The Three Branches of Government
"The principle of the Constitution
is that of a separation of
legislative, executive, and judiciary functions. . . .
If this principle be not expressed in direct terms,
it is clearly the
spirit of the constitution. . . ."
— Thomas Jefferson
The first sentence in the Constitution is: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Article I, Section 1, Clause 1.)
In this chapter, we will explore the ways that Congress has abrogated some of its rights to make laws by allowing the executive and judicial branches to assume some of the process. In short, Congress has help nullify Article I, Section 1, Clause 1, of the Constitution.
The Legislative Branch
Our government was so arranged that each department of the Federal Government had its own specific duties. The legislative branch, Congress, made up of the House of Representatives, who were to represent the people, and the Senate, who were to represent the States; the executive branch, the President of the United States, which was to enforce the laws that Congress was to pass; and the Supreme Court, which was created to adjudicate differences and to determine if the laws passed by Congress were Constitutional or not. President Benson explains:
"To safeguard these rights, the Founding Fathers provided for the separation of powers among the three branches of government — the Legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Each was to be independent of the other, yet each was to work in a unified relationship.
"In order to avoid a concentration of power in any one branch, the Founding Fathers created a system of government that provided checks and balances. Congress could pass laws, but the president could check these laws with a veto. Congress, however, could override the veto and, by its means of initiative in taxation, could further restrain the executive department. The Supreme Court could nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president, but Congress could limit the court’s appellate jurisdiction. The president could appoint judges for their lifetime with the consent of the Senate.
"The use of checks and balances was deliberately designed, first, to make it difficult for a minority of the people to control the government, and second, to place restraint on the government itself." (CHB, pp. 19-20.)
Erosion of Power
But like all free people, Congress can relegate its powers to others by making laws that will do just that — give the congressional power to other bodies in the government.
President Benson give two examples of how our government has abandoned fundamental principles of sound government and how constitutional freedoms have been eroded. About one of these he says:
"Let me cite, just briefly, two examples of the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. Both have come about because we, the people, have allowed the government to ignore one of the most fundamental stipulations of the Constitution — namely, the separation of powers.
"In recent years, we have allowed Congress to fund numerous federal agencies. While these agencies may provide some needed services and protection of rights, they also encroach significantly on our constitutional rights. The number of agencies seems to grow continually to regulate and control the lives of millions of citizens.
"What many fail to realize is that most of these federal agencies are unconstitutional. Why are they unconstitutional? They are unconstitutional because they concentrate the functions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches under one head. They have, in other words, power to make rulings, enforce rulings, and adjudicate penalties when rulings are violated. They are unconstitutional because they represent an assumption of power not delegated to the executive branch by the people. They are also unconstitutional because the people have no power to recall administrative agency personnel by their vote." (Ibid., pp. 25-26.)
As the House of Representatives were to represent the voting population of the nation, the Senate was to represent the individual States in Congress. Now, however, thanks to the passage of the Seventh Amendment, the Senate represents the people and not the States who use to appoint them.
The Senate was appointed by the State Legislatures and sent to Washington to represent the interest of the State. If the State Legislature did not like what Congress was proposing, they could call home their representatives, the Senators. This was happening, and justly so. Powers, that be, were not getting their bills passed (the Federal Reserve Act, for one) so they introduced an amendment which the States foolishly ratified. The States, now, ARE NOT represented in the U.S. Congress.
We must remember, it was the individual States that got together and had a convention in 1787, not the people. The States wanted proper representation in the national government. The Senate was to be a balance of power and a link between the individual States and the Federal Government, but now they have no such link or representation. James Madison wrote:
"Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems." (The Federalist, No. 62.)
This was one of the critical balances of power as embodied in a "Republican" form of government. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. . . ." This Republican Form of Government was not just for the internal structure of the States but to extend out in their influence to the Federal Government as well. These leanings, now, are more towards a democratic rather than a true republican form of government. Let’s see what President Ezra Taft Benson has to say on this subject:
"The Constitution provides for both direct representation and indirect representation. Both forms of representation provide a tempering influence on pure democracy.
"The House of Representatives was elected for only two years by direct vote of the people on a population basis. This concession to democracy was balanced by the establishment of a Senate, originally elected for six years, by state legislatures. This was an ingenious system whereby the Senate, not directly responsible to the people, could act as a restraining influence on any demagoguery by the House. No law could be passed without the majority approval of the House, whose members were directly elected by the populace; but also, a law had to have the majority concurrence of the Senate, who at that time were not elected by the people. In this way, the passions and impulses of the majority vote were checked.
"The intent was to protect the individual’s and the minority’s right to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labors — property. These rights were not to be subject to majority vote.
"We all know, of course, that this system was altered by amendment so that today both House and Senate are elected by direct popular vote." (CHB, p. 22.)
Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, states: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected . . . the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time. . . ." Now what is are "Emoluments?" "EMOLUMENT. The profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees, and perquisites (extra payment); advantage; gain, public or private." (Bouvier’s, p. 1035.)
It is, without question, that the violation of this clause in the Constitution is wide-spread and has become a staple in the economical diet of our elected officials in government. The graft, the special interest groups and their lobbyist, the "under the table" fringe benefit, etc., has not only gotten out of hand but has been the major moral weakness in our government. It sounds like what Nephi found among the wicked Nephites: ". . . moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their will, that they might get gain and glory of the world." (Hel. 7:5.)
President Brigham Young was very opinionated about many things and this subject is no exception. His comments might be applied to Congress as well as the President. Let us read some of his pointed remarks on this matter:
"Should we give him (the President) twenty-five thousand dollars per annum, and make him superior to any other honest man in the Territory, State, or kingdom, in things pertaining to this world? . . . No, for if he is capable of ruling the people and dictating them, he is capable of taking care of himself. . . .
"Do you ask why I would recommend this course? I answer, Because of the weakness of man . . . the streets would be full of demagogues; you will see them perched upon every ant-hill, croaking out their stump speeches for this or that man to be our ruler.
"Whether such a man as a ruler will do good to the people, is not thought of . . . but the one is after the thousands of dollars, and the other after his paltry fee. the welfare the people they do not consider.
"The motto should be: ‘If you do not labor for the good of the people, irrespective of the times, we do not want your services; for if you labor for the money, you seek to benefit yourselves at the people expense.’" (JD, 7:11-12.)
We might ask our representatives the following question: "How does this clause in the Constitution, of no increases, square with their policy of voting themselves large wages while they are still in office?"
Supporting Socialistic Communism
Not only do Congress raise their own salaries, and our taxes, contrary to the Constitutional provisions, they also use our tax money to support that government which is dead-set on destroying America — socialistic communism. Ezra Taft Benson has said, "Rather than impede communism our policies in their total effect have apparently helped promote it." (CR, October 5, 1962, p. 15; The Improvement Era, December 1962, p. 913.) And in one of his many books he writes: "I fear for the future when foreign governments have used and are using American tax money to pay for socialism." (TL, p. 63.)
Sterling Allan, in his excellently researched book, The Vision of All, makes the following quotes:
"Congressman Toby Roth said, ‘Billions of dollars in loans at terms that American borrowers can only dream of are being provided to the Soviet government and, in turn, are being used to help finance Soviet aggression and adventurism around the world.’ (The Vision of All, p. 94, from ‘Look Who’s Funding Moscow,’ The Constitution, May/June, 1988, p.6.)
We still hear the President wanting to give more money to the Soviets. Congress will, undoubtedly, approve massive amounts of American dollars to be injected into the faltering economy of the socialistic communists in Russia. Can we ask our congressmen how this squares with the definition of treason as outlined in the Constitution? (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1.)
From another sources we get more enlightenment on this monumental subversion of American tax dollars and congressional powers:
"Gorbachev announced that he needed a $100 billion gift from the West — mostly American — to survive. Bush a longtime Trilateralist dedicated to the global cause, could then posture for Americans by saying no, only approximately $20 billion only if Gorbachev behaves.
"Two days after the Bilderberg meeting, on June 11, President Bush . . . announced that the United States would guarantee $1.5 billion in loans for the communists to buy grain. A ‘loan guarantee’ has become almost synonymous with ‘gift.’
"Billions of American tax dollars will be used, in the years ahead, to ensure the survival of the Soviet Union, with its domination of the Captive Nations perpetuated.
"Secretary of State Baker was in Geneva on June 8, the second day of the Three-day Bilderberg meeting, promising American dollars to Gorbachev and reaffirming U.S. abandonment of the Captive Nations.
"The Bilderbergers endorsed this sellout just days before American’s annual Captive Nations Week, once the occasion for prayers for freedom of the enslaved people and tolling church bells." (The Spotlight, June 24, 1991, p. 3.)
Taxes for the U.N.
Not only is our money going for the purpose of giving "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies, but it is going to support the U.N., which is another enemy. From The Spotlight, previously quoted, we read:
"Another important step toward a strong, recognized and accepted world government is taxing power. Presently, the UN operates on ‘assessments’ paid by each country.
"At its April meeting in Tokyo, the Trilateralists called for a UN levy of 10 cents per barrel of oil coming from the Persian Gulf.
"The Bilderbergers approved of the move by the brother group, in which David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and others also serve as leaders. Once people get used to a tax, it never is repealed. Ten cents a barrel would have a negligible effect on sales at the pump, and it could be extended worldwide ‘with appropriate increases’ in the years ahead.
"Part of the philosophy of a ‘direct’ tax by the UN is already in effect, they noted with satisfaction. The UN is demanding 30 percent of Iraq’s oil profits for ‘reparations,’ and the United States has obligingly taken the position that it should be increased to 50 percent.
"From the sum total of all things said, the Bilderberg strategy emerged. . . . Keep the initial tax so low that the public is unaware that it is levied. Then kick it up." (Ibid.)
Is this the only threat to our independence? No it is not. Not only are our tax dollars being used for subversive reasons, those dollars may be collected by the United Nations. This is a new twist in the development of things, but when the methods of these secret combinations are understood, they are not surprising. There is a news article alluding to this, but we will have to see what else comes of it. But for now, this is all this author can find on the subject:
"In the name of international cooperation, the UN seeks to combat tax avoidance and evasion. A new treaty, already signed by the Bush administration but not yet passed by the Senate, places the assessment, examination, collection, recovery, and enforcement of all taxes, even local property taxes, under the auspices of the UN, and sets up an international enforcement corps and international data bank." (CBA Bulletin, April 1991, under heading, "International Tax Enforcement Is On The Way...")
The Judicial Branch
As we study the Book of Mormon, we find that it was written for us in our day, and that it is a warning to us in many ways. As the Book of Mormon speaks of their problems, with their judges, and in their day, could it have been looking into the future, trying to warn us of a judicial system that they could see might come upon us, as they did with secret combinations?
Likewise, we might say that "the foundation of the destruction of this people" in America "is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of . . . lawyers and . . . judges." Has human nature changed so much that our generation is better or more righteous than theirs. We find that our modern-day judges are much the same when we realize they, like the ancient Nephites judges, are "Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness — letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money. . . ." (Hel. 7:4-5.)
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution says that "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."
One of the duties of the Supreme Court is to determine if a law is Constitutional or not Constitutional. They do not make laws, they are only to determine the Constitutional legality of the laws. The Supreme Court, however, has stretched this clause to such extremes that would perhaps make our Founding Fathers tremble.
Thomas Jefferson had untold problems with the Supreme Court during his administration. On one occasion, in 1821, he wrote concerning this judicial body:
"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, 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." (Hel. 7:4-5.)
The above remarks of our third President, Thomas Jefferson, was not the ravings of a man with a personal vendetta. They are also the sentiments of wise men who know the true purpose of this judicial body and the role they were meant to play in our nation’s government.
President Benson said, in speaking of some erosions of the Constitution, ". . . this abandonment of the fundamental principles can be found in recent trends in the U.S. Supreme Court. In the first part of this chapter, he spoke of two examples of how our government has abandoned fundamental principles of sound government. The first we covered under the legislative branch. Here is the second from President Benson:
"‘It has literally decided issues of life and death, removing from the states the power to prevent or significantly restrain the practice of abortion, and, after effectively prohibiting capital punishment for two decades, now imposing such costly and time-consuming restrictions on its use as almost to amount to prohibition.
"‘In the area of morality and religion, the Court has removed from both the federal and state government nearly all power to prohibit the distribution and sale or exhibition of pornographic materials. . . . It has prohibited the states from providing for prayer or Bible-reading in the public schools.
"‘The Court has created for criminal defendants rights that do not exist under any other system of law — for example, the possibility of almost endless appeals with all costs paid by the state — and which have made the prosecution and conviction of criminals so complex and difficult as to make the attempt frequently seem not worthwhile. It has severely restricted the power of the states and cities to limit marches and other public demonstrations and otherwise maintain order in the streets and other public places.’
"To all who have discerning eyes, it is apparent that the republican form of government established by our noble forefathers cannot long endure once fundamental principles are abandoned." (CHB, pp. 26-27.)
The judiciary of this nation has become almost an "Oligarchy," that is, as we learned earlier, "A name given to designate the power which a few citizens of a state have usurped, which ought by the Constitution to reside in the people." An example of this thesis and the current attitudes of the Court is the following from Senator Harry F. Byrd in 1963:
"Power feeds on power. And the Warren Court has equaled, if not exceeded, the executive branch in usurping and centralizing power in the Federal Government. It has handed down two decisions telling schoolchildren when and where to pray. Decisions by the federal Supreme Court have been usurping more and more power for years. They have invaded homes, handicapped police protection, disregarded State sovereignty, interfered with executive authority, and assumed legislative powers. . . .
"And, in the face of all this, Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, in a speech before the American Bar Association, August 12, told the nation’s lawyers and judges they should ‘put aside discredited theories of the constitutional law’ and support the Warren Court." (PPNS, p. 188, from U.S. News & World Report, September 9, 1963, p. 51.)
With all the pains our forefathers went through to make sure there was a balance of power in our government, it seems that the branch that was to make the laws — the legislative branch — is abdicating its powers to the other two branches, the judicial and the executive.
The Executive Branch
The President of the United States is the chief executive officer of the nation. It is his duty to see that the laws that Congress passes, and the Supreme Court deems as constitutional, are carried out and enforced. However, before he can take office, he must swear an oath of office, as presented in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8. In part it says that he will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Let’s see how well he might be doing that. We have touched slightly on some problems, let us just skim the surface of another.
In August of 1970, Congress passed a law authorizing the President to freeze prices in case of an economic emergency. At the time however, President Nixon said he would never do such a thing. On August 15, 1971, Mr. Nixon imposed a price and wage freeze on the U.S. economy. Instead of public discussions on the issues, there had only been denials that any price freeze was being discussed by the President and his staff.
The next day, Secretary of the Treasury John Connally was asked about the lies the Administration had perpetrated during these proceedings and he responded by saying: "Of course we had to lie. If we had told everyone in advance, they would have taken steps to evade everything." (Quoted in Government by Emergency, cover page.)
The President’s power of control is practically unlimited. There are orders on record that can enable a President to put the entire nation into chains. These orders are known as "Executive Orders." By such Executive Orders he can freeze prices and bank accounts; confiscate or control business property, radio broadcasting, transportation, food production and distribution, and local police enforcement; or most any aspect of our personal, private or business lives.
The first Executive Orders began with President Woodrow Wilson in 1916, with his "U.S. Shipping Board Act." The 1917 order, the "Trading With the Enemy Act," is still in force and President Franklin D. Roosevelt used it to close the banks in peacetime in March, 1933. These executive orders have a life of their own. The 1917 act by Wilson, the 1950 (Korean conflict) by Truman, the 1970 (Post Office strike) by Nixon, and the 1971 (exchange rates) by Nixon, were not canceled until 1976 when President Ford signed a law doing so in September of that year. Senator Mathias of Maryland has rightly said,
"These hundreds of statutes clothe the President with virtually unlimited powers with which he can affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways. This vast range of powers, taken together, confers enough authority on the President to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.
"Under the authority delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." (Ibid., p. 103.)
The Congressional Record is issued daily by Congress and is filled with all sorts of items that any Representative might want to read into it. The Federal Register, on the other hand, is the law of the land (Free copies of the Federal Register can be obtained from: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives & Records Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. 20408.) The Federal Register includes Executive Orders. There IS NO catalogue of Executive Orders. There are literally thousands of these laws on the books, and it would take two-thirds vote of Congress to overturn any one of them — so they do not get overturned. Efforts by Congress to restrict or reverse such powers have been only moderately successful.
More recently, our President has enacted one of these emergency orders, and as an article in the Star Tribune reports:
"While Congress agonizes over whether to give President Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, the White House already has extraordinary powers it can invoke on its own.
"A hint of those powers came Wednesday when Bush issued an Executive Order giving the government priority delivery of any needed food or industrial materials.
"But virtually unnoticed when the Persian Gulf crisis began in August was a step taken by Bush that already has triggered dozens of other laws, which in turn give him the right to exercise sweeping emergency powers.
"On August 2,  Bush ordered Iraqi assets in the United States frozen. But, in order to do so, he had first to declare a state of national emergency. That declaration allows Bush to assume most of the extraordinary powers that otherwise would be conferred on him if Congress approved a declaration of war.
"The administration has been silent on what powers it might claim, but in invoking his authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950, Bush yesterday asserted the government’s right to claim first priority to a range of products, from oil to machinery to basic foodstuffs.
"Either Congress or the President has the authority to declare a national emergency. But virtually all declarations have come from Presidents, who can do so without congressional approval." (Star Tribune, January 11, 1991.)
Considering the quote just read, let us follow this possible scenario through, step-by-step. 1) The Bilderbergers want a war to help solidify their hold on the world by way of the U.N. They cannot just start one, there must be provocation. 2) April Glaspie, the American Ambassador, has informed Hussein that the U.S. has no interest in Iraq’s, already existing, border dispute with Kuwait — giving encouragement to Saddam Hussein. 3) The President freezes Iraqi assets on August 2, 1990, causing Hussein to panic. 4) Saddam Hussein, out of economic fear, invades Kuwait on August 4, 1990 — just two days after the President freezes the Iraqi assets in the U.S. 5) Now there is provocation for war by the President and his U.N. friends.
We have barely touched the subject of these Executive Orders and emergency laws which are buried deep in our nation’s Federal bureaucracy. They will remain there, and invisible, until they are implemented through the whims (justifiable or not) of a President for some emergency which, he only, need declare.
Is this the limited power of the Chief Executive of the United States that our Founding Fathers insisted on? Or is this more like the unlimited powers of King George, over which our Revolution was fought?
Seeking Honest and Wise Representatives
We have seen how our Federal officials are using their office in ways that are designed to take away our agency and turn that agency over to another power.
This discussion has shown how even more precious threads of our Constitution are being severed. We find that, as we observe our officials in Washington, the following scripture comes to mind:
"His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.
"Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
"Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant." (Isa. 56:10-12.)
That may seem like a strong indictment against our elected officials, but haven’t our congressional "watchmen," those which we trusted to protect our ship of state, been blind to the effects of their decisions? It is as though they have the attitude of, "All is well is America; Yea, America prospereth, all is well — and thus the secret combinations cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to bondage." (See 2 Ne. 28:20-21.) Ezra Taft Benson wrote about such things:
"In this time of deadly peril we must choose men and women to represent us in our government who have attained an inner attunement of mind, heart and soul with God. Only these people have anchors, firmly rooted and strong enough, to withstand the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. They, only, have the inner sense of direction, stability of spirit and firmness of character essential to our survival.
"On my desk in Washington, D. C., for eight years as a Cabinet member, I had these words: ‘God give us men with a mandate higher than the ballot box.’" (TL, p. 17, 84.)
What kind of leaders should we be putting into office? In the Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1, 1988, p. 119, "President Spencer W. Kimball taught that successful leaders must following the Savior’s example: ‘The Savior’s leadership was selfless. He put himself and his own needs second and ministered to others beyond the call of duty, tirelessly, lovingly, effectively. So many of the problems in the world today spring from selfishness and self-centeredness."
We can find this type of leadership in the founding fathers. They were ideal examples of what kind of judges Jethro counseled Moses to choose. Exodus 18:21 reads: "Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them. . . ."
Our first President, George Washington, was a good man; he served his terms as President of the United States without monetary compensation. He wanted it that way. He may be compared to King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon, who — as he said — "labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes. . . ."
Are we putting such leaders over us today? With the foregoing references cited in these pages, we may be hard pressed to find many such leaders who meet the criteria just quoted. We need to follow the commandment given in the Doctrine and Covenants, which says: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:10.)
The First Presidency
(Published in the August, 1939, issue of The Improvement Era.)
The Church does not interfere, and has no intention of trying to interfere with the fullest and freest exercise of the political franchise of its members, under and within our Constitution which the Lord declared: "I established . . . by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose," and which, as to the principles thereof, the Prophet, dedicating the Kirtland Temple, prayed should be "established forever."
But Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government, and it would be necessary to destroy our government before Communism could be set up in the United States.
Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.
To our Church members we say: Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto; Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action; Communism involves forceful despoliation of confiscation, the United Order voluntary consecration and sacrifice.
Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. The United Order will be established by the Lord in His own due time and in accordance with the regular prescribed order of the Church.
Furthermore, it is charged by universal report, which is not successfully contradicted or disproved, that Communism undertakes to control, if not indeed to prescribe the religious life of the people living within its jurisdiction, and that it even reaches into the sanctity of the family circle itself, disrupting the normal relationship of parent and child, all in a manner unknown and unsanctioned under the Constitutional guarantees under which we in America live. Such interference would be contrary to the fundamental precepts of the Gospel and to the teachings and order of the Church.
Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a communist.
We call upon all Church members completely to eschew Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.
Signed: Heber J. Grant
Signed: J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
Signed: David O. McKay