In On the Limited Nature of the Inspiration of the Constitution of the United States I presented various quotes from Latter-day Saints in history showing that the US Constitution is “inspired” in a limited sense, not the same sense (read: θεοπνευστος [2 Tim 3:16]) as Scripture is.
The following quotes further show the, at best, secondary, nature of “inspiration” of the US Constitution:
Constitution Not Perfect. It is one of the first principles of my life, and one that I have cultivated from my childhood having been taught it by my father, to allow every one the liberty of conscience. I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.
Although it provides that all men shall enjoy religious freedom, yet it does not provide the manner by which that freedom can be preserved, nor for the punishment of Government officers who refuse to protect the people in their religious rights, or punish those mobs, states, or communities who interfere with the rights of the people on account of their religion. Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. It has but this one fault. Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.
The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment; and then the president of the United States would not say, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.” . . . . (Prophet Joseph Smith, 1844, DHC-6:56-7, as cited in Prophets, Principles and National Survival [comp. Jerreld L. Newquist; Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1964, 1967], 86)
Elsewhere (Ibid., 88-89), we find the following from J. Reuben Clark:
Amendments—Lord Prescribed Method. We sometimes hear: “Well, the Lord can inspire rulers to change the Constitution.” He inspired the first Constitution; he can inspire changes.”
I should like to point out to you that in that inspired document, the Constitution, the Lord prescribed the way, the procedure by which the inspired framework of that Constitution could be changed. Whenever the Constitution is amended in that way, it will be an amendment that the Lord will approve; but whenever it is amended in any other way than He prescribed, we are not following the commandment of the Lord and must expect to lose our liberties and freedom (22)
The Constitution was framed in order to protect minorities. This is the purpose of written constitutions. In order that minorities might be protected in the matter of amendments under our Constitution, the Lord required that the amendments should be made only through the operation of very large majorities—two thirds for action in the Senate and three-fourths as among the states. This is the inspired, prescribed order (23) . . . Brethren, Let us think about that, because I say unto you with all the soberness I can, that we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, we of this Church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known, heavy as our sacrifices and grievous as our persecutions of the past have been. (Conference Report, April 1944:115-116)
Notes for the Above:
(22) “I entirely concur in the propriety of restoring to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject . . . and that, the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown, to its founders will, I believe, appear to be all unbiased inquirers into the history of its origin and adoption.” (James Madison, Works 3:442).
(23) Net to correct morals a watchful guardianship over the Constitution is the proper means for its support . . . The fairest productions of man have in themselves or receive from accident a tendency to decay. Unless the Constitution be constantly fostered on the principles which created it, its excellency will fade; and it will feel, even in its infancy, the weakness and decrepitude of age.
“Our form of government is superior to all others, inasmuch as it provides, in a fair and honorable manner for its own amendment. But it requires no gift of prophecy to foresee that this privilege may be seized on by demagogues, to introduce wild and destructive innovations. Under the gentle name of amendments changes may be proposed which, if unresisted, will undermine the national compact, mar its fairest features, and reduce it finally to a dead latter. It abates nothing of the danger to say that alterations may be trifling and inconsiderable. If the Constitution be picked away by piecemeal, it is gone—and gone as effectually as if some military despot had grasped it at once trampled it beneath his feet, and scattered its loose leaves in the wild winds.” (Daniel Webster, July 5, 1802)
