The Limits of Power

On November 19, 2025, a handful of Democratic lawmakers released a video urging members of America’s military to defy orders that conflict with their sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Not unexpectedly, the video has triggered a political tsunami with some commentators labelling it as seditious and calling for arrest and prosecution, including the death penalty, for its creators and distributors. It is worth reproducing the text in full:

"We know this is a time of incredible stress for all of you. An administration is purposefully manufacturing a conflict between you and the American people. We know you took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. We took that same oath. We want to remind you that your oath is not to a president, a political party, or a person. Your oath is to the Constitution. 

“The threats against our Constitution are now domestic. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one is required to follow an order that is in violation of the law or the Constitution. To all of you in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Space Force, and within the intelligence community and law enforcement, we need you to be vigilant. And we support you. You swore an oath. Keep it to uphold the laws of this country and the Constitution. We are counting on you."

Wow! Regardless of your opinion of this particular video, “Wow!” But it is essential to view this in the context of a millennia old debate on the limits of political power. Our story begins 3250 years ago, immediately following the Hebrews’ Exodus from Egypt. 

The newly liberated ‘slaves’ had no tradition or training in statecraft. They spent the next 40 years wandering Sinai working out a code of laws and an infrastructure for the execution and enforcement of those laws. These 40 years constitute what is perhaps the first, and certainly the best known, iteration of Rousseau’s famous state of nature. 

Interestingly, the resulting Old Testament documents, the so-called Pentateuch, make no mention of a ‘state’ in the modern sense of the word. It was understood that any legitimate social order needed to be fundamentally theocratic. 

The Book of Judges chronicles the quarter-millennium between the death of Moses’ successor, Joshua, and the coronation of King Saul. It repeats four times the anarchist meme: “In those days Israel had no king. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (Judges 17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25)

But 250 years of relative peace and prosperity were not enough for the restless Israelites. Like people everywhere, they longed for power…and riches (“other people’s money” – Danny DeVito). They were not content to live in peace with their neighbors; they had to dominate them. 

Parenthesis:  Can anyone think of any more recent instance(s) of a nation, born pursuing freedom from imperialism, eventually imposing its own version of imperialism on others? 

But back to 1000 BCE. The last legit judge, Samuel, warned the Israelites against the institution of monarchy:

“This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 

“He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.” (1 Samuel 8: 11 – 17)

To no avail. First came Saul, then came David and Solomon, followed by a succession  of monarchs characterized, shall we say,  by ‘uneven quality and virtue’.  400 years later, it was Israel that was conquered and its most prominent citizens enslaved (in Babylon).

A millennium after Samuel, Jesus’ tormentors fell back on the same ancient dichotomy in an effort to catch him out: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” Knowing that a simple yes or no answer would expose him to either Roman or Jewish law, Jesus came up with the enigmatic meme, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)

Almost immediately, this became the touchstone of Christian civil philosophy, and it remains so today. Of course, its genius lies precisely in the fact that no one knows exactly what it means! As stated, it’s hard to imagine anyone, from Bakunin to Putin, disagreeing; but it begs the question, “What is Caesar’s?” 

Fast forward 1200 years to Thomas Aquinas, the thousand petal lotus of medieval philosophy: “Human law is only law by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and it is thus manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such cases it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.” God 1, Caesar 0!

But 400 years after that, King James the First of England, perhaps channeling Pontius Pilate, reversed course, conflating God with Caesar.

“Kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called Gods... Kings are justly called Gods, for they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth. For if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king…God hath power to create, or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all, and to be judged nor accountable to none…And the like power have Kings...(to) make of their subjects like men at the chess, pawn to take a bishop or a knight…” 

James’ words are well chosen. Using a chess analogy he slyly turns the spotlight on the clergy and the nobility as the ultimate threats to royal hegemony and he emphasizes the role of the ‘commoner’ (pawn) in bolstering the monarchy. 

James is following a playbook familiar to us all: demonize the 1% and convince the 99% that the 1% is to blame for their ‘wretched lives’ and that it is an all-powerful central government, the monarch, that will come to their aid.

James, and centuries of politicians after him, turned Samuel inside out. Lenin, Mussolini, Peron, et al. made their marks by appearing to champion the cause of the 99 against the 1. 

Consensus: They created a new 1% to exploit the old 1%...and the remaining 98%. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” (The Who) God 0, Caesar 1!

Concluding James: “As to dispute what God may do is blasphemy, so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do…” 

James has brilliantly articulated the doctrine known as the Divine Right of Kings. As a child attending a parochial school (RCC) in the US in the 50’s, it was James’ version of political philosophy we were taught, not Samuel’s or Aquinas’. 

But the final word on the subject came just 125 years ago years from the chair of Pope Leo XIII:

“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 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. (ID #3, see below.)  

“Whatever be the nature of government, rulers must bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world and must set Him before themselves in the administration of the State. (ID #4)

“If the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own authority and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is not justice, is null.” (D #15)

“Civil laws…so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force (RN #11)… Laws bind only when they are in accordance with right reason and, hence, with the eternal law of God.” (RN #52)

Civil laws derive their binding force, neither from the Divine Right of Kings (James), nor from the Consent of the Governed (Locke, et al.), not even from the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Marx, Lenin, Mao). Civil laws derive their binding force, when they do, by compatibility with the Law of God (aka Torah, Written & Oral, Right Reason and Natural Law). God > Ceasar! after all. 

D = Diuturnum, 1881

ID = Immortale Dei, 1885

RN = Rerum Novarum, 1891

***

The Oath of the Horatii shows three Roman brothers extending their arms toward their father as they swear to fight to the death for their city, embodying total devotion to civic duty. David contrasts their rigid, masculine resolve with the grief-stricken women nearby, whose family ties guarantee tragedy regardless of the battle’s outcome. The painting ultimately portrays the moral tension between public obligation and private suffering, highlighting the heavy sacrifices demanded by honor and leadership.