The United States Is a Union NOT A Sovereign "Nation" - Part II
There are grave Moral Consequences for honoring the misguided belief that the 'Murican "Nation" is a sovereign state
“It seems to be nature's law, that every species of concentrated sovereignty over extensive territories, whether monarchical, aristocratical, [sic]democratical, or mixed, must be [sic]despotiek. In no case has a concentrated power over great territories been sustained, except by mercenary armies; and wherever power is thus sustained, despotism is the consequence.” - John Taylor of Caroline County, New Views of The U.S. Constitution
I. Man was made for civil society
II. To flourish in this society and thus for this society to flourish, God must rule the actions of its temporal leaders and in the heart at the head of every family.
I will contend in Part II of this series that political geography (districting) is an accident (and a contrived one) of sovereignty and that when it comes to human flourishing, geographically dividing political power, though equitable in concept, fails near completely in practice. Why? Well because Man can only love in his country i.e. sovereignty, those things that contribute directly or indirectly to his happiness and these things he knows because they are physically or metaphysically part of his actual life. Place him in the heart of a political district as a result of the accident of his address and this says or honors nothing of his duties to his family which are contingent upon his acceptance of his duties to God.
Year 1 of The New Christendom Daily has been primarily made possible by my 31 year work in Talk Radio & TV and my listeners/viewers. PLEASE consider joining our daily broadcasts on The CRUSADE Channel or Shopping in My Founders Tradin’ Post Store or Making a 1 Time Donation to continue this work here and On-Radio & TV!
Let us consider our political system like it is an apple. If we were to state that the best way to divide one apple between 6 hungry people is by cutting it into 6, semi-circular slices nothing is said about the nutritional substance of the apple slices other than they came from an apple; yet we can simultaneously conclude that the soil the apple tree grew in, its access to water and the sunlight that drove its growth formed the substance of the apple; yet returning to the six slivers of apple, when they are viewed individually, are not apples.
Now let’s consider a bushel of the same apples and for argument’s sake say that our bushel contains 50 apples. Now for a question: is the bushel, a convenient way to organize apples for sale or storage, an apple? Of course it isn’t, only a dunderhead or a Demoncrat would conclude that, and you, fair reader aren’t either; granted that I have yet to explain this seemingly repetitive exercise of wholes and divisible’s from Part I and that is why I included substance in this example because what we are now to discuss is the substance of sovereignties: families and then the substance of families i.e. God. But first, a quick review and explanation of some terms we’ll be using.
Substance = God this includes natural and supernatural law
Apple = a state, nation or country
The Apple Guild = The Church
Apple slices = e.g. congressional districts
A Bushel = The United States
Family = the components of a state
Let’s return briefly to our chart from Part I.
KEY TAKEAWAY: The Federal Gubbmint cannot “delegate” downwards. Why? Because it consists of powers the States have delegated to it. There is simply no other way to properly view this relationship which is nowadays completely out of whack and the Feds invent new authoritarian controls seemingly every day. Ever heard of “unfunded mandates” (they were all the rage in the 90’s and 2000’s before Obama)? THAT is the federales creating a crisis, then inventing a “solve” then delegating the execution of this solve (through bribes called “block grants”) to the states without ever citing the power they were delegated to carry out the “mandate” in the first place. The chart above neatly shows how this is supposed to work.
If I were to change the terms of the image into more Medieval ones I believe that the structure of the temporal order is correct and would remain as shown with the significant exception being that there is no need for a “Federal” power. Now, let’s look at the moral structure of this same civilization. “But…TKD!!!” … your protesteth, Reader, “why is there a moral ‘structure’ and not a plain-Jane ‘system of values’…TKD!?” Well, that one is easy and its being misunderstood is one of the reasons I wanted to write this essay. Morality doesn’t come from one civilizational “system” over another rather it comes from and through a structure of Authority. The central points of this discussion is temporal and Divine Authority with Divine always in all matters owning preference. Several Popes of the last 200 years, seeing the trainwreck that is bottom-up, false-authoritarian civilization coming (it’s nearly ubiquitous now). Leo XIII in his encyclical on the Origins of Civil Power, Diuturnum, describes the correct order of authority and why it must flow this way. Leo Begins with typical clarity.
The long-continued and most bitter war waged against the divine authority of the Church has reached the culmination to which it was tending…
He then lays out clearly the proper hierarchy or structure of power.
And, indeed, nature, or rather God who is the Author of nature, wills that man should live in a civil society…[.] But now, a society can neither exist nor be conceived in which there is no one to govern the wills of individuals, in such a way as to make, as it were, one will out of many, and to impel them rightly and orderly to the common good; therefore, God has willed that in a civil society there should be some to rule the multitude. And this also is a powerful argument, that those by whose authority the State is administered must be able so to compel the citizens to obedience that it is clearly a sin in the latter not to obey. But no man has in himself or of himself the power of constraining the free will of others by fetters of authority of this kind. This power resides solely in God, the Creator and Legislator of all things; and it is necessary that those who exercise it should do it as having received it from God. "There is one lawgiver and judge, who is able to destroy and deliver."1 And this is clearly seen in every kind of power. That that which resides in priests comes from God is so acknowledged that among all nations they are recognized as, and called, the ministers of God. In like manner, the authority of fathers of families preserves a certain impressed image and form of the authority which is in God, "of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named." But in this way different kinds of authority have between them wonderful resemblances, since, whatever there is of government and authority, its origin is derived from one and the same Creator and Lord of the world, who is God.
The chart I made below gives a visual illustration of my example using apples but still applies Leo’s teachings note that the Union of States may NOT exercises moral power i.e. the power to force compliance on a question of morals because 1. it was never his power to delegate or assign only to choose to obey or enforce and 2. because it is a creature of sovereigns and not a sovereign it may only exert temporal authority over those few powers it was delegated from it’s Creators i.e. it can enforce an individual embargo/purchase of goods from a country it has declared war with or act against an individual intentionally blocking a “post road” but even then it would defer to the municipal authority for enforcement. Come to think of it, there is literally no instance outside a case of actual treason where the States granted the Constitution moral authority directly over any of said State’s citizens.
In a properly ordered society, God’s laws are transcendent, obeyed and paramount in the souls and hearts of all; this creates an “obedience to the unenforceable” aura that permeates the lives of all in the society and when disorder occurs i.e. sin, the remedy is clear and known. This may sound too simplistic and simultaneously fantastical but that’s the point, it isn’t of Man’s design but it was designed for Man, we have just taken the modernistic bait and chosen to ignore this, convinced that we are smarter than God and thus don’t even need to consider Him, not even as an adviser any longer and this is why sexual perversions are becoming part of the lives of our children now with no one seeming to be able to propose a “kill switch”. As Leo XIII put it…
If, then, a political government strives after external advantages only, and the achievement of a cultured and prosperous life; if, in administering public affairs, it is wont to put God aside, and show no solicitude for the upholding of moral law, it deflects woefully from its right course and from the injunctions of nature; nor should it be accounted as a society or a community of men, but only as the deceitful imitation or appearance of a society.
I contend and I wager most Reader’s will agree that we are even beyond being a “deceitful imitation…of a society” and instead are an embodiment of a ring of Dante’s Inferno. Yet the way back to Christendom and correctly ordered society is still there for us. I believe it should therefore be every good man’s new primary desideratum to fight for the restoration of this order in the place where he exerts his greatest authority and lead by that greatest example: his home. As Saint Paul tell us “That, as it is written: He that glorieth, may glory in the Lord” and God, through Moses commands us to “Honour thy father and thy mother”. Most people stop here in quoting the Commandment but upon reading and vowing to carry out the rest, we can see how morality is passed from God, through Man to the family.
“…that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.”
“Longlived”, it appears, is an Old Testament metaphor for “flourishing” and we should note that this is God’s plan and wish for us and thus for our familial sovereignty of which our political sovereignties are born of. And what of this moment in which we find ourselves, Men, what is it that drives our sovereignties and the politics they practice? Licentiousness and the base pleasures of the flesh are our gods accordingly as Saint Augustine saw early Christian Rome…
Let the people applaud not those who protect their interests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let no severe duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kings estimate their prosperity, not by the righteousness, but by the servility of their subjects. Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile fear. Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to another man's property, than of that done to one's own person. If a man be a nuisance to his neighbor, or injure his property, family, or person, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him.
This is clearly where we are today but as I have shown, there is a way out and in Part III we shall begin to flesh it out.
God Bless and The Holy Family keep you on this Final Sunday of Advent!
https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=66&ch=4&l=12-#x
Great book! I have the original and the updated edited version by Mike Church. Mike’s book is definitely worth it! It’s a great gift for all the Lincoln lovers and amateur historians in your life! Get this or other great books and movies by Mike at https://shop.mikechurch.com/
I’d also like to mention/discuss the definition of “Union” Joining or being joined, especially in a political context.
-A club, society, or association formed by people with a common interest or purpose.
I don’t recall seeing this in your writings, I think it’s important because it intrinsically rationalizes or validates the States secession. Especially when the North/Federalists referred to their army as a “Union force”. If the country was a Union, then by their own definition States could divest themselves. If we were a nation, it would be a rebellion. However, by there own labeling as a Union, logically any members of said Union would/should be allowed to divest themselves from said Union. Therefore making any attempt to attack or regain States illegal, unlawful and egregious.