Which laws are immoral, and do Americans need to obey them?

[HeirofNumenor]

Underlines are mine.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7001 ... -them.html
Which laws are immoral, and do Americans need to obey them?
Published: Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

By Walter E. Williams

What laws are we morally obligated to obey? Help with the answer can be found in "Economic Liberty and the Constitution," a 66-page pamphlet by Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Hornberger offers a hypothetical whereby Congress enacts a compulsory church attendance law that requires children to attend church service each Sunday. Parents are penalized if their children fail to comply. Would there be any moral or constitutional legitimacy to such a congressional mandate? The law would be a clear violation of one's natural, or God-given, rights to life and liberty. As to whether it would be constitutional, we have to see whether mandating church attendance is one of those enumerated powers of Congress found in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution. We'd find no such authority. Our anti-federalist Founding Fathers didn't trust Congress with religious liberty, so they sought to protect it with the First Amendment to explicitly deny Congress the power to mandate religious conduct. Suppose there's widespread popular support for a church-going mandate and the U.S. Supreme Court rules it constitutional; do Americans have a moral obligation to obey the law?

You might say, "Williams, while there are gray areas in the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court would never brazenly rule against clear constitutional prohibitions!" That's nonsense. The first clause of Article 1, Section 10 mandates that "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." During the Great Depression, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that restricted the ability of banks to foreclose on overdue mortgages, thereby impairing contracts made between lender and borrower. To prevent this kind of contract impairment — routinely done under the Articles of Confederation — was precisely why the Framers added the clause.

Another, perhaps more egregious example of the Supreme Court's impairing contracts came during President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, when the government nationalized gold and made it a felony for any American to own gold. Not only was gold ownership made illegal but it nullified all "gold clauses" in private and government contracts. Writing contracts in gold was a way people protected themselves against government theft, namely inflation. The Supreme Court upheld federal nationalization of gold and nullification of gold contracts in the famous Gold Clause Cases. Today many Americans have turned to gold, driving its price to an all-time high, as a safeguard against what they see as pending inflation. Here's my question to you: If Obama and Congress enacted a law demanding that you turn in your gold, would you be morally obligated to obey such a law?

Decent people should not obey immoral laws. What's moral and immoral can be a contentious issue, but there are some broad guides for deciding what laws and government actions are immoral. Lysander S. Spooner, one of America's great 19th-century thinkers, said no person or group of people can "authorize government to destroy or take away from men their natural rights; for natural rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government — which is but an association of individuals — than to a single individual." French economist/philosopher Frederic Bastiat (1801-50) gave a test for immoral government acts: "See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." He added in his book "The Law," "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."

After reading Hornberger's "Economic Liberty and the Constitution," one cannot avoid the conclusion that the liberties envisioned by the nation's founders have been under siege, trivialized and nullified. Philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe explained that "no one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." That's becoming an apt description for Americans who are oblivious to — or ignorant of — the liberties we've lost.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

[SpeedRacer]

The 13th article of faith says we must obey the law, but...

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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

If it gets too bad, there is always the option of going another way.

[SpeedRacer]

Jules, that is why I have the opening of the Declaration. When it got to bad in the old world, the new world had to set something up.

[Moss Man]

This is why Latter-Day Saints need to run for and win offices that legislate. The only new laws needed are those that will shore up the constitutional rights of individuals.

[creator]

"Then do you profess to ignore the laws of the land? No; not unless they are unconstitutional, then I would do it all the time. Whenever the Congress of the United States, for instance, pass[es] a law interfering with my religion, or with my religious rights, I will read a small portion of that instrument called the Constitution of the United States, now almost obsolete, which says “Congress shall pass no law interfering with religion or the free exercise thereof” [US Const. Amend. I]; and I would say, gentlemen, you may go to Gibraltar with your law, and I will live my religion. When you become violators of the Constitution you have sworn before high heaven to uphold, and perjure yourselves before God, then I will maintain the right, and leave you to take the wrong just as you please."

( Source: John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 11:343; John Taylor Papers 1:232 )

[iamse7en]

This is the same position the early prophets held regarding laws against polygamy/cohabitation (including Joseph Smith). So Heir, let's say you're pulled before government and asked if you have gold (because you didn't turn any in), can/would you lie?

[Original_Intent]

This is the same position the early prophets held regarding laws against polygamy/cohabitation (including Joseph Smith). So Heir, let's say you're pulled before government and asked if you have gold (because you didn't turn any in), can/would you lie?

5th amendment has your six, se7en.

[iamse7en]

Clever, OI. )

[NoGreaterLove]

What does our modern day prophet say about obeying the laws? Follow the prophet. Conference talks have been given already on this issue. Why the need to debate it further? Follow the prophet.

[Mahonri]

What does our modern day prophet say about obeying the laws? Follow the prophet. Conference talks have been given already on this issue. Why the need to debate it further? Follow the prophet.

what has "the prophet" said about this issue NGL?

[NoGreaterLove]

What does our modern day prophet say about obeying the laws? Follow the prophet. Conference talks have been given already on this issue. Why the need to debate it further? Follow the prophet.

what has "the prophet" said about this issue NGL?

It is better if you search it out yourself. That way you can not say I am being biased.

[Mahonri]

well, NGL, it seems BOTH sides are claiming to follow the Prophet on this, so your statement was either redundant for both sides or you are aware of something that hasn't been shared as of yet

[NoGreaterLove]

well, NGL, it seems BOTH sides are claiming to follow the Prophet on this, so your statement was either redundant for both sides or you are aware of something that hasn't been shared as of yet

which counsel have we been told to observe, old counsel or new? We have current counsel. We are to follow it.

[Mahonri]

well, NGL, it seems BOTH sides are claiming to follow the Prophet on this, so your statement was either redundant for both sides or you are aware of something that hasn't been shared as of yet

which counsel have we been told to observe, old counsel or new? We have current counsel. We are to follow it.

There is a contradiction? Where may I find it? All I see is a consistent unified Prophetic voice on the matter

[HeirofNumenor]

This is the same position the early prophets held regarding laws against polygamy/cohabitation (including Joseph Smith). So Heir, let's say you're pulled before government and asked if you have gold (because you didn't turn any in), can/would you lie?

Well given that I do not have ANY gold, nor ever have...and it is likely that I never shall...

[HeirofNumenor]

well, NGL, it seems BOTH sides are claiming to follow the Prophet on this, so your statement was either redundant for both sides or you are aware of something that hasn't been shared as of yet

which counsel have we been told to observe, old counsel or new? We have current counsel. We are to follow it.

There is a contradiction? Where may I find it? All I see is a consistent unified Prophetic voice on the matter

APPARENT contradiction is all the quotes from John Taylor (not just this thread) that talk about doing the opposite of what the government wants (my words - greatly simplified).

It appears that the emphasis on the Twelfth Article of Faith started when the First Presidency presented the 1890 Manifesto in General Conference (obeying, honoring, sustaining the law).

[Mahonri]

APPARENT contradiction is all the quotes from John Taylor (not just this thread) that talk about doing the opposite of what the government wants (my words - greatly simplified).

It appears that the emphasis on the Twelfth Article of Faith started when the First Presidency presented the 1890 Manifesto in General Conference (obeying, honoring, sustaining the law).

oh like now with their support of enforcing immigration law. Oh wait, that isn't their stance.

And John Taylor was the only Prophet to say that Gods law was more important than governments laws? Joseph Smith was breaking the law in every state he lived in post 1832.

[HeirofNumenor]

And John Taylor was the only Prophet to say that Gods law was more important than governments laws?

I didn't say John Taylor was the ONLY prophet to say that...his was the only words that came to mind instantly - because his words are the ones used at least once a week on this forum...

[Mahonri]

it's because this insanity of obeying all secular laws no matter what needs to be debunked before we start turning our neighbors in for obeying God. The Church has been and still is in favor of disobeying some laws

[creator]

Four words and this discussion is over: Missouri Mormon Extermination Order.

[HeirofNumenor]

FYI...I began this thread as a discussion in general, NOT as anything to do with polygamy, or what should the Church do. I simply thought the editorial was interesting, in that this question was being asked openly.

[Mahonri]

Four words and this discussion is over: Missouri Mormon Extermination Order.

You wouldn't have obeyed the law of the land????

[shadow]

Four words and this discussion is over: Missouri Mormon Extermination Order.

You wouldn't have obeyed the law of the land????

Depends on the Mormon )

[SpeedRacer]

They obeyed. They left the country. Like I posted. The opening of the DofI says it all.

[NoGreaterLove]

Four words and this discussion is over: Missouri Mormon Extermination Order.

Sorry Brian, not going to work. If you believe in following the most current counsel of the prophet, then this argument will not stand.
So are you saying Joseph Smith counseled them to obey that law? However our current prophets said we are to obey all the laws of the land. I am sure if one were passed such as the one you mentioned, the prophet would not support it, nor would I.
If we choose the luxury of following only the counsel of the prophets that suit us, that is like becoming a law unto ourselves.