U. S. Constitution
REVOLUTION IN IDEAS AND ACTIONS

Part II

The U. S. Constitution and Government:
A Traditional Catholic Perspective


(This article is the second part of one entire piece, the first being on the Declaration of Independence. It therefore presumes the first part has been read. See Revolution in Ideas and Action: The Declaration of Independence)


The Constitutional Convention

       On September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed, whereby the king of England formally acknowledged the thirteen states to be independent and sovereign. The American colonial leaders were on their own and chose to devise their own form of government. Being children of the false “Enlightenment,” and influenced by the ideas of such men as Bacon, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc., they rejected the truth that authority comes from God above, and embraced the revolutionary idea of authority coming from the people below. They rejected all forms of monarchy and wanted to govern themselves. Instead of a king ruling there would be elected representatives who would (in their minds) receive their power and authority to govern from the people who elected them.

       A large convention was held to form this new type of government. At Philadelphia, George Washington was elected president of what was and is known as the Constitutional Convention. Many days of labor and successive arguments followed in constructing a document that would guide the new nation in its laws. Many were concerned for the rights of states having the needed sovereignty in legislating their own laws. Others wanted a strong central government arguing that this would help protect the states in their independence. Others, still, were worried that a strong central government could easily suppress states’ rights and function like a dictatorship. The concept of a three-branched government was then proposed:

• the executive branch, under which the president and his cabinet functions;
• the legislative branch, under which congress functions and laws are legislated (i.e., passed);
• the judicial branch, under which the courts, primarily the supreme courts, judge whether or not laws are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

       There were arguments concerning the amount of power and authority each branch of government could exercise. These three branches were to be equal in power while each would ideally keep the other in check from obtaining too much power. This was the idea behind these branches, but in practice it would often not work. Finally, after much arguing and re-writing, with James Madison doing most of the writing, on September 17, 1787, the convention’s work was done. The completed Constitution of the United States received the formal signatures of the delegates, and the convention adjourned.

Fight for Ratification

       The fight now was to have the states ratify the document. Ratification by nine states was required before the new government could be organized. What this meant in practice is that the federal government had no power or authority until the states granted it. The Constitution was constructed with this belief in mind. George Washington, though at first reluctant to consider the presidency, entered into the struggle with vigor. He was startled to find, from many sources, that the most appealing argument in favor of the Constitution was simply that he, George Washington, had signed and approved it. To Washington himself the issue was simple. The choice lay between ratification of the proposals of the convention, or “a continued drift toward ruin.” He hammered home this point at every opportunity.

       One of the main debates over ratifying the Constitution was that concerning government power and authority. Most of the Northerners as well as the Southerners who opposed ratifying the Constitution did so because they were simply against placing so much power in a national or central government and denying powers to the states. So efforts were made to convince those in opposition to accept and ratify the new Constitution. Three early leaders, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton wrote a series of articles known as The Federalist Papers in which they argued in support of the Constitution. Their arguments, which included the ideas of people having the authority, of self-government, etc., were mostly based on the new rebellious ideas of the false “Enlightenment.” These papers soon convinced many who were hesitant about the Constitution.

       In response to the Federalist Papers were a number of articles known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.” The authors of these papers, men such as Edmund Randolph, George Mason, and Patrick Henry, declared that the Constitution as it stood would fail to protect both the individual and the individual states against government tyranny and central power. Oddly enough, their arguments also were based upon “Enlightenment” ideas, but they emphasized the anti-monarchical aspects (where authority comes from above) wrongly equating that with a strong central government as envisioned in the Federalist Papers. It appears that the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers were right about a strong central government intruding upon state’s rights. For the issue of state’s rights would arise later and prove to be lost when Abraham Lincoln and the North defeated the South. However, the influence of the Anti-Federalist papers would lead to the establishment of the Bill of Rights. These would be amendments added to the Constitution to provide rights and protections which the Constitution did not anticipate.

       In 1787, Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution. By year’s end Pennsylvania and New Jersey ratified. Through the spring and early summer of 1788 the struggle dragged on in the remaining 10 state capitals. In June the decision became final when New Hampshire produced the ninth and decisive ratification of the Constitution. Virginia and New York soon followed by the end on 1788. Rhode Island was the last of the original thirteen colonies to ratify and become a state. The Constitution finally went into effect in 1789.

The U. S. Constitution and Authority

       If we think of a house, we know that the entire house is built upon a foundation. It depends upon its foundation to stand. The constitution of a country is the foundational law with which all later laws must be consistent and built upon. The Constitution is the document upon which the governing life and welfare of the U.S. depends. The Constitution of the United States of America consists of seven articles and 26 amendments.

       Following the beliefs and ideas of the false “Enlightenment,” the Constitution of the United States in essence rejects the authority of God and the Kingship of Christ by not only ignoring Him as the source of all law and authority, but by working on the false principle that authority comes not from God above, but from the people below. On the contrary, God has declared that ALL authority and power comes from above, and comes down from God. It does not come up from those governed.

Here is what God has revealed in His Holy Word:
By me [the Lord] kings reign... By me princes rule...(Prov.8:15-16)

Give ear you that rule the people.. for power is given you of the Lord (Wisd.6:3-4)

Let every person be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority [or power] except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. Therefore, he who resists authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will receive condemnation. (Romans 13: 1-2)

Jesus answered: “Thou would not have any power over me, unless it were given thee from above” (John 19:11).

       Authority, then, by definition, is hierarchical in nature. It comes down from above, from God, and can only be delegated from one higher to one lower. The entire establishment of the United States of America, and all modern republics and liberal democracies, rejects this revealed and fundamental truth. The United States of America was the first nation to formally decree that the people are the source of authority, not God or His revealed Word. This is the so called “Great American Experiment:” to form a government not only for the people, but a government “of the people and by the people.” In other words, self-government, which is a rejection of God’s designed order. Numerous popes have condemned this revolutionary idea. Here are three examples (others are listed at end of this article):

Pope Gregory XVI, in his encyclical, Mirari Vos (1832) declared:
Care must be taken lest the people, being deceived, are led away from the straight path. May all recall, according to the admonition of the apostle that "there is no authority except from God; what authority there is has been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists authority resists the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation" [Rom.13:1-2]. Therefore both divine and human laws cry out against those who strive by treason and sedition to drive the people from confidence in their princes and force them from their government…
   [E]xamples [throughout history] of the unchanging subjection to princes necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion. They condemn the detestable insolence and improbity of those who, consumed with the unbridled lust for freedom, are entirely devoted to impairing and destroying all rights of dominion while bringing servitude to the people under the slogan of liberty.
Pope Leo XIII, in Immortale Dei (1885), explained:
Every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its author. Hence it follows that all public power must proceed from God. FOR GOD ALONE IS THE TRUE AND SUPREME LORD OF THE WORLD. Everything without exception must be subject to Him, and must serve Him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern, holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the Sovereign Ruler of all. “There is no power but from God.” (Rom.13:1)
Pope St. Pius X, in Our Apostolic Mandate (1910), declared:
Democracy goes so far in wickedness as to place sovereignty in the people… Modern writers in great numbers, following in the footsteps of those who called themselves philosophers in the last century, declare that all power comes from the people; consequently those who exercise power in the State do not exercise it from their own authority, but from an authority delegated to them by the people and on the condition that it can be revoked by the will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government rule derives from God as its natural and necessary principle.

       God’s Word and Church teaching on the source of authority and power is direct, explicit, and unambiguous. Therefore, since all power/authority comes from God, then those who govern derive their authority from God, and not from the people (whether or not they believe one way or the other).

       Sadly, God is not at all mentioned in the Constitution, for the document itself is decreed as the “supreme law.” Article VI of the Constitution states:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof [following after and based upon it]; … shall be the supreme law of the land.”

       Here we have the attempt to place the law of man over the Law of God. Rather, the law of the Lord should be the “supreme law,” not that constructed by men, for the Lord is the lawgiver (See Is.33:22; James 4:12). Sadly, most American Catholics (or non-Catholics, for that matter!) do not see the U.S. Constitution for what it really is: the formal exclusion of God and His laws from the direction of public affairs and national laws.

       In ignoring (and thus de facto rejecting) the Kingship of Christ over men, society, and national law, the new U. S. nation and its leaders would function on the belief, even if nowhere explicitly stated, that the Church and state are to be separate. But God has declared that ALL things are under and subject to Christ (Eph.1:20-22), and this includes individuals, states, governments, and nations and their laws, because there is nothing that is not subject to Him (Hebrews 2:8). This authority of Christ is exercised through His Body on earth, the Church. This is one reason why Christ commanded His Church to teach ALL nations:

“Go therefore, teach ye ALL nations…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”(Matt.28:19-20)

      The Constitution of the United States rejects this divinely revealed command and the true source of authority by simply ignoring it and calling itself the “Supreme law of the land.” It therefore de facto rejects the revealed truth that the Lord is the lawgiver. As Christ commanded, all nations are meant to be taught by the Church. All nations are to have their laws conform to the laws of God and His Church. What the True Religion does for the state is the same as what the soul does for the body. From this flows the truth that that which is morally wrong or contrary to God’s will should never be politically or legally a right. No government has the authority to legislate that which is contrary to God’s law. At the same time, ALL governments are to acknowledge the authority of God and the kingship of Christ (otherwise Christ would NOT be the King of kings! –i.e., rulers). It is, therefore, impossible to separate religion from politics, and politics from morality, for a man’s actions –public and private- cannot be separated from his beliefs (without a self-contradiction), and laws must conform to that which is objectively and universally right and true. Yet, the American nation and its government presumed and established the contrary.

       It may be objected that the cry of the revolutionaries was “No king but Jesus.” Therefore, so the argument goes, they did ot reject Christ's kingship. But this was more to soften their troubled consciences since the natural law in their hearts made them aware that rejecting monarchy as a principle was wrong, as well as the fact that “he who resists authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will receive condemnation(Romans 13:2). No, the rejection of all monarchical forms of government is a rejection of God’s order and will, for Christ the King taught us to do God’s will on earth AS it is done in heaven, and heaven is a Kingdom (Mat.6:10). The rejection of all monarchical forms of government while spouting the slogan “no king but Jesus” is simply a self-deception, and is an actual rejection of what Christ Himself taught; for the Lord exercises His kingship and authority through men. He declared to His chosen representatives: "he who hears you hears ME; he who rejects you rejects ME"(Lk10:16).

       Article VI further states that each and every member of the three branches of government “shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Catholic American student of history needs to recognize a number of problems here:

1. that our leaders swear an oath to a document that denies the authority of God, His laws and His Church, and ignores (and thus rejects) the Kingship of Christ;

2. that with no religious test, our leaders can be (and, in fact, have been) men who practice false religions (or no religion at all), who believe and promote errors and falsehoods, and who publicly profess that which goes against God’s will; or, as Freemasons, they are servants of Lucifer, the Devil!

       Thus, it is the supreme law of the land, as Article VI guarantees, that men who belong to false religions and promote evil, falsehoods, and errors –contrary to what God has revealed- can still be our law makers, judges, and leaders. A nation whose law makers are those who believe and promote errors and reject many of God’s laws is a nation that will work against God and His kingdom on earth. (This is, in fact, what has happened.)

       A nation based on such erroneous principles cannot be approved by God. Nevertheless, there are many Protestants (and even misinformed Catholics) who say that this nation was founded on Christian beliefs and principles. But the facts and the actual words of the two most important documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, prove this is not so. There is not one mention of either Christianity, nor of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, nor of His teachings in the Constitution. As stated above, there is no mention of God at all. If the founding fathers of this country actually believed that Christianity as the true, or at least, superior religion should be the foundation of the law of the land, then why didn’t they just say so, and put that in the Constitution? Why refer to the Constitution as the “supreme law” and not God’s law or Word?

   (As a side note: Neither did the U.S. Constitution make any mention of the family, the basic building block of society as ordained by God. Society will break down as the family breaks down –and this is precisely what we see today.)

       We must conclude that holding up God’s law as the supreme law is in fact against the law in the United States of America, whose Constitution claims to be the supreme law. Pope Leo XIII, in recognizing the revolutionary ideas upon which modern republics and nations are based, declared:

“To reject the supreme authority of God and to cast off all obedience to Him in public matters … is the greatest perversion of liberty” (Libertas Humana, June 20, 1888).

       The U.S. Constitution also ignores the fact of Original Sin and its effects upon human nature. Man needs an outside guide (i.e., the Church) to teach and guide him along the right path. Men cannot do this on their own. The Constitution presumes fallen man some how on his own accord will not only come to the truth, but also do the right thing when left free to do so. God’s Word and history show us this is not so. As children of the false “Enlightenment,” the nation’s founders and authors of the Constitution rejected the truth of Original Sin and its effects upon human nature, and thus the need for an outside authority, or an authority above the people. They did not recognize the fact that when "the people" are given authority to govern their lives (or are at least convinced to think that they do), they do so as if God and His law have no say in the matter, and they will usually follow their own fallen desires. When they do this they end up divided because individuals and groups perpetually seek power over others.

Freedom and Liberty

       It should come as no surprise, then, that the Constitution was composed by both Freemasons and men influenced by the ideas of the so-called “Enlightenment.” However, the Constitution was not mandated by the people as a whole (as they inferred), nor was it authorized by any legitimately constituted authority. These men simply established their own authority to do such. This is another aspect of the great American experiment: to establish one’s own authority and to govern oneself with no acknowledgment of any higher authority. This is the essence of rebellion. But this is what men do when they think they are free from “outside” authority, and think they have the liberty to establish their own. But this is a self-deception. We are meant to be governed; we need to be governed because of the effects of the Fall.

       Students of history (in fact, all Americans) need to know that politics is an acquired and difficult skill, even an art. Contrary to the American ideal, it is not meant for the masses. Rather, the masses are meant to be governed. In the traditional form of governing throughout history the children and young relatives of Monarchs who would one day rule were taught from a very young age the art and skills of politics and how to govern. The masses of the populace have neither the knowledge, nor the skills, nor the instructors necessary to do this. But the “great American experiment” rejects these facts. Since men think they are equal (a consequence of the false “Enlightenment” idea of equality), they believe they can rule as well as anyone else. But this is another deception upon which man’s fallen nature and its pride feeds upon.

       In condemning the new ideas of the time concerning authority, liberty and equality, Pope Pius VI (1775-79) declared in his Decretal of March 10, 1791:

To this false and mendacious word liberty, these boastful patrons of the human race have added the equivalently fallacious name of equality. Given that it was necessary already from the beginning for a man to be made subject to his elders, so that he might be guided and instructed by them and might be able to align his own life with the norm of reason, humanity and religion; certainly from the origin of each and every individual, it is obvious that the equality and liberty boasted of among human beings is vain and empty. "Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake" (Rom.13:5).

       The student of history should now be able to see that the U.S. Constitution is based upon the ideas of the false “Enlightenment.” The most dominant of these ideas, along with the idea that authority comes from the people, is the new understanding of freedom/liberty and equality. These new ideas, found in the First Amendment of the Constitution, make it a law that men have the moral right to believe any religion they wish; to worship God (or their own gods) they way they wish; that men have the “freedom” to make their own laws according to what they think best (not according to God’s unchanging laws). This includes the placing any and all ideas in the public forum, whether, evil, false, contrary to nature and God's law or not.

       These new ideas are contrary to what God has revealed and the Church teaches. If men are not to be prohibited from saying or writing what they want, then this means, as history has proven, that error is given the same rights, if not more rights, as truth; falsehood the same rights as honesty; evil the same rights as goodness; and vices the same rights as virtues. This would mean that men have the supposed ‘right’ to lead people into error and sin, and we could not legally stop them. On the contary, error and falsehood not only can never have the same rights as truth, but should have no rights at all, for error in religious/moral matters leads men to hell.

       Another supposed liberty was the freedom for men to practice any religion they wanted (except for Catholicism as we have seen). It was declared in the First Amendment to the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting [i.e. favoring] an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This could only mean that the United States would not recognize the One True Religion revealed by God and established by the Lord Jesus Christ, and at the same time would allow men to establish and practice their own false religions and forms of worship, despite the fact that such religions offend God and lead men to hell. Thus, the laws of the new nation actually allow the enemies of Christ and His kingdom to spread their errors and deceive men. Recognizing the dangers of these false ideas concerning freedom, and how they are being spread around the world, Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared in 1814:

By the fact that freedom of all forms of worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, outside which there can be no salvation, is placed on the same level with heretical sects and even with Jewish perfidy.

       Because all religions were supposedly given equal rights (though most at the time still held that Catholicism should be suppressed), the new nation would then be giving false religions the same rights as the one, true religion; and this means that error would have the same rights as truth, evil the same rights as good, etc. Later on, Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his first encyclical (Qui Pluribus,1846), solemnly condemned these false rights. He declared:

That some think it is right for each individual to follow what is acceptable to his own religious creed makes the divine establishment of the Church of no consequence. Especially fatal to the salvation of souls is that erroneous opinion that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship is the proper right of every man. By our Apostolic authority, we condemn this evil opinion.

       Freedom is an effect of truth. Our Lord Jesus declared: “The truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Thus, the student should ask: how can a nation which is not founded upon the truth be “conceived in liberty”? Men cannot be free where the Truth, that is, the One True Religion, is rejected and the laws of God are not the “supreme law of the land.” It is truth which guarantees freedom, not politically established liberty or equality.

       In its foundation and essence, the "great American experiment" is a rejection of the truth that authority is hierarchical in nature, that there is an authority outside of oneself, and that comes from God above (and is thus above the people) - hence the “experiment” of self-government. This experiment is a rejection of God's designed order and truth: All power/authority comes from God above, not from the people below (see Romans 13:1-2; John 19:11). Since all authority in Heaven and on earth belongs to Christ (Matt.28:18), who has authority over ALL mankind (Jn.17:2), and where ALL things are subjected to Him (Eph.1:20-22), then all men, and thus states and governments (which men organize), must acknowledge the Kingship of Christ and conform their laws to His. The U.S. Constitution is a formal –though nowhere explicitly stated- rejection of this truth. It is a de facto rejection of God’s designed order of authority, and a rejection of the social Kingship of Christ.

       These are the facts of our nation’s foundational documents of which Catholics must be aware. God has warned us through the prophet Isaias (or Isaiah): “The nation and kingdom that does not serve Thee shall perish” (Is.60:12). God has held His hand back from America because of the many sacrifices made by the Catholic missionaries, and, more importantly, because of Our Lady of Guadalupe’s call for all Americans to convert to the True Faith. But how long will He hold back, we do not know.

       Does this mean that Catholic Americans can not be patriotic? No, it does not mean this. Catholics were here first; we consecrated this land to Christ the King, settle here first, and converted tens-of-thousands of its natives to the True Faith before any Protestant -English or otherwise- arrived. We should love our land, love America as a land consecrated to Christ. But we must do this making the proper distinction between our land/our country, and that of our government and the basis upon which it functions (i.e. the Constitution and its presumption of sovereignty being derived from the people). The two are quite distinct and must not be equated. Of course, patriotism can include love of one's government, countless subjects of numerous monarchies had done this for centuries. But love of government is valid only in so far as it (and its policies) conforms to the will of God and His laws. But it is the Church which teaches the latter as God ordained (Matt.28:19-20), hence the absurdity of the separation of the Church and state.

       At the same time, it should also be recognized that the Constitution was structured in such a way as to allow for amendments, that is, laws and provisions which could be added later on for the common good and so-called rights of U. S. citizens. Interestingly, this fact gives it the potential of basing its laws upon the laws of God and His Church. However, for this to occur in the fullest way, the fundamental authority of the Constitution would have to change from it being the “supreme law of the land” to acknowledging the laws of God and the authority of Christ the King as the supreme law of the land.

Philosophical Considerations

       We will now examine the basis of the Constitution (sovereignty of the people) from a philosophical view, particularly with logic. An examination of the U.S. Constitution, and thus the entire basis upon which our governmental system works, will reveal that there is a fundamental self-contradiction present. Put another way: the Constitution defeats itself. Here’s how: When you delegate to someone it is because you have higher authority than the one to whom you are delegating. A greater agent always delegates to an inferior agent, not the other way around. That is the very nature of delegating, for this is the very nature of authority. Someone with lower authority, by definition, cannot pass out any authority higher or greater than he himself possesses, for an effect cannot be greater than its cause. One with lesser power cannot give out power greater than one has in the first place. But the entire modern democratic system holds that those elected receive their authority/power to govern, to rule, and to legislate, from those who elect them. They are (supposedly) delegated (i.e. granted, given) this power and authority. On the contrary, to govern others, to rule over men, by definition of the very concept, means that you have authority OVER them; your authority is greater (other wise you do not actually rule/govern them). So how can those who rule and govern receive their authority to do so from those they rule and govern? It is intrinsically self-contradicting.

       Let us ask this another way: how can the governed delegate an authority to other men that is greater than they themselves possess (for to be governed by someone, by definition, means they have authority over you)? They can not. It is impossible. It is a great deception born of the false “Enlightenment.” Our entire system is based on an illusion.

       Put in a simple formula, the basis of our republic looks like this:
Those supposedly with the sovereignty/authority (i.e. "the people")delegate that sovereign authority to those whom they elect, thus, he whom is elected receives his authority from those he will now govern. Let us look at this with an analogy. How our system supposedly works is akin to parents (i.e., those who hold the authority -the people) giving children (the elected persons) the authority to rule and govern the parents. If this sounds absurd, that's because it is! This is an inversion (and perversion) of nature, and this is precicely the root meaning of the word revolution: to turn over.

       According to the "Enlightenment"/American doctrine of sovereignty of the people, we the people, the voters, (supposedly) delegate to those elected the specific authority and power to make laws and govern. Yet, how can someone (you, me, the average citizen) who does not have the authority/power to make laws ourselves delegate to someone else (by voting them in office) the authority/power to make laws? How can we give to them an authority/power (viz. legislating laws binding on the nation) that we do not have in the first place? It is a self-delusion. Sadly, the vast majority of citizens do not recognize this intrinsic self-contradiction and deception.

Since this entire concept may be new to most readers, let us examine this further.

       If you elect someone to represent you in the legislative body, and thus (supposedly) gave him the power and authority to make and pass laws binding on the rest, whereby you as a non-legislator cannot make laws binding on others, then how can you give out such power/authority to another to make laws, when you yourself cannot make binding laws yourself, because you do not have the authority to do it? You are, therefore, giving out (delegating) what you in fact do not possess -the authority and power to legislate binding laws. It is intrinsically self-defeating.

       One might retort: This sovereignty/authority does not reside in any one individual, it resides collectively in the people. I answer, but the process occurs by individual acts (viz. voting) and thus cannot be divorced from the individual, for the collective is nothing without actual individuals, and is entirely dependent upon them.

       Let’s look at it another way. If a legislator has received his power to make laws from those who voted him in office, then, if/when he does legislate certain laws that many may not like, they can disregard them since the legislator (according to our system) received his authority and power to pass such laws from them (the voters) in the first place. It is an endless circle of everyone having power and authority and NO ONE having power and authority. It is a clever trick from the Master of Deception –Satan. True and informed Christians answer as Christ answered: “Thou would not have any power over me, unless it were given thee from above” (Jn.19:11).

       Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas (1928) on the Kingship of Christ, declared:

With God and Jesus Christ excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.

       It should be made clear that a system of voting someone into an office is not against God's order and Catholic teaching, IF it is understood that neither those voting delegate the authority, nor those elected receive their authority from the people, but that authority comes from God, since God has revealed that it is by Him that rulers govern (see Prov.8:15-16). This system has existed for centuries within the Church: Each pope has been elected for nearly two thousand years; monks have voted for and elected Abbots (the heads of monasteries) for centuries. But it has always been recognized that the pope and Abbot do not derive their authority from those who voted them in, but from God above. Pope St. Pius X made this principle clear in his condemnation of modern political movements based on the revolutionary notions of liberty and authority:

Those who preside over the government of public affairs may indeed, in certain cases, be chosen by the will and judgment of the multitude without repugnance or opposition to Catholic doctrine. But while this choice marks out the ruler, it does not confer upon him the authority to govern; it does not delegate the power, it designates the person who will be invested with it. Moreover, if the people retains the power, what becomes of authority? A shadow, a myth; there is no more law properly so called, no more obedience." (Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910)
Circumstantial Contradictions

       When a president or some branch of the government or the courts acts beyond the limits of the Constitution (such as the Supreme Court changing laws and, in essence and effect, legislating laws, or Jefferson when he made the Louisiana Purchase, or Lincoln with the disregard of Constitutional rights and the usurpation of powers to make war on fellow Americans, or the sending of military by presidents to support the numerous Masonic, pro-Marxist revolutions in Latin America in the late 19th-early 20th century, etc.), such actions are not actually inconsistent with the revolutionary ideas upon which the Constitution is based. Since the Constitution is not based on objective principles that is, since it is not based on God’s laws which cannot change, it will usually be interpreted according to the ideas of the false "Enlightenment." In other words, it will be interpreted according to the ideas of false liberty, false equality, and authority, including that men may live the way they want and make up their own laws according to what they think works best at that time.

       Let us try to understand this better. What we are saying is that the spirit of the Constitution and its laws (i.e. the revolutionary ideas upon which it is based) goes beyond, and will conflict with, the letter of the actual document itself. This constant conflict will always mark the life of the United States and her people –unless the Constitution is changed. What this means for the future of America is that, with each generation, values and ‘morals’ will change, that is, worsen as the Revolution progresses. In other words, what was considered immoral at the beginning of the 19th century will be considered moral at its end. What was considered immoral at the beginning of the 20th century will be considered moral at its end, and so on. The same goes for what was once illegal, because it was believed to be wrong, will become legal. Is this what in fact has happened? Sadly, the answer is yes.

* look at the condemned status abortion used to have compared to 1973 to present;
* look at the condemned status artificial contraceptives used to have until the early 1920's to present    (it used to be against the law in most states to sell contraceptives!);
* look at the condemned status adultery used to have until the 1960's (it used to be considered a     civil/domestic crime, but was taken off the books of most states);
* look at the condemned status homosexual activities and relationships used to have until the 1990's    to present (now states are considering giving these sodomites marriage status!)
* the same can be said with euthanasia (notice the Terri Schiavo case in Florida); and worse and     worse it gets.

       Unfortunately, the revolution continues to spread since, being immersed within the false "Enlightenment" social fabric and body politic of America, no one can stop it, for most do not see the roots of the evil where they truly exist: the ideological basis for the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution. This is what happens when men base their beliefs, and nations base their laws, not on the unchanging laws of God and the teachings of His Church, but on the revolutionary ideas of the false “Enlightenment.” In a word, the Constitution of the United States is in conflict with itself, and so also will be our government. Thus, by the very nature of revolution, things will only get worse under this system.

Labels:"Liberal & Conservative"

       It should be made clear that what are known as political liberals in the U. S. are those who continue to think and act according to the revolutionary spirit of the Constitution (which knows no bounds), while those who are known as political conservatives are those who think and act according to the revolutionary letter of the Declaration and Constitution. In other words, the liberal is consistent with the spirit behind the Revolutionary documents of the Declaration and the Constitution, while the conservative tends to limit himself to the revolutionary letter of these documents. They are in essence no different in their ultimate goals, for both uphold and promote the revolutionary and anti-Christian ideas of the false “Enlightenment.” The differences between them basically concern methods, tactics, degree of assimilation, and application, etc.

       The political liberal in America is one who wants to promote the rebellious ideas of the false ‘Enlightenment’ upon men in a quick and obvious manner, that is, in a revolutionary manner. A political conservative in America is one who also wants to push the same ideas upon men, but wants to do so in a more gradual and less obvious manner. Conservatives of the American political system (or today's neo-cons) are more deceptive in their promotion of the Revolutionary spirit (and they fool so many Catholics in America). While liberals of this system look and sound worse because they make it obvious that they are promoting the dangerous ideas of the Revolution. The conflicts in the political process which occur between liberals and conservatives are not over the final goals of the Revolution itself, for they all believe in the condemned views of equality, liberty, and authority from the people. The conflicts occurr most often over how such ideas are to be applied -and to what degree- in politics, society, economics, legislation of laws, ethics, and life in general. Political conservatives do not uphold or promote the social Kingship of Christ and His laws over nations and individuals. As a result, Catholics must not be fooled by the American political process.

No Real Accountability

       The U.S. Constitution has often been praised for providing a type of government -the three branched system- that has "checks and balances" upon those who govern and thus provides accountability. But this is another illusion and deception. I will provide two examples which prove this assertion, one which the Constitution positively provides, the other a major omission within it.

       First: It is no exaggeration, but literally true, to assert that, by the Constitution -not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it- the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, as provided by the Constitution itself, shall NEVER BE QUESTIONED as to any disposal they make of them.

       Thus the Constitution (see Art.I, Sec.6) provides that, "during their attendance at the session of their respective houses," and "for any speech or debate (or vote) in either house, they [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place." The entire law-making power is given to these senators and representatives (when acting by two-thirds vote); and Article I, Section 6 protects them from all accountability (and responsibility) for the laws they make since they "shall not be questioned in any other place" for the decisions they make and laws they legislate. The Constitution also enables them to secure the executions of all laws, by giving them the power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to support and/or execute them.

       Thus, the whole power of the government is in their hands (at least on paper), and they are made utterly unaccountable and irresponsible for the use they make of it. -Now, one might say in response that these men are under oath to use their power only within certain limits. I answer, what care have they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly provided by the Constitution itself that they shall never be "questioned," or held responsible whatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing those limits? Therefore, Article I, Section 6, of the U. S. Constitution releases any accountability for those who make the laws of the land.

       Second: There is a major omission in the Constitution about how the entire system is to work in terms of accountability for a certain group of people with no Constitutional power or authority. Those who count the votes (or those who say what the machines -supposedly- counted) have a practical power and authority the authors of the Constitution never considered: the entire people of the United States must place their trust in those who determine the vote count! (At first Congress counted the votes, but this responsibility was given up back in 1877.) And this means that the entire nation must place its trust in those who act in secret. But no such provision exists in the Constitution or any of its amendments. Thus, our entire system is dependent upon something not even contained in the Constitution -the very document upon which our government is supposedly based. Think about this. This means that the laws of the nation and the policies of particular administrations are, indirectly, influenced (if not out-right determined) by those who tell us the (supposed) results of the vote count; and it -both the voting and counting- is all done in secret! The very thing upon which the entire system depends -vote counting- is devoid of accountability. This is a major mistake made by our Founding Fathers; and we are all helpless since the entire system is based upon that which is done in secret -both the voting and the counting.

A FEW LAST WORDS

       Of course, as a major player in the world-wide revolution against the social kingship of Christ and His Church in the temporal realm, the United States is actually ruled by an oligarchy, particularly, plutocrats who serve the One World Order, and not "by the people." (This is precisely what Pope Gregory XVI predicted would happen with liberal republics in his encyclical Mirari Vos.) Thus, the attractive-sounding "sovereignty of the people," is not only a deception in regards to REALITY as God has ordered it, it is a deception used by the real "behind the scenes" rulers to satisfy the appetites and egos of the post-enlightenment masses into believing they have the authority.

       Sadly, we Catholics in America have been more American than we have been Catholic. (See Part three of this series: Americanism and the American Catholic: click below.) This must change. So much of what we take for granted as the very fabric of our social and political lives as Americans is contrary to God's designed order. We must purge from ourselves the acceptance of these presumptions. We know that "Christ is the ruler of the kings of the earth," for He is the King of kings (Apoc[Rev].19:16). We have seen that His rule is rejected in this nation's ruling documents, and by her leaders. Yet, the reign of Christ the King cannot be established in America until He first becomes the true center of our lives and reigns over our thoughts, words, and actions, and this includes how we view our constitutional government and American culture -which presume the false notions of equality, liberty, and authority. We must conform our minds and wills to the true source of authority, and seek to convert America to the One True Religion -the Catholic Faith. But we cannot do this on our own.

       Because we are in a real war -between the kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of Christ on earth- we must consecrate ourselves to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who visited our continent in 1531 to claim it. For with the triumph of the Immaculate Heart -which Our Lady promised at Fatima, Portugal, in 1917 (the year of the Russian Revolution)- will come the re-establishment of the kingdom of Christ the King in the temporal realm.

Opportet illium regnare: "He must reign!"


Papal Documents

       Here is a partial listing of papal documents which either condemn the revolutions against traditional civil governments and the false "Enlightenment" ideas of equality, liberty, and sovereignty of the people (i.e., democracy), or which expound upon the proper Christian principles of civil authority and government.

       Pope Pius VI:
         Quod Aliquantulum (Mar.10, 1791)
         Caritas Quae (April 13, 1791)
          Adeo Nota (April 23, 1791)

      Pope Pius VII:
          Diu Satis (May 15, 1800)
          Post Tam diuturnas (1814)

      Pope Gregory XVI:
          Mirari Vos (Aug.15, 1832)

      Bl.Pope Pius IX:
          Qui Pluribus (Nov.9, 1846)
          Allocution (Dec.9, 1854)
          Nullis Certe Verbis (1860)
          Allocution (June 9, 1862)
          Syllabus of Errors (Dec.8, 1864)

       Pope Leo XIII:
          Inscrutabili Dei (April 21, 1878)
          Diuturnum (June 29, 1881)
          Immortali Dei (Nov.1, 1885)
          Libertas Humana (June 20, 1888)
          Graves de Communi (Jan.18, 1901)

      Pope St. Pius X:
          Vehementer Nos (Feb.11, 1906)
          Our Apostolic Mandate (Aug. 1910)

      Pope Pius XI:
          Quas Primas (Dec.11, 1925)
          Divini Redemptoris (March 19, 1937)          

Go to Part III of Revolution in Ideas and Action: Americansim and the American Catholic



Return to US Catholic History main page

Return to the Tower of David Ministry main page


Tower of David Ministry
1