Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
         March 29, 2011


He Swore to Uphold the Constitution, Not the United Nations

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Readers of this site know that I am critic of the founding principles of the United States of America, based as they are on the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian premises that doomed the Constitution from the outset to be utterly defenseless against itself.  Let me paste a few passages from that article to illustrate this point once again:

Similarly, it takes a lot of dodging on the part of those who have made demigods out of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America to refuse to admit that it is entirely logical for contemporary jurists and elected officials to have has little regard for the plain meaning of the words contained in that document's text as Protestants and modernist Catholics have shown for the plain meaning of the words of Sacred Scripture as they have been given and explained to us by the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Why should we have any more reverence for the words of mere men, whose bodies have long since decayed after their deaths, when the written Word of God can be deconstructed of Its plain meaning to suit the arbitrary whims of men?

It is important to remember this fact as the Constitution is utterly defenseless against being misinterpreted as its framers did not accept the fact that there is an ultimate teaching authority to be found in the Catholic Church to guide men as they pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End: the possession of the glory the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Although Holy Mother Church leaves it to the prudence of men to form the specific institutional arrangements by which they will govern themselves in a particular body politic, she does insist that men defer to her in all that pertains to the good of souls and that they seek to pursue virtue in their own lives by cooperating with the graces won for them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross that flows into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Men who do not accept this, however, will find that all of their efforts to provide for a just social order, no matter how well-intentioned, will decay over the course of time. The fact that the specific institutional arrangements to be found in the Constitution of the United States of America, none of which is objectionable in se to the Catholic Faith, have been used to pursue more and more manifest injustices that are at odds even the words found in the document's text and are opposed to written thought of the framers themselves is the result of the anti-Incarnational premises which formed their intellectual perspectives. We are witnessing a more open and thus obvious collapse of the order that was meant to be provided by the Constitution for a variety of reasons, including, of course, the fact that there has been a deprivation of Sanctifying and Actual Graces in the world as a result of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism.

The proximate root cause of this decay was caused by the false premises of the American founding that have led jurists and politicians to make as much short work of the text of the Constitution as the plain words of Holy Writ have been made by the Scriptural and dogmatic relativism that Protestantism let loose on the world nearly five hundred years ago. The framers of the American Constitution were but the victims of Protestantism's revolution against the objective nature of Revealed Truth.

The men who framed the Constitution of the United States of America were products of the Protestant Revolt and of the so-called Age of Reason (or Enlightenment). They accepted without question the belief that it was possible for men of divergent religious beliefs–or the lack thereof–to work together reasonably for the common good without referencing any one church as the foundation of a country’s civil order. They believed further in the heresy of semi-Pelagianism, which contends that men have enough inherent grace in themselves to be good, that we do not need belief, in access to or cooperation with sanctifying grace to be virtuous. The framers of the Constitution believed that men of “civic virtue” would present themselves for public service and would, after a long process of compromise, negotiation and bargaining amongst the diverse interests and opinions represented in the United States Congress, make decisions that redounded to the common good (see, for example, James Madison, The Federalist, Numbers 10 and 51).

James Madison himself quite specifically believed that there was no one “opinion” that could unite men of such divergent backgrounds as found themselves in the United States of America at the end of the Eighteenth Century. Thus, a dialectical process of conflict amongst divergent interests (religious, sectional, economic, occupational) had to be created to force those who took positions that constituted a majority “view” at any time to at least consider the viewpoints of those who were in the minority of a given issue. In this way, Madison reasoned, whatever majorities emerged in Congress on any piece of legislation would be transient, indigenous to one particular issue at one particular time, and sensitive to and concerned about the rights of those who disagreed with them. Such a system, which was premised on the exercise of statesmanship on the part of those elected to serve in Congress and as President, would create the “extended commercial republic” where no one person or interest could predominate on all issues at all times.

The institutional arrangements created to effect this “extended commercial republic” were very complex. A division of powers between the central government and the state governments (Federalism). A separation of powers amongst the three branches of the central government involving a number of checks and balances. Different powers given to each of the two chambers of the Congress (bicameralism). Staggered elections for the members of the United States Senate, a body whose members were elected by state legislatures until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Popular election originally of only one body, the House of Representatives. A President elected by electors appointed by whatever method deemed best by state legislatures. All of this was supposed to produce a tension that resulted in internal safeguards to prevent, although not absolutely make impossible, the abuse of power and the rise of the tyranny of the majority.

There is only one little problem with this schemata: it was premised on the belief that matters of civil governance do not have to be founded in a reliance on the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has entrusted to His true Church and that the Church herself has no role to play to serve as the ultimate, divinely-instituted check on the abuse of temporal governmental power. It was difficult enough for the Church at times during the Middle Ages, when she exercised the Social Reign of Christ the King, to restrain certain rulers. It is impossible for any purely human institution to restrain the vagaries of fallen human nature over the course of time. Men who are not mindful of their First Cause and their Last End as He has revealed Himself solely through His true Church will descend to their lower natures sooner rather than later.

This is what happened in short order following the ratification of the Constitution.

Political parties arose during President George Washington’s tenure in office. Although Washington himself abhorred the rise of political parties and saw the dangers that would threaten national order if professional, career politicians emerged as a caste undo themselves, he was powerless to stop them from forming and taking over the entirety of the governmental process. Although the names of the political parties have changed over the last two hundred ten years, the partisan political divisions that developed during the Washington Administration have come to define the very nature of American electoral politics and the making of public policy. What is best for a particular political party is best for the nation. So much for the pursuit of the common temporal good on a purely naturalistic level, no less in light of man's Last End.

The era of “Jacksonian Democracy” from 1828 to 1836 spelled the death-knell for the founders’ misplaced hopes that the Constitution itself would serve as a safeguard against the dangers posed by raw majoritarianism, the essence of Andrew Jackson’s political beliefs, which were derived from the American Revolution’s foreign cousin, the French Revolution. All notion of a political system that restrained the exercise of raw political power was pure mythology from Jackson’s time forward.

Abraham Lincoln had little regard for Constitutional restraints.

Woodrow Wilson, an Anglophile, believed that he was a Prime Minister entitled to reflexive support of the Congress.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke every law imaginable to pursue his statist policies of the New Deal and the involvement of the United States in World War II.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Hussein Obama each have seen fit to make the Constitution suit their own purposes, sometimes by ignoring it entirely or, at least in some cases, by getting a compliant Supreme Court of the United States of America to ratify their abuses of power.

Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have justified the creation of so-called “independent regulatory agencies, which violate the principles of “separation of powers” by exercising each of three powers of government (legislative, executive, judicial), applied the provisions of the Bill of Rights, written to restrain the powers of the central government and not the state governments, to the state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process of law” clause, thereby expanding the power of the central government greatly, circumscribed the legitimate powers of the states to supervise their own elections, and have served as laboratories of rank social engineering by making it impossible to prevent the sale of contraceptives and to permit the execution of the innocent unborn by abortion and the elderly by means of the withdrawal of food and water and by “doctor-assisted suicide.” And this is to say nothing about how the "commerce clause" (subsection eight of section eight of Article I of the Constitution) has been used to justify expansions of the power of the Federal government that make poor King George III seem like quite an amateur in the practice of abusing executive powers.

Many of the various people who have served as justices of the Supreme Court of the United States over the years have believed that the words of the Constitution represent either the ultimate authority pertaining to the exercise of governmental power or are so fungible as to admit of constant re-interpretation. Cases involving various constitutional principles may be decided one way at one time and another way at another time. Few things are ever "settled" entirely the Supreme Court decisions unless the naturalists of the "left" are satisfied. We have too much evidence of how the naturalists of the "right" talk about "reversing" various Supreme Court decisions (such as the decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973) at one time to wind up "settling" for what their counterparts in the "left" believe is "settled" law. How much talk have you heard this year from candidates on the "right" about reversing Roe v. Wade? Point made, thank you very much.

Such is the inevitable, inexorable result of a country that rejects the belief that all civil law, whether exercised by a central government or state governments, must be subordinated in all things at all times to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law as those laws have been entrusted to and explicated by Holy Mother Church.

No level of government, whether central or state, has any authority to permit any action contrary to God’s law and thus injurious to the sanctification and salvation of the souls of its citizens. No mere human constitution is above God’s law. No mere human being has the right to decide for himself that he is exempt from the immutable doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Thus, those men, including the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America, no matter how well-intentioned, who believed that it is possible for “reasonable men” to pursue the “common good” absent a subordination of their lives and their work to Our Lord as He has revealed Himself through His true Church are bound to set their descendants on a downward spiral that will end only in the destruction of their nation or when said nation is converted to the true Faith.

What does any of this mean to the currently reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama? Nothing. He lives in utter ignorance, convinced of his own righteous, convinced that he can twist and distort the plain words of the Constitution to justify his statist policies.


All of this having been reiterated once again, as it was three days ago now in Idols to the Left, Idols to the Right, part 2, I do want to remind readers of this site that I have labored quite hard, despite all efforts to caricature my work and to misrepresent it, to make the proper distinctions concerning the falsity of the founding principles as distinguished from the specific provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America that are entirely unobjectionable and can, if used in light of the pursuit of man's Last End, be used by Catholics in public life to limit the size and growth and power of the Federal government.

Absent the unifying force provided a nation by the Holy Faith, however, men will be more divided on matters of temporal concerns than they would otherwise be as a result of their fallen human natures and the after-effects of their own Actual Sins. This division among men breeds contempt for anything that is considered immutably binding, including the words of the provisions of the Constitution governing the separation of powers among the three branches of the Federal government and the division of powers between the Federal government and the state governments, to which the Tenth Amendment reserves those powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government nor denied to them.

Barack Hussein Obama is simply one of many naturalists in public life who harbor a complete contempt for anything and everything considered to be immutably binding. The nationally televised speech he gave last evening to justify American military involvement in enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Libya was striking in its lack of any mention at all of the responsibility given the United States Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution to declare war. No, Obama proved the exact point that I made four days ago now in Idols to the Left, Idols to the Right, part one, namely, that he is committed to enforcing resolutions passed by the United Masonic Nations Organization, not in observing the provisions of the Constitution he swore to uphold on Tuesday, January 20, 2009:

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi's troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi's deadly advance. (Caesar's Remarks on Libya, page 2.)


Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus went on to say that "In this effort, the United States has not acted alone." Wrong.

Barack Hussein Obama did act alone, that is, without even consulting leaders of the Congress of the United States of America on a matter that did not involve an imminent attack upon the soil of the United States of America or upon a nation to which we are pledged by treaty commitments to defend in the event of such an attack. Barack Hussein Obama has voluntarily surrendered the national sovereignty of the United States of America to do the bidding of the "world community," which did not elect him and is not included in the separation of powers that are to be found in the various provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America. In this, of course, he has gone even beyond George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush, both of whom at least gave Congress a nominal opportunity to express support for a United Nations resolution in order to maintain the fiction of Congressional involvement despite not adhering to the Constitution's clear provision concerning the fact that it is Congress, not a president, who declares war. No, Obama has dispensed even with the fiction of getting Congressional authorization to enforce a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. It is in this way that he did quiet indeed act unilaterally, committing the people of the United States of America to funding a military adventure that was not authorized by their elected representatives while placing American military personnel in harm's way needlessly to advance the goals of the "world community."

Our caesar's concern for the "humanitarian" need of American involvement in Libya is pure hypocrisy even though he tried to draw distinctions between the civil war that is ongoing there and the situation in other countries in North Africa and the Middle East that have had similar "revolutions" in behalf of the goddesses of "democracy" and "freedom" (see Bishop Donald J. Sanborn's The Cult of Liberty). It is pure hypocrisy as we have such a humanitarian crisis here in the United States of America as over four thousand babies each day are slaughtered under cover of the civil law by both chemical and surgical means. Barack Hussein Obama supports this slaughter. He has appointed fellow pro-aborts throughout the nooks and crannies of his blood-stained administration to advance the slaughter of the innocent preborn. He has issued executive orders to advance the killing of the preborn here and abroad, and he used all of the political capital at his disposal last year to ram through ObamaCare, which is nothing other than a glorified license to kill the preborn, the handicapped and the terminally ill and the elderly that would make the Nazi eugenicists feel as though their letters with Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Birth Control League that became Planned Parenthood, were finally being implemented right here in the United States of America. (See also Blood Flows Freely in America and Libya.)

Ultimately, however, Barack Hussein Obama and his immoral policies at home and abroad that promote moral evils aplenty and thus sow the seeds for further unrest here and elsewhere in the world, policies that also undermine very directly the national sovereignty of the United States of America, are made more possible by the nefarious ways in which the conciliar "pontiffs" have violated the First and Second Commandments openly as they have esteemed the symbols of false religions publicly and have called places of false worship, which are nothing other than dens of the devil, as "sacred" and have praised the nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the cause of justice and "world peace."

Sure, each of our own sins has contributed more than we would like to admit to ourselves to the chastisements that are upon us right now. Yes, this is certainly true. It is also true, however, that sins against the honor and glory and majesty of God make more possible sins against men in the world, a point that I have tried to make in many articles on this little-read website, including in Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment and A "Blessing" on a Murderer and His Work. God will not be mocked by the lords of Modernity or by the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. He does not countenance the daily warfare that is made upon the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law by the lords of Modernity, and He does not countenance the daily warfare that is made upon His Sacred Deposit of Faith by the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The way is being prepared for the coming of Antichrist. The lords of Modernity, such as Obama, are taking active measures to undermine national sovereignty in the name of the "world community" and hence of global governance. The lords of Modernism, such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, have been undermining the integrity of the Deposit of Faith as they advance the goals of a One World Ecumenical Religion that corresponds almost exactly to the prophetic warning provided us by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


We must consider a privilege given us by the good God to be alive in these challenging times as we pray our Rosaries and make many sacrifices as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We have work to do, namely, to plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, which alone is the sole foundation of personal and social order.

It will be only when men and their nations are converted to the Catholic Faith that their constitutions will truly bind them together and serve legitimate national interests as civil leaders seek to pursue the common temporal good in light of the man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, god the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven, remembering that, as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, "the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it." It will be only then that civil constitutions will serve the interests of men in this life because they seek to serve God through His Catholic Church as our mater and magister exercises the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.


Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2011, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.