramble in one major US political party's primary to see who is the meanest and crudest towards immigrants and refugees. But the Utah Compact is not so different from the Immigration Reform proposed by President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain back before their base balked.

Then there's the Environment:

You may recognize Mt. Moran and Jackson Lake of Teton National Park. And the statement is by President Nelson,
current President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles

Utah Can Save a Lot of Money Letting the Bundy Trials Test Ownership of Public Lands

Yes! Governor Gary Herbert and especially, legislator/lobbyist Ken Ivory take note! The State of Utah is seriously considering a lawsuit to challenge United States ownership of the federal public lands within the state of Utah based on some tricky readings of the U.S. Constitution, the Utah Enabling Act, and the Utah State Constitution - basically the same theories that the Bundy Bunch have used to claim the feds have no authority in Oregon and Nevada!

But wait! Please! A major part of the charges filed today against accused co-conspirator Cliven Bundy in armed confrontation with federal officials performing federal activities on federal public lands is that those lands were obtained by the United States under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico and never relinquished!

From the Criminal Complaint filed today against Cliven Bundy

US Supreme Court Says Federal Government Can Manage Public Lands

Wild Stallions on Public Land
(To be technically and biologically precise, they are "feral"
not  a native "wild" species. Congress can't get everything right.)

Yeah, so I'm back for another little Civics lesson. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 40 years ago that the U.S. Department of Interior can manage the public lands in any state under constitutional federal law.

I know, the far right-wing constitutional fundamentalists don't even believe that the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. But better them than a bunch of cowboys with guns who forgot a change of underwear  . . . and snacks. (I'm pretty sure the US Supreme Court always has clean underwear except for maybe one or two of them. And I think they have snacks in the robing room).

The case is Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) ruling that the Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act is constitutional. We usually call it "the Wild Horse Act." We don't deal with too many burros in Utah. And it's one of those lovely Acts of Congress that they give us to manage that is absolutely impossible to manage. We are authorized to kill horses, but do you think that's the PC thing to do? And I've even been sued in my own name once as part of an alleged conspiracy to obstruct the act. The US Attorney easily got the individual names switched out for the United States as we were within our official duties; then got the case dismissed. Slam dunk.

Signs that Your Friend May Be a "Sovereign Citizen"

As we discussed last night, there is a movement among far-right extremists, including the Malheur armed occupiers, to declare themselves independent sovereign citizens outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. [I feel like I should be charging for this lecture series, but I'm no priest-crafter].

Sometimes you might see an indication from a friend or associate like this e-mail sign-off I sometimes get:

At Arms Length, Without Prejudice (UCC 1-308/1-207) Without Recourse

by _____________, Authorized Agent;

 

All Rights, Remedies and Recourse Reserved

It doesn't make much sense to me either, but with a reference to the UCC and other "legalese" language, it looks like an effort to prevent any accidental contractual obligations or subjection to surprise federal authority.

Cliven Bundy and the Contract Citizens of the United States

While his two sons languish in jail and the Finicum Family moves forward preparing for a tragic funeral, Cliven Bundy continues his vendetta against the People of the United States.

Having the form of legality by denying the authority thereof. And he can't spell "Malheur."

From Cliven Bundy's Blog dated Sunday, January 31, 2016, I copied the following:

With money and fear we will justify the assassination of LaVoy Finicum and make political prisoners of all that dare to lift their hand. (We can, we will kill.) This is our livelihood and we will protect our right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so help me Devil!

Constitution-Choosing and the Red Ghost of Skousen

You may notice that the copy of the Constitution on the left is the one seen recently in the pockets of several of the armed occupiers of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. The one on the right is the edition published by the Government Printing Office [now, Government Publishing Office] and is available for free from any Senator or Congressman's Office. When I get them, it's usually a handful at a time as I'm going off to share and teach Scouts the non-Skousenite doctrines of the Supremacy Clause, the 2nd Property Clause in Article IV, and the Fourteenth Amendment (among more of the basics). (You can also go online at the National Archives.)

They both seem to be accurate copies of the Constitution as Amazon advertises the one on the left:

"proofed word for word against the original Constitution housed in the Archives in Washington, D.C."

What Amazon does not tell you, unless you read far down into the less favorable reviews, is that the one on the left includes commentary and selective quotes from the Founding Fathers in support of the extreme, right-wing agenda of the publisher, the National Center for Constitutional Studies, successor in interest to W. Cleon Skousen's Freemen's Institute. There are even ads in the back for more publications of the NCCS.

Armed Protesters at Malheur Intend to Void 1846 Treaty with Queen Victoria of Great Britain

Original Treaty of 1846 between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

Here's a great example of the very basic point I'm trying to make in response to the insane claims of the armed protesters at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. You can't just ignore 230 plus years of actual Constitutional History by plucking a few words out of context that you contort into your own political Jeremiad.

From The Oregonian:

[Armed Occupier] Payne said the group believes the federal government has no constitutional authority to hold vast land tracts. He said any deed transferring land to the federal government should be considered void.

That means they will have to void the 1846 Treaty with Queen Victoria.

A Few Constitutional Provisions for the Illegal Militia at Malheur

It always helps when supposed patriots have actually read the Constitution. It takes more than just waving it around or carrying it in your pocket. Yes, there are arguments about interpretation that have been going on since it was written, but the whole point was the political processes established to work out our differences - not for any definitive answer necessarily - just the opportunity to keep us working together to govern ourselves as a nation. And that's pretty inspired, IMHO. Just check out some of these when you claim to be an anti-government constitutional patriot:

First of all, its purpose. No big secret here. It's right up front:

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

Then, there's this little gem we federal attorneys tend to like:

I experience, therefore, I am.

Only one essay in and I'm already hooked.

I'm still not enough of an intellectual to understand the Great Thinkers that well. I understand a little. And I've read a bit of Kierkegaard (see here and here). So when I pick up this book by a Mormon intellectual attempting to explain Faith and Science from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist or ecologist, and he starts going all Kierkegaardian on me, yeah, I can relate.

Back in the Blue with Sam Wang

See http://election.princeton.edu/ for more explanation

It was getting a little scary there for a few days. But Princeton Election Consortium has its polling prediction back with the Democrats plus the Independents for a win in the Senate to maintain control.

The Bigger the Tea Party, the Smaller the Munchkin

Soon to be former House Majority Leader

¡Hasta la vista, Eric Cantor!

Tea Party Member

A very small percentage of Virginia voters has just thrown out the Republican House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor. He lost his primary to a tea-party challenger.

Yes, the tea party is not dead yet, it's just killin' the party formerly known as the Republicans. Democrats aren't doing so great with terrible approval ratings for the President and a likely 2016 front-runner that a good portion of the country just loves to hate - again.

This all does help establish the ultimate point that if government is the problem, then it must be disrespected and destroyed by any means.

One Soul Saved from the Flood

We had our Gospel Doctrine lesson on Noah & the Flood yesterday. The teacher did quite well getting to the principles about what we can do to rely on the Lord to save us from evil around us today. "Stand in Holy Places," is a good one with those places being Home, Temple, Church. Listening to and following the Prophet is good too - service, home storage (I'm good with the chocolate chips), etc.

My wincing came when he threw out the question, "What are some of the examples of wickedness that we see in the world around us today?"

Book of Mormon Conspiracy Stories

Furthering my experiment upon the word to liken the scriptures unto us, I came across an interesting conspiracy theory last night. Right at the end of the Book of Helaman there is a bit explaining the convoluted theory the unrighteous Nephites came up with to reject the prophecies of the coming of a Savior, Jesus Christ. A part of that seemed awfully familiar to the current political scene. Try thinking of this passage in terms of the "lame-stream media" and "welfare state" and "dependency" on government. I guess you also have to be really creative to think about things like the safety-net (Medicare, Social Security, "general welfare*," and even Obamacare) to be things that are "good" rather than stealing free agency. I know it may be a stretch, but give it a try:

We the People Are Not a Machine

It didn't go well at Costco today. I was scouting out the free samples while my wife was getting some photos printed. There was a guy selling his book on the Constitution. As I listened in for a minute, he was telling a woman that it was just the basic documents and not any interpretation. I picked it up and thumbed through it. [Rough transcription from memory follows]:

 "You mean it's just the Constitution itself and not your interpretation?"

"No. Just statements from the founders about what the Constitution means."

I put the book back on the table. "Then it has interpretation!"

Likening Freemen and Kingmen unto US

The doctrinal and missionary chapters of the Book of Alma in the Book of Mormon are just great! But I have to admit I just don't have the same love for the war chapters. I'm not a big war guy anyway. And I've seen a lot of interpretations "likening the war scriptures unto us" especially for the defense of the youth of Zion which isn't so bad. And occasionally, usually someone like Anonymous D, will point out that in the war chapters the good guys always stand for defensive, never aggressive war - and only when God approves. I get really annoyed, though, at the use of those scriptures to promote political ideologies, particularly from the far right (Skousen's Freeman Institute comes to mind).

So I thought I would do a little "likening" of my own. Please do not consider this as pure doctrine. It's just some of my own little thoughts that may offend some. But if the right wing can do it, so can I.

My text is Alma 51:2-8 with slight "likening." You can compare the original here.

2 Nevertheless, they did not long maintain an entire peace in the land, for there began to be a contention among the people concerning President Obama; for behold, there were a part of the people who desired that a few particular points of the Obamacare and Stimulus laws should be altered or repealed in their entirety.

Thomas Jefferson Said . . . . (!?#*)

Credit to my buddy Phil at The Liberty Tree
(And Tom didn't really say that!)

It happened again! This time a comment on one of my blog pieces about guns. (So far, I'm getting a lot of interesting material from gun advocates but not a lot that makes much sense). There was another one of those made up quotes attributed to one of the Founders. This time, Thomas Jefferson:

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet" -Abraham Lincoln

Yes! I get a chance to use my new favorite Lincoln quote!

Robin Williams as Mork speaking to the Universe (actually, Orson)

A Facebook friend (who shall go nameless) posted a crazy thing about Robin Williams spouting some rather reactionary conservative screed. I didn't think it sounded right (except for Robin being crazy - but even that's mostly in a good way). I had the same reaction that I had with George Washington supposedly promoting the NRA the other day. So I googled the first part of the quote and "Robin Williams" and came up with several sites debunking the scam. I went with Snopes.

"The Bigger the Government, The Smaller the People"

The Lollipop Guild

Republican Leadership:
McConnell, Boehner, Cantor 

You said it, John! So I'm thinking maybe they should I will now call it the "Lollipop Guild" rather than the "Tea Party."

"Constitutional Compound Republic" revisited as this blogger calls out the extremist, reactionary FRAUD!

Sometimes, "¡Ay, ay, ay!" is all I can say. Still trying to maintain my moderation when passion tempts to overwhelm, I revisit my post of yesterday.

I did a couple of little tests today. The first was a quick little check of some of my friends at work during our lunch break (potato leek soup for St. David's Day). I asked three federal attorneys if they had ever heard the term "Constitutional Compound Republic" and what they thought it meant. All three had blank expressions and two astutely responded that it might be something from the tea party crowd about states rights. (Of course, they are also aware of my intellectual struggles.) Now, before all the tea-partier-Libertarian-Skousenite-Glenn-Beckians jump in here to say how that proves their point that federal attorneys are clueless, let me tell you about the second little test.

Only One Right Way to Read the Constitution?

A friend showed me a good article by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker Magazine.  It is a good opening to consider how the US Constitution has been interpreted differently by so many different people with so many different philosophies. She even broaches the issue of dogmatic rigidity in some of those interpretations.  Her conclusion is:

"The Constitution is ink on parchment. It is forty-four hundred words. And it is, too, the accreted set of meanings that have been made of those words, the amendments, the failed amendments, the struggles, the debates—the course of events—over more than two centuries. It is not easy, but it is everyone’s. It is the rule of law, the opinions of the Court, the stripes on [former slave] William Grimes’s back, a shrine in the National Archives, a sign carried on the Washington Mall, and the noise all of us make when we disagree. If the Constitution is a fiddle, it is also all the music that has ever been played on it. Some of that music is beautiful; much of it is humdrum; some of it sounds like hell."

This brings me to consider the Constitutionality of the PPACA (Health Care Reform some of you know as "Obamacare").  I have read the two federal district court decisions finding it unconstitutional written by activist conservative judges (it goes both ways, people.  The most recent decision actually cites the Boston Tea Party for historical argument - if that isn't pandering political activism, I don't know what is).  I haven't yet read the decisions that find it constitutional.  It is anyone's guess how this will eventually work out in the courts but you can make some predictions.  These decisions will all be appealed to the Circuit Courts and if there is any division in the Circuits, the Supreme Court will then take it up. If the Circuits are all consistent in upholding or striking it down, the Supremes may stay out of it and decide not to review - but its more likely it will get to them eventually.  There is a lot of speculation out there as to how the Justices will decide with their various judicial philosophies and political persuasions.  And it's a pretty safe bet Thomas and maybe Scalia and Alito will strike it down as violative of the Commerce Clause - but even those last two give deference to Congressional enactments and Congress's own determination of what is Constitutional (and they lay it all out in the Act! Sec. 1501).  Ginsburg, Breyer, and probably Kagan and Sotomayor will likely uphold it.  Chief Justice Roberts is on the conservative side but he has an institutional interest in not interfering with the Congress anymore than necessary.  Justice Kennedy is the clear swing vote and looking at some analyses of his decisions on the Commerce Clause, he is likely to uphold Constitutionality.