Divine Authority, Popular Sovereignty, and the Limits of Political Power
Introduction: What Makes a Sovereign Sovereign?
Political science normally defines sovereignty as the highest governing authority within a particular political order, but that definition immediately raises a deeper question: what, if anything, stands above the sovereign? The God of Gods. A state cannot declare itself sovereign because it owns nothing on the planet that did not come from God. A government does not own the people, land, flora, fauna, and natural resources. It is only a group of elected people. If a group of people come onto my land and claim rights without ownership, the more powerful owner can always reclaim that land by war or through court. The Constitution may describe supreme law, and international institutions may recognize the independence of nations, yet none of those answers necessarily resolves the philosophical origin of political authority, but the bible does. The American founding itself invokes concepts that precede the federal government, including natural law, a Creator, inherent rights, and the consent of the governed. The Declaration of Independence describes Americans as entitled to a “separate and equal station” under the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and says people are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. Once the people have acknowledged God, they are able to govern themselves, but even though they have land, they do not own it. Even if men have and use the penis, we do not own it, and we did not create it; God did. The Declaration gave power to the Constitution to then declare that governments are instituted among human beings and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We the people are a collection of thoughts, minds, and bodies created and owned by God. We have the bible as proof since it was written before the American founding.
This language provides the foundation for a theological theory of sovereignty in which God may be conceptualized as the Sovereign of Sovereigns. Under that theory, political sovereignty is not the highest conceivable form of authority but a subordinate jurisdiction exercised by human beings within a larger natural and divine order. A government can control territory, command armed forces, issue currency, levy taxes, and enact laws, but none of those abilities establishes that government as the ultimate authority over existence itself. If God is understood religiously as the creator and ruler of the universe, then divine sovereignty would logically precede every human jurisdiction because the political community itself exists inside the created order. This is a theological-political truth when we look at lower jurisdictions. The federal government can always use its authority to enter state or local jurisdictions. No doctrine is presently recognized as overriding the United States Constitution except the Holy Bible, since the First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion by acknowledging a faith in the Creator.
The Brooks Brief Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The distinction matters because political science can analyze a claim without treating every part of that claim as existing positive law. The argument developed here is that American courts presently recognize divine law as a superior judicial system capable of nullifying federal statutes. The Pledge of Allegiance states, “One Nation Under God” which includes all branches and was voted on by Congress and signed by the President. This means the United States government has acknowledged God in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. If God gives a judgment as “Judge as the Living and the Dead” for someone to die, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the President (the nation under god) cannot kill the body and bring the body back to life, but God can. This proves he operates in a higher jurisdiction, along with the language in the Pledge of Allegiance. Instead, the question is whether the assumptions contained in natural-law and religious theories of sovereignty create a conceptual hierarchy extending beyond constitutional government. Under that framework, sovereignty can be imagined as a ladder: constitutional authority beneath popular sovereignty, popular sovereignty beneath natural law, and natural law ultimately beneath divine sovereignty. God, within this model, becomes not merely another sovereign but the source from which the concept of legitimate sovereignty ultimately descends.
I. Independence Came Before the Constitution
The United States did not become independent because the Constitution was written in 1787. The Declaration of Independence preceded the Constitution by eleven years and announced that the former colonies were “Free and Independent States,” possessing the power to wage war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and perform other acts independent states could rightfully perform. The Declaration also grounded the legitimacy of government in the consent of the governed rather than simply in the authority of an existing government. The National Archives accordingly describes the Declaration as stating principles underlying American government and identity while noting that the document itself is not legally binding in the way the Constitution is today. This is an attempt to distance themselves from God, but sovereignty is granted in the Declaration of Independence, and without a sovereign people a sovereign-less constitution is worthless, much like fiat currency not backed by anything. So, in God We Trust became a slogan on federal reserve currency because we still rely upon God for rain and more for food.
This chronology creates an important distinction between sovereignty and constitutional organization. The political community claiming independence (on God’s land) must fight to win independence from the sovereign. The present Constitution, and representatives acting for that political community, later designed a constitutional structure for exercising governmental authority over their mortal citizens, but not God. The Constitution itself reinforces popular sovereignty with its opening declaration, “We the People,” which was a people that gained sovereignty from the Declaration of Independence’s mention of a Creator who gave rights. The assertion that the people “do ordain and establish this Constitution” is true, but they must be sovereign because more money does not give someone control over the next person, only the consent of the people. God is constrained by royal birth, but politicians rule by the elected people. Royals are born into office, not elected. The man-made legal documents in America therefore present the Constitution as something ordained by the politicians rather than portraying the people as creatures created by God. The Constitution attempts to replace God, but paper written by men in the 1700s cannot create life, nor energy/time. Without energy, nations, people, animals, and everything else will fail.
From a political-science perspective, this distinction means that a constitution and sovereignty should not automatically be treated as synonymous. A constitution organizes, delegates, restricts, and institutionalizes political authority, while sovereignty addresses the deeper question of who possesses ultimate political authority within the system. American constitutionalism places that constituent authority in “the People,” while the Declaration simultaneously invokes a Creator, natural law, inherent rights, and consent as principles preceding ordinary government. A theological sovereignty theory can therefore ask one additional question that constitutional law generally does not attempt to answer: if the people possess authority to establish government, from where does the moral status of the people themselves originate? The answer is clear: our moral compass is guided by our life’s choices and God. The knowledge of good and evil gives us the ability to think with free will, and we experience positive reinforcement for good acts and negative reinforcement for bad ones. However, since God is omnipresent, he must be defeated on all his land/planets to take his sovereign land, or he can always come back.
II. The Creator Above the Created Government
The Declaration offers one possible philosophical answer by saying human beings possess rights endowed by their Creator. That formulation does not establish a theocracy, nor does it identify a particular religion as the law of the United States. It nevertheless places certain rights conceptually before government because government exists to secure rights that the Declaration says were already possessed. In this sense, government is presented as an instrument rather than the creator of every legitimate human entitlement. The theological argument can extend this logic by contending that if the Creator precedes humanity, and humanity precedes its governments, then government cannot logically be the highest conceivable source of authority. In all honesty, the government is governed by “we the people,” but all people are subject to time.
This produces a proposed hierarchy of authority: Divine Sovereignty → Natural Law and inherent rights → Popular Sovereignty → Constitutional Government → Statutory and administrative authority. The first stages of that hierarchy are philosophical or theological propositions, while the latter stages describe recognizable concepts within American political theory and law. The distinction is essential because the United States legal system currently identifies the Constitution as the supreme law within the American legal order. The National Archives summarizes Article VI in precisely those terms. Divine sovereignty therefore operates here as a theory about the ultimate origin and limits of legitimate authority, not as a substitute description of what an American court presently treats as controlling law.
The resulting concept may be called the Sovereign of Sovereigns Doctrine. A president exercises authority within an office, a legislature within delegated legislative powers, a nation within its territorial and international jurisdiction, and humanity within the physical environment that permits civilization to exist. God, under classical monotheistic theology, is not similarly dependent upon a human institution for jurisdiction. Divine authority would consequently be conceived as transcending federal, international, global, hypothetical galactic, intergalactic, and universal political jurisdictions. The proposition is straightforward within its theological premises: a government governing part of creation cannot possess greater ultimate authority than the creator of the order within which that government exists.
III. Free Exercise and the Boundary Between Divine and Civil Law
The First Amendment adds another dimension because American constitutional government expressly protects religious exercise. Its actual language provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” before separately protecting speech, press, assembly, and petition. Religious liberty therefore protects an unusually broad domain of conscience, worship, belief, and religious practice. At the same time, current constitutional doctrine does not establish that describing conduct as religious automatically removes that conduct from otherwise applicable law. Supreme Court doctrine has distinguished protection against governmental targeting of religion from a general right to disregard every neutral and generally applicable law.
That legal distinction becomes especially important when divine law and civil law allegedly conflict. Religions have developed concepts of sin, divine command, judgment, duty, and moral prohibition for thousands of years, and many traditions understand these obligations as transcending the commands of governments. A believer may therefore regard divine law as superior to federal law in American courts. This belief recognizes that faith has an independent legal jurisdiction (Divine) capable of invalidating federal authority by stating “One Nation Under God” in the federal pledge of allegiance proposed by a bill in Congress and signed by the President. The most recent alteration of its wording came on Flag Day (June 14) in 1954, when the words “under God” were added by the 83rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Conversely, government cannot simply suppress a religion because officials dislike its theology. Supreme Court precedent recognizes strong constitutional protection against laws that target religious beliefs or religious conduct for discriminatory treatment.
The Sovereign of Sovereigns does not recognize any challenger on his property when he whips their ass and makes them pick huckleberries for 3 weeks for deviation from divine law with their “sin”. Within American law, the Constitution remains supreme with sovereignty. Without sovereignty, no one can determine who’s in charge. Within a theological worldview, however, a believer may regard divine authority as superior to the Constitution itself because God is understood to precede both the nation and humanity. Those propositions can coexist even though they occupy different systems of authority, but when force is applied, the opposer loses or dies. To the victor go the spoils.
IV. Divine Law Before Earthly Law
The temporal argument for divine sovereignty reaches substantially farther than American history. In many theological systems, divine law does not begin with the formation of a terrestrial government and may not even begin with humanity. Concepts involving rebellion against divine authority, angels, cosmic judgment, creation, and sin are presented within religious traditions as belonging to a history extending beyond human political institutions. Under those beliefs, divine jurisdiction would precede Washington, Rome, Babylon, and civilization itself. No legislature could therefore claim chronological priority over the divine order from which religious law supposedly originates.
This produces an important political-theory distinction between enacted law and pre-political law. Congress creates statutes through constitutionally prescribed procedures, while natural-law theories contend that some standards of right and wrong exist independently of legislative enactment. Divine-law theories go further by locating the source of those standards in a transcendent authority. A statute can be repealed by another political institution possessing the necessary authority, but a divine command, according to this theological model, cannot be repealed merely because a human legislature votes against it. Human institutions would possess delegated or territorial authority, while divine authority would be treated as intrinsic.
The theory cannot therefore extend jurisdiction conceptually beyond Earth. A federal system in another time or place must consent to being governed since it is federal jurisdiction, and not a global or Universal one. A federal government from the past/future must submit to the jurisdiction in the present when travelling time. A federal government governs within a federation, international law concerns relations among states and other recognized actors, and a hypothetical future interplanetary system might develop institutions governing several worlds. Yet none of those territorial expansions would answer the theological question of ultimate authority, unless you understand God is energy/time. If God is defined as sovereign over creation itself, adding another planet, galaxy, or political federation merely enlarges the territory governed by subordinate institutions. Under the Sovereign of Sovereigns model, no quantity of subordinate jurisdictions can collectively become greater than the authority from which existence itself is claimed to originate.
V. Fiat Money, Faith, and Material Reality
Modern American money introduces another useful distinction between political authority and material resources. The dollar operates as fiat currency, meaning its value is not legally redeemable for a fixed quantity of gold or another commodity. Its functioning depends on institutions, economic production, taxation, monetary policy, legal arrangements, financial markets, and confidence in the issuing political and economic system. Fiat money is money backed by “faith,” not tangible goods or services. So, it’s practically worthless unless bartered for something of value. Fiat money or fiat currency is a type of government-issued currency, generally created by a central bank, authorized by government regulation to be legal tender but not backed by a precious metal, such as gold or silver, nor by any other tangible asset or commodity.
It cannot eliminate material constraints merely by creating units of account. Dollars can price water, food, energy, minerals, land, and labor, but currency cannot substitute for those resources when the underlying physical supply disappears. A country experiencing catastrophic crop failure cannot manufacture wheat simply by printing additional dollars. A civilization without sufficient accessible water cannot solve the physical shortage merely by increasing nominal wealth. Money therefore represents claims within an economic system, while natural resources remain part of the material foundation that makes economic activity possible.
A theological interpretation can push the argument one step further. If nature itself belongs to the created order, then the resources supporting governments ultimately exist outside the government’s ability to manufacture from nothing. Drought, famine, disease, geological catastrophe, asteroid impacts, and other extreme natural events demonstrate the vulnerability of political institutions to forces beyond their control. Extinction is scientifically established as a phenomenon in Earth’s history, although science does not establish that particular extinction events constitute divine punishment. A theological framework may interpret catastrophe through divine providence or judgment, while political science can independently observe the narrower fact that sovereignty does not grant a government sovereignty over nature itself.
VI. Extinction as the Ultimate Limit on Political Power
The extinction of species exposes the difference between legal authority and existential power. A legislature can declare something unlawful, but legislation cannot order an asteroid to change course, repeal the laws of physics, or guarantee that a species survives indefinitely. Governments can develop planetary-defense systems, environmental protections, medicine, disaster planning, and other technologies that reduce particular risks. They nevertheless remain organizations operating within physical systems they did not create. Political sovereignty is consequently immense within its jurisdiction but extraordinarily limited when measured against nature.
The theological argument interprets this limitation as evidence of hierarchy. If God possesses authority over the natural order itself, while government possesses authority only over people and institutions within that order, divine sovereignty would belong to a fundamentally different category from state sovereignty. The state commands through law, enforcement, legitimacy, and institutions. God, according to the theological model, possesses authority over existence, creation, life, death, and the conditions permitting political communities to exist. This is why the phrase Sovereign of Sovereigns means something more expansive than simply calling God a particularly powerful king.
Claims connecting specific disasters or extinction events to divine judgment, however, remain theological interpretations rather than empirically demonstrated conclusions of political science. Maintaining that distinction actually strengthens the conceptual analysis. Political science can establish that states depend upon ecological and material conditions beyond their complete control without claiming knowledge of why a particular natural disaster occurred. Theology can separately ask whether those conditions themselves fall within divine sovereignty. The two disciplines can therefore examine the same vulnerability from different epistemological starting points.
VII. Immortality and the Theory of Divine Warfare
The concept of an immortal sovereign radically changes conventional theories of warfare, but only within the assumptions of the theological model. Human warfare is constrained by casualties, logistics, recruitment, morale, industrial capacity, political legitimacy, economic resources, and ultimately mortality. Governments wage war knowing that soldiers can die and that military losses can eventually destroy the state’s capacity to continue fighting. Political leaders themselves are mortal, and governments can collapse when their institutions lose the ability to command obedience. Conventional strategic theory is therefore built around scarcity and vulnerability.
A literally immortal divine sovereign would violate those assumptions. If such a being could not permanently die and possessed the supernatural ability to restore deceased followers to life, ordinary attrition would no longer operate in the conventional manner. This is a theological hypothetical, not an empirically established military capability. Within the hypothetical, however, warfare against such an authority becomes strategically asymmetrical because one side remains constrained by finite personnel and material resources while the other does not. Traditional concepts such as deterrence, attrition, replacement rates, and acceptable casualties would consequently require fundamental reconsideration.
This thought experiment also illustrates why political science normally separates supernatural claims from operational military analysis. States can measure troop strength, weapons inventories, industrial production, logistics, geography, and economic endurance, but supernatural immortality or resurrection can only be incorporated into an empirical military balance with independently verifiable evidence, such as God. The concept can nevertheless function productively as political theology. It asks what sovereignty would mean if the highest authority were not subject to the mortality and material limitations governing ordinary states. The answer is that such sovereignty would differ categorically, rather than merely quantitatively, from human political power.
VIII. Force, Authority, and the Fall of Governments
History demonstrates that constitutional texts alone cannot guarantee the survival of the governments they establish. Governments can collapse through revolution, invasion, civil war, institutional disintegration, negotiated dissolution, or loss of effective control. Political science distinguishes de jure authority, meaning lawful or formally recognized authority, from de facto control, meaning actual control exercised in practice. A defeated government may lose effective control even while its legal claims continue to receive recognition. Conversely, a victorious armed movement may exercise effective territorial control without immediately receiving lawful or international recognition.
For this reason, saying that a government defeated by force automatically “loses its constitution” is too absolute as a description of existing political science or international law. Instead, the victor of the war chooses which constitution the citizens may use. Since they have lost the war, what other option does the nations/nations have except to die? Once dead (which was proven in war), they are subject to the next jurisdiction away from Earth. Constitutions can survive occupation, governments can operate in exile, states can regain territory, and international recognition may continue despite “temporary” military defeat. Once a majority of the soldiers are dead under a military siege with the flag at the capital flipped upside down, the land is lost to the loser and won by the victor. Force demonstrates capacity, but capacity and legitimate sovereignty are not identical concepts. The American Declaration itself reflects this distinction because it did not merely announce military separation from Britain; it offered an argument explaining why political separation was legitimate.
The Sovereign of Sovereigns theory nevertheless raises a deeper philosophical proposition. If sovereignty ultimately comes from an authority higher than government, then political institutions cannot make themselves metaphysically supreme simply by declaring themselves supreme. The power must be proven, since God is omnipotent. Their constitutions remain instruments for organizing human government, not necessarily statements about the ultimate structure of existence. Under a divine-sovereignty worldview, the destruction or replacement of a political regime would not destroy divine authority because that authority was never created by the regime. Human sovereignty would therefore be contingent while divine sovereignty would be intrinsic and supreme.
IX. Can Sovereignty Be Revoked?
The Declaration provides a distinctly American answer to one version of this question. It says governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and maintains that people may alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of the purposes for which government exists. That is a theory of popular constituent authority rather than a legal mechanism allowing any individual to unilaterally dissolve the contemporary United States. It nevertheless demonstrates that the American founding did not conceptualize government as possessing unconditional authority independent of the people.
Divine-sovereignty theory adds another layer above popular sovereignty. If rights are endowed by a Creator, natural law precedes political organization, and humanity itself possesses no authority independent of the created order, then the theory can characterize state sovereignty as conditional rather than absolute. Under that theological premise, God would possess the authority to withdraw whatever legitimacy ultimately derives from divine order. This is the meaning of saying that the Sovereign of Sovereigns can “revoke” sovereignty, but the proposition belongs to political theology rather than a currently recognized constitutional procedure. Many Kings and Queens may have been stripped of their titles in the past to prove that it can be revoked, like Prince Andrew’s.
The difference between those propositions should remain explicit. Under existing American constitutional law, neither an individual’s religious declaration nor a theological claim automatically terminates federal sovereignty or nullifies the Constitution. Under the theoretical model developed here, however, the Constitution occupies only one level within a much larger hierarchy of authority. Political sovereignty governs institutions; popular sovereignty establishes political authority; natural law supplies pre-political principles; and divine sovereignty represents the proposed ultimate source. Revocation at the divine level would consequently mean the loss of ultimate legitimacy in the theological sense, not the filing of some constitutional instrument recognized by federal courts.
Thanks for reading The Brooks Brief Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it.
X. The Sovereign of Sovereigns Doctrine
The Sovereign of Sovereigns Doctrine can therefore be stated as a political-theological proposition: no created political authority can possess greater ultimate sovereignty than the authority responsible for the existence of the sovereign, its people, its territory, and the natural order upon which all of them depend. Under American founding philosophy, the people possess constituent authority to establish government, while the Declaration simultaneously speaks of natural law, a Creator, inherent rights, and governmental power derived from popular consent. Under contemporary “constitutional” law, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the United States and the Free Exercise Clause protects religion without automatically converting religious commands into superior civil law, unless a conflict exists. Since God can end the world and bring it back without the offending country, we see him as the victor with energy/time under his control. America can never own time, and will never have time to.
Its answer is a hierarchy rather than a contradiction. Federal supremacy answers which rules prevail within the federal constitutional system. Popular sovereignty answers who possesses constituent political authority within American political theory. Natural-law theory asks whether rights and moral principles can precede government. Divine sovereignty asks the final question: whether even the people themselves exist beneath an authority they did not create. If the answer is yes, then God can be conceptualized not simply as another sovereign competing with nations but as the Sovereign of Sovereigns (King of Kings), categorically above the entire architecture of human jurisdiction, much like the God of Gods.
That conclusion does not require political science to certify supernatural propositions as empirical facts. Rather, it demonstrates what follows logically once the theological premises are adopted. Constitutions can organize nations, governments can command armies, central banks can issue currency, and international organizations can establish rules among states, but all remain institutions operating inside a larger physical and philosophical order. The American founding documents themselves leave room for discussion of Creator-endowed rights, natural law, popular sovereignty, and limited government, even though modern American law does not treat theological claims as automatically overriding constitutional law. The enduring question posed by the Sovereign of Sovereigns Doctrine is therefore not merely who governs America, but what, if anything, stands above every institution that claims the authority to govern? God.
Leave a Reply