Sitting Atop Mount Olympus, Above the Law of God and of Man

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Sitting atop Mount Olympus, our currently reigning caesar, Barackus Obamus Ignoramus, believes that he is above the law of God and of man. Readers of this site know that Barack Hussein Obama has great contempt for the law of God as he supports the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs, funding this genocide of babies with our own taxpayer dollars, and as he has imposed his ObamaCare monstrosity upon us in full violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity. He is a social engineer and a statist almost without peer, a man who has contempt for the advice of others unless those who advise him agree with his own preconceived conclusions.

Although the very, very few readers (and fewer financial supporters) of this website really need no reminder of how the reigning caesar also possesses great contempt for the terms of the Constitution of the United States of America and of the just laws passed by Congress in pursuance thereof, his decision to continue with his war in Libya without the only kind of constitutional authorization that Congress can give, an actual declaration of war, is an impeachable offense. Barack Hussein Obama is governing without regard to anything other than his own arbitrary policy whims, ignoring the advice given him by attorneys for the United States Department of Justice and the Department of Defense that he has no authorization to proceed under the "War Powers Resolution" that became law when President Richard Milhous Nixon's Wednesday, October 24, 1973, veto of it was overridden by both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America on Wednesday, November 7, 1973:

President Obama decided he had the legal authority to continue the U.S. military campaign in Libya without congressional approval over the objections of Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers, according to The New York Times.

Instead, the president sided with other senior administration lawyers who said that continuing U.S. participation in the air operations against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi did not constitute "hostilities," triggering the need for Congressional permission under the War Powers Resolution, the New York Times reported in its online edition Friday night.

Among those reported to support the president's action were White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold H. Koh, the paper said. Those opposed included Pentagon General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Caroline D. Krass.

One issue was reported to be whether firing missiles from drones amounted to hostilities.

Presidents can ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, but rarely do so, the newspaper reported.

The 1973 law prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension. The 60-day deadline passed last month with the White House saying it is in compliance with the law. The 90-day mark is Sunday.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that he found it "interesting that in early April the president touted the Office of Legal Counsel's legal opinion on actions in Libya, and now that the opinion doesn't fit his agenda, he chooses to ignore them."

"If dropping bombs and firing missiles on military installations are not hostilities, I don't know what is," he said. "The president's actions on Libya are nothing short of bizarre." 

White House chief spokesman Jay Carney addressed the internal debate over the resolution at his briefing Thursday.

He said "there was a robust process through which the president received the advice he relied on in determining the application" of the War Powers Resolution.

He noted the resolution has been subject to intense debate since it was first enacted in 1973.

"We are not going to get into the internal process by which the president receives legal advice," Carney said. "It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict. Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy." (Obama Overrules Lawyers On Libya Military Campaign.)

 

Although the War Powers Resolution is arguably unconstitutional as a president of the United States of America has the inherent power to undertake military action when this country is in danger of imminent attack, its imposition by Congress over a presidential veto in 1973 was meant to signify bipartisan opposition to undeclared wars such as the ones taking place at that time in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Even those conflicts can be seen as not within the genuine national interest to the security of this country, and they were undertaken without a policy to win the conflict, a necessary component of the Just War theory. Constitutional scholars are quite divided as to whether the War Powers Resolution is legally binding. It doesn't take the War Powers Resolution, however, for Congressional leaders to stop the unnecessary use of American force in situations that do not involve the legitimate national security interests of this country and thus spend taxpayer dollars to fund military exercises that are undertaken solely upon the whim of president who believes that he can act the part of a caesar in doing so.

Although there is a lot of talk from various members of Congress who oppose Obama's military intervention in Libya that he chooses, most positivistically, to deny represent "hostilities," the talk is simply that, talk. Nothing more. Other members of Congress, such as the man Obama defeated for the presidency of the United States of America on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, United States Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona), remain full-throated enthusiasts of this latest American attempt at "regime change" in a Mohammedan nation. Members of Congress are simply too cowardly to do what needs to be done in this instance, that is, to cease the funding of such operations or threaten the out-of-control caesar with impeachment. If there is no possible justification for an actual Declaration of War, you see, there is no justification for any other kind of "authorization" short of that in instances where an American president oversteps his bounds as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America to commit troops for "humanitarian" reasons that have no clear objective and no stated "end game."

As was the case with the Roman Senate of antiquity, however, our contemporary legislators preen and posture as they let the caesars do pretty much what they want. Yes, some of these legislators make noise. They are powerless to do anything other than make noise as Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus intends to proceed as he has with the "mission" in Libya that is being conducted under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.) even though the protection of civilians in Libya is not exactly in that organization's charter:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 (1)

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

 

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. (NATO - Official text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949.)

 

As there is no justification found in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's charter, which was written to protect member states from an attack by the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its satellite nations in the early years of the Cold War in 1949, this institutional of regional governance relied about the dictates of that global institution of governance, the United Masonic Nations Organization, to intervene in Libya even though such intervention for "humanitarian" reasons is to be found in no part of the NATO  charter and was not the intention of this who formed this mutual alliance pact. Here is the statement of justification found on the NATO website:

On March 27, NATO Allies decided to take on the whole military operation in Libya under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The purpose of Operation Unified Protector is to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack. NATO is implementing all military aspects of the UN Resolution.

All NATO Allies are committed to fulfilling their obligations under the UN resolution. Since the resolution was passed on March 17, Allies have moved swiftly and decisively to enforce the arms embargo and No-Fly Zone called for in the resolution, and to take further measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas from attack.

NATO is taking action as part of the broad international effort and looks forward to working with its partners in the region.

Background and timeline

Following the popular uprising which began in Benghazi on 17 February 2011, the United Nations (UN) Security Council adopted Resolution 1970. This institutes an arms embargo, freezes the personal assets of Libya’s leaders and imposes a travel ban on senior figures.

On 8 March, with international concern over the Libyan crisis growing, NATO stepped up its surveillance operations in the Central Mediterranean, deploying AWACS aircraft to provide round-the-clock observation. These “eyes in the sky” give NATO detailed information of movements in Libyan airspace.

On 10 March, NATO Defence Ministers supported SACEUR’s decision to have alliance ships move to the same area to boost the monitoring effort.

On 17 March, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, authorising member states and regional organisations to, inter alia, take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya.

On 22 March, NATO responded to the UN call by launching an operation to enforce the arms embargo against Libya. On 23 March, NATO’s arms embargo operation started.

NATO ships and aircraft are operating in the Central Mediterranean to make sure that the flow of weapons to Libya by sea is cut off. They have the right to stop and search any vessel they suspect of carrying arms or mercenaries.

The NATO ships will not enter Libyan territorial waters. NATO has no intention of deploying land forces anywhere in Libyan territory.

On 24 March, NATO decided to enforce the UN-mandated No-Fly Zone over Libya. The UN resolution called for a ban on all flights, except those for humanitarian and aid purposes, in Libyan airspace, to make sure that civilians and civilian populated areas cannot be subjected to air attack. (NATO and Libya: Operation Unified Protector.)

 

Our reigning caesar is the slave of the United Masonic Nations Organization. He is a believe in global governance. Although his use of military force differs from that of his predecessor, George Walker Bush, in that he is a multilateral globalist while Bush the Lesser is an "American exceptionalist," Caesar Obamus Ignoramus is quite literally hellbent on doing what he wants no matter who opposes him. This is Barack Hussein Obama's "war of choice" just as much as were George W. Bush's military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, whether we are governed by a statist of the "left" or by a statist of the "right," the caesars know what's "best" for us as they sit upon Mount Olympus to decide how it is we are going to live and how much of our money they are going to confiscate from us for their nefarious domestic programs and their international programs of war that never do anything but bankrupt us financially while compounding the debt we owe to God for the warfare that we have made upon Him by means of the slaughter of the innocent preborn and so many other grave evils protected by law and promoted in the popular culture in the name of "liberty."

The outgoing United States Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, is beginning to put a little bit of distance between himself and the current caesar as he, Gates, prepares to leave office soon prior to being succeeded by the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic by the name of Leon Panetta, who served, most infamously, on a "review board" established by the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America to assess accusations of abuse made against conciliar clerics and to make recommendations of policies to be implemented to curb that abuse. Gates now says that he has grown "weary" of "wars of choice." So have we all, Dr. Secretary. So have we all:

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, as he prepared to depart the government for the second time, said in an interview on Friday that the human costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had made him far more wary about unleashing the might of the American armed forces.

“When I took this job, the United States was fighting two very difficult, very costly wars,” Mr. Gates said. “And it has seemed to me: Let’s get this business wrapped up before we go looking for more opportunities.”

“If we were about to be attacked or had been attacked or something happened that threatened a vital U.S. national interest, I would be the first in line to say, ‘Let’s go,’ ” Mr. Gates said. “I will always be an advocate in terms of wars of necessity. I am just much more cautious on wars of choice.”

Most recently, he expressed major reservations about American intervention in Libya.

In December 2006, Mr. Gates was brought on by President George W. Bush to fix Iraq, and he was kept on by President Obama to solve Afghanistan. Even as a trained historian, he said, he has learned most clearly over the last four and a half years that wars “have taken longer and been more costly in lives and treasure” than anticipated.

As Mr. Gates, 67, gets ready to return to private life at the end of the month, the futures of those two countries seem far from certain.

In the interview, Mr. Gates was asked to confirm reports of policy duels during the two years before Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney left office, a time in which he was said to have been successful in altering policies or blocking missions that might have escalated into another conflict.

“The only thing I guess I would say to that is: I hope I’ve prevented us from doing some dumb things over the past four and a half years — or maybe dumb is not the right word, but things that were not actually in our interest,” Mr. Gates said.

Pressed to offer more details, Mr. Gates smiled and said, “I will in my book.”

Some of the defense secretary’s confidants, however, confirmed that Mr. Gates prevented provocative, adventurist policies against Iran, in particular, that might have spun into war.

“He’ll be remembered for making us aware of the danger of over-reliance on military intervention as an instrument of American foreign policy,” said former Senator David L. Boren, who, during his tenure as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, developed a rapport with Mr. Gates when he was director of central intelligence in the early 1990s.

“I also think that he prevented further adventures, particularly in our relationship with countries like Iran, that could have turned into military intervention had he not become secretary of defense,” said Mr. Boren, who is now president of the University of Oklahoma. “I think that he stepped us back from a policy of brinkmanship.” (Robert M. Gates Weary of 'Wars of Choice'.)

 

Well, at least there's one naturalist who was able to curb the insatiable appetite of former Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney for all war, all the time. It's a shame that it took Gates, who holds an earned doctorate in Russian and Soviet history from Georgetown University, to learn about the tragic cost of what he calls "wars of choice," which  are, at least in my view, better described as needless, unjust, wasteful and immoral wars undertaken by men who believe that they can change the world by use of armed force alone absent any submission whatsoever to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Then again, a naturalist can reach reasonable conclusions now and again while lacking even the tiniest grasp about the simple fact that it is impossible for a danger engaged in the promotion of sin at home and abroad to be any kind of true instrument of peace in the world-at-large. After all, folks, one of the first things that American policy-makers in the administration of the "pro-life" George Walker Bush sent into Iraq following the American invasion of that country on March 20, 2003, were contraceptive pills and devices, not exactly the foundation of "a better world."

Although I will append a section from an earlier article dealing with how utterly defenseless the American Constitution is against those who want to misuse the plain language of its text for whatever purposes they desire, suffice it to reiterate here the simple fact that those who govern must descend more and more into scofflaw tyrants as the sins that they commit personally and promote under cover of the law increase exponentially. It was only the Actual Graces that flowed into the world from the offerings of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition--and its mutant variations after 1956--in this country that kept the process of statism from advancing more than it had prior to that time. The promulgation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI on April 3, 1969, and its implementation on November 30, 1969, dried up the wellsprings of grace, thus resulting in a cascade of unrepentant sins and the further spread and institutionalization of statism here in the alleged "land of the free and the home of the brave."

Lost on even thoughtful naturalists such as Dr. Robert M. Gates and on ideologues such as George Walker Bush and his gang of neoconservative war hawks and Barack Hussein Obama and his claque of globalists is the fact that there can be no true order at home or peace in the world absent the Catholic Faith's exercise of the Social Reign of Christ the King. The Social Reign of Christ the King is not a guarantor of order within countries or peace among them. Not at all. It is, however, a necessary precondition of true social order within nations and an enduring peace among them as men seek, despite their sins and failings, to pursue the common temporal good in light of 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.

Perhaps it is useful yet again, yes, even for the very, very few people who remain as readers of this site, to reiterate what Pope Pius XI taught in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

The only remedy for such state of affairs is the peace of Christ since the peace of Christ is the peace of God, which could not exist if it did not enjoin respect for law, order, and the rights of authority. In the Holy Scriptures We read: "My children, keep discipline in peace." (Ecclesiasticus xli, 17) "Much peace have they that love the law, O Lord." (Psalms cxviii, 165) "He that feareth the commandment, shall dwell in peace." (Proverbs xiii, 13) Jesus Christ very expressly states: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." (Matt. xxii, 21) He even recognized that Pilate possessed authority from on High (John xiv, 11) as he acknowledged that the scribes and Pharisees who though unworthy sat in the chair of Moses (Matt. xxiii, 2) were not without a like authority. In Joseph and Mary, Jesus respected the natural authority of parents and was subject to them for the greater part of His life. (Luke ii, 51) He also taught, by the voice of His Apostle, the same important doctrine: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God." (Romans xiii, 1; cf. also 1 Peter ii, 13, 18)

If we stop to reflect for a moment that these ideals and doctrines of Jesus Christ, for example, his teachings on the necessity and value of the spiritual life, on the dignity and sanctity of human life, on the duty of obedience, on the divine basis of human government, on the sacramental character of matrimony and by consequence the sanctity of family life -- if we stop to reflect, let Us repeat, that these ideals and doctrines of Christ (which are in fact but a portion of the treasury of truth which He left to mankind) were confided by Him to His Church and to her alone for safekeeping, and that He has promised that His aid will never fail her at any time for she is the infallible teacher of His doctrines in every century and before all nations, there is no one who cannot clearly see what a singularly important role the Catholic Church is able to play, and is even called upon to assume, in providing a remedy for the ills which afflict the world today and in leading mankind toward a universal peace.

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

 

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour, Christ the King, has entrusted the cause of genuine world peace not to the naturalists who sit atop their own imaginary Mount Olympuses as they believe themselves to be above the laws of God and man. No, Christ the King has entrusted the cause of genuine world peace to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a message that He gave His Most Blessed Mother to communicate to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-four years ago now. Why do we tarry in praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits so as to our part to make possible the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and thus of the Social Reign of Christ the King?

 

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, only then that we will have civil rulers who, like Saint Louis IX and Saint Wenceslaus and Saint Edward and Saint Casimir and Saint Canute and Saint Stephen of Hungary and Saint Henry the Emperor, will humble themselves on their knees before the King's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament rather than appear to be above the laws of God and man as they sit atop their own imaginary Mount Olympuses.

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.

Saint Juliana Falconieri, pray for us.

Saints Gervase and Protase, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix

Still Utterly Defenseless Against Itself

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.