Before the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, it was the legislatures from each state that chose who would represent the state on the federal stage. This method was designed to strengthen the federalist ideals of those attending the Constitutional Convention. However, because of this amendment, it will be you voting for your senator on November 5. 

The argument for this change was to increase the power of the voter by allowing them to directly affect who would be the federal spokesperson for their state. Paradoxically, the unforeseen consequences of this action have led to a loss of freedom for individuals in any particular state. The focus and incentives for a senator shifted from protecting the state’s autonomy to focusing on the next election cycle. 

This resulted in what is referred to today as dual federalism. Instead of the federal and state governments operating in two different spheres, they are now combined in fundamental ways. Instead of fighting to keep the federal government out of their turf, senators are now fighting to allow the government to enact laws in their states called “federal mandates” so they can receive more funding from the federal government. 

This compromising relationship between the state and federal governments has seemingly led to the squandering of the rights of the average citizen so the state can make a quick buck—all done under the guise of increasing democracy.

The Senate is not the only office affected by America’s shift from a constitutional republic to the vicious wolves of a pure democracy. Even the high office of the president is being influenced by this cultural shift.

What is the purpose of the President of the United States? I don’t believe either candidate would have the correct response to that question. Donald Trump would probably start talking about Haitian migrants eating cats and dogs, while Harris might monologue about being raised in a middle-class family in Canada. Both candidates would probably answer as they have before, explaining their different policies. 

But that’s not the role of the president. Perhaps someone with a strong understanding of the Constitution will point to Article II broadly and say, “Here, this is the role of the president.” Even so, I think we need to be more specific than that. Although Article II enumerates the executive powers of the president, one line explains the role of the current president: the Oath of Office. 

As the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 states, it is the president’s duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of their ability. And as George Washington so beautifully put it, “So help [them] God” if they don’t. 

If that’s the role of the president, then shouldn’t that be the standard by which we elect them? Maybe when voting for the POTUS, we shouldn’t be asking ourselves what their views are on taxes, transgender athletes in women’s sports, climate change, or IVF. Instead, we should ask ourselves who would do the best job of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution as it is written. 

That’s not to say that these issues aren’t important. They are. Both sides of these debates need to be discussed and considered at the federal level. However, that is the role of the House of Representatives—to discuss and promote what you, the person they represent, feel about any one of these issues. For this reason, the Electoral College was conceived. Its goal was to prevent the office of president from being one of pure populism. 

The checks and balances of the legislative process were carefully considered by wise men. The goal of the Constitution in this aspect was to involve the consent of every involved party before anything could become law. First, a bill must be proposed by either the House or the Senate and approved by the other. The passing of a bill in the House will signify the will of the majority of current citizens of the United States. The Senate will then convey the concurrence of the majority of states on the same matter before the bill can be moved from Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Then the president will read through the bill. Before signing it into law, it is their duty to determine if it aligns with the wisdom of the ages as portrayed in the Constitution. No matter how important, prudent, or popular a bill may be, it is the sacred obligation of a president to veto that bill if it does not align with the Constitution. If that bill is truly important and widely accepted enough, then there should be a national consensus to support an amendment that would allow for such a bill.

This election, I would encourage you to try to adopt this perspective. Don’t treat your senator like a representative. Vote for a senator who will stand up for the rights of your state. Conversely, when voting for the president, ask yourselves: Who do I trust to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?

The post Are We Asking the Wrong Question When Electing a President? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Public Square Magazine is not a partisan venue. Our staff comes from across the political spectrum and are united in our love for our Lord Jesus Christ. It is in this spirit that we condemn the cowardly assassination attempt of Donald Trump in the strongest terms possible. In our desire to follow Christ, we repeat his enduring message:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

Latter-day Saints are far from the only people who have a perspective on political violence. But we do have our specific story and lens into the subject—after all, it was our first president, Joseph Smith, who was the first US presidential candidate to be assassinated.

The Book of Mormon furthers these convictions primarily by doubling down on the teachings of Jesus. Many of us, however, also remember having our political views deeply influenced by listening to the stories from The Book of Mormon. Ezra Taft Benson, the 13th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and one with his own political experience having served as secretary of agriculture to Dwight Eisenhower taught that The Book of Mormon prophets “saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us.”

While their society was not immune from difficulty, it didn’t begin to disintegrate until approximately 30 CE, when the chief judge was murdered. This began a cycle of political violence, which resulted in the near complete dissolution of their society, only saved by the miraculous appearance of Christ Himself.

The warning The Book of Mormon has for us in these circumstances is that violence begets violence and can lead to a spiral that makes lasting peace ever more unattainable. 

But there is also a message of hope. The Book of Mormon peoples do, at times, break themselves out of that spiral of violence. They do so when individuals across society humble themselves and seek repentance, choosing to follow principles of peace and righteousness over revenge and power. This transformation often begins with a few courageous individuals who, despite the dangers, advocate for forgiveness and reconciliation. The Book of Mormon teaches us that while political violence can tear apart the fabric of democracy, the pathway to restoration and enduring peace lies in our willingness to turn to God, seek forgiveness, and extend grace to one another.

Watching the political violence escalate in our society takes us back to those storied times and leaves us a bit slack-jawed at its relevance. These are not just stories. We are watching the same things with our own eyes in real-time. Can we do anything about it?

In applying the words of Jesus and the lessons from The Book of Mormon to our contemporary political circumstances, we are inspired by the words of Dallin H. Oaks. Oaks is a former judge and serves in the seniormost council of the Church of Jesus Christ. Just four years ago, Oaks delivered an address titled “Love Your Enemies.” Remarks given at our faith’s semi-annual General Conferences are the most visible public comments our faith leaders give. To the entire church, he said, “We obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it.” And went on to say, “We will not participate in the violence” directed at undermining democracy. A category in which this shooting surely falls.

This is not a new concern for us. But it is an ongoing one. We have seen the rising specter of political violence and have called it out. We have managed to do so across our political differences because preserving our democratic norms from the threat of violence is not a partisan stance.

We are concerned that in the wake of this assassination attempt, the rhetoric has escalated in some quarters, with false claims and conspiracy theories about the event from both sides almost immediately encroaching into our political discourse. For those who are engaging, please stop. In this age of social media, maintaining peace depends on each one of us acting and speaking responsibly more than ever. 

In the coming days, we hope to continue to lead out in the difficult conversations with love. We invite you to join us.

The post The Unraveling of Civility: Lessons From a Presidential Assassination Attempt appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

America’s Quilt of Faith is an apolitical, civic nonprofit that champions the idea that religion is indispensable to the American experiment in self-government. For a decade and a half, the organization has engaged with the founding generation’s vision of religion’s necessity: the unique capacity of religious communities to build virtuous citizens. This capacity rested on, in the language of the times, the various denominations’ and faiths’ “future state[s] of rewards and punishment.” That is, religions, wielding divine authority, tell adherents that if they do God’s will while on earth, eternal rewards await them in the life to come. Certainly, religions have advanced alongside society since that time but the basic idea remains valid: religions possess a unique power of persuasion in encouraging their people to live virtuous lives, upon which lives our constitutional democratic republic depends.

Since 2008, America’s Quilt of Faith has explored how America’s religions are fulfilling this mandate. The results are mixed. While affiliation with organized religion is down (something America’s Quilt of Faith sees as harmful to America’s present and future vitality), many, if not all, religions as institutions continue to maintain that theirs is a unique and needed role in society, which they will not give up and for which they will fight. While several of what one might call “traditional” religious commandments are not emphasized from as many pulpits as they once were, chastity before marriage and Sabbath-keeping being two examples (something America’s Quilt of Faith also sees as harmful to America), American religion generally seems to be more aware of marginalized and vulnerable populations and is acting in accordance with that more expansive vision.

While religiously motivated people can and do have reasonable debates about the candidates’ various public policy positions, there is one distressing phenomenon that is anti-constitutional: large numbers of American religionists have given strong and unwavering support, in religion’s name, for Donald Trump, who attempted to stay in power after losing in a free and fair presidential election by overthrowing the United States Constitution. Among the constitution’s key purposes is to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. The constitution instructs that the Vice President “shall” count the electoral votes from the states. Trump, however, strategized to get Mike Pence to ignore that duty and declare Trump reelected instead, preventing the peaceful transfer of power the Constitution dictates.

As the founder and president of an organization that has for years been shouting from the housetops that religion is essential to American democracy and the fulfilling of its purposes in the world, it is extremely distressing when religion is now implicated in the support of a politician who so brazenly tramples American democratic institutions. Because the constitution contains a critical and world-changing religious freedom framework in its Article VI “no religious test for office” clause and First Amendment free exercise and no establishment clauses, religion is biting the hand that feeds it!

Enter The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a church with only 6.5 million members in the United States, but exerting a larger influence than would be expected by its size because of the organization’s structure, doctrine, religious life, and its members’ robust activity. I have come to believe that this young, American-born Christian denomination (incorporated in New York in 1830) is uniquely situated to break the chokehold the former president has on the Republican party and save the Constitution. 

Members are historically a politically conservative bunch, at least in the United States. Furthermore, they provide significant support for Trump: 45% of Utahns supported him in 2016, and an August 2023 NPI poll found 48% of Republicans in Utah support him now.

However, it also turns out that this group believes in Old Testament-type prophets with a New Testament message, called by God to preach Christ and His Kingdom, and that they should follow these prophets’ counsel.

Significantly, he also told church members, traditionally and strongly Republican in recent decades, that they should always consider switching parties, even from election to election, depending on the most important issues. This suggests that the Republican party’s embrace of Trump should be repudiated, and members of the Church of Jesus Christ can take the lead. Finally, he shared with the world the doctrine that the U.S. Constitution is divine—that Jesus Himself had a hand in bringing it to fruition—and that those who “recognize” Him are called to “uphold and defend its great principles.”

There are many complaints about Donald Trump. They range from complaints about his temperament, to his policies, to the degree of corruption in his administration, among others. Complaints of these types are made about all politicians, and it’s up to voters to weigh the relative merits of those concerns in the voting booth. But because Trump took proactive steps to prevent the peaceful transition of power based on a legal election by overthrowing the Constitution, he represents a grave threat that Oaks seemingly points to as unique and prioritized. Latter-day Saints who have entrenched concerns with other candidates may wonder who else they can vote for if Trump becomes the Republican candidate. It seems Oaks’ urging is rather straightforward: choose among those candidates who do not subvert the Constitution in attempting to prevent the peaceful transition of power, even if you oppose them in other significant ways. There is nothing more foundational to American democracy than that document.

From our vantage point, it appears that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and indeed the entire country, have been given a clarion call to protect the Constitution by emphatically rejecting any and all anti-constitution candidates, including Donald Trump, at the ballot box. If a significant percentage of members in the United States follow Oaks’ counsel (as America’s Quilt of Faith interprets it) and suddenly withdraw their support, stating that his re-election would both harm the Constitution and put it in the gravest of dangers, a political earthquake would be underway. This could initiate a break in the chokehold the former president has on the Republican party that deprives American democracy of life-sustaining breath. Such a movement would have national ramifications by providing both inspiration and cover for millions of religionists to follow suit.

I am in no position to tell members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to heed their prophet in the ways outlined above. But I can say that the United States Constitution has been severely damaged and is threatened once again by certain religionists and that certain religionists, summoning uncommon courage and humility, are the ones that can save it.

The post A Small Church’s Big Bet on the U.S. Constitution appeared first on Public Square Magazine.