The Christian nationalist rationale for breaking the US Constiitution

CONTEXT

From the amicus brief the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed in the case United States v. Skrmetti in which the supreme court court considers the question: "Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?":

I. Catholic Teaching That Transgender Body Manipulation Is Morally Wrong Is Not Discriminatory. 

Catholic teaching about the human body and the application of that teaching to transgender body manipulation is not based on animus or prejudice, but on anthropological and metaphysical principles that are both divinely revealed and accessible to reason. ....

.... Transgender body manipulation treats the human body as an object that a person can use and dispose of at will; it views the human body as a mistake to be corrected; and it sacrifices healthy sexual functioning when it is not necessary to do so in service of the whole body. For these reasons, Catholic teaching deems transgender body manipulations immoral and contrary to God’s will, not out of animus or prejudice, but on the basis of principles grounded in reason and revelation, long-held and universally applied by the Catholic Church.

I think the bishops are fibbing. Their feelings are based on both animus and prejudice.

THE RADICAL RIGHT ARGUMENT 

FOR CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY

The authoritarian American CN (Christian nationalism) wealth & power movement aggressively uses federal courts to de-secularize and Christianize the law, government, public and higher education, commerce and anything else it can reach in court. Although most Christians are not supporters of CN, the movement already is frighteningly powerful. Starting next month, it will acquire a lot more power than it has now. 

Russell Vought, has been nominated for a powerful position in DJT's government. Trump named Vought to run the Office of Management and Budget, a federal office that holds vast power because it controls the purse strings for the entire federal government. Vought, a key author of Project 2025, is a Christian nationalist who believes the federal government's job is to impose a "biblical worldview" by fiat.

Here is Vought's rationale for a non-trivial degree of authoritarian Christian theocracy in what he calls America's "post-constitutional moment":

Q2: I wanted you to find sources outside of the linked-to article that describes Vought's rationale.

A2: Russell Vought's rationale for arguing that the US is in a "post-constitutional moment" is based on several key points:

1. Vought claims that over the past century, the United States has experienced "nothing short of a quiet revolution" that has abandoned the true meaning and force of the Constitution. He argues that the country has become a "post-constitutional regime" that no longer adheres to the separation of powers among the three branches of government as laid out by the framers.

2. He asserts that power now lies primarily with the executive branch, specifically with unelected bureaucrats and civil servants in various agencies, whom he sees as part of a "permanent ruling class" of leftist elites.

3. Vought believes that this leftist revolution has already succeeded, rendering conservative efforts to preserve the constitutional order futile. He argues that the "woke and weaponized" leftist regime is "now increasingly arrayed against the American people," treating patriotic parents as "domestic terrorists" and "putting political opponents in jail."

4. He contends that the conservative legal movement, including the Federalist Society and originalist judges, has become a "Praetorian Guard for this post-constitutional structure" rather than defending true constitutional principles.

5. Vought likens the current situation to critical moments in American history such as 1776 and 1860, suggesting that the country faces an existential threat requiring revolutionary action.

6. He argues that this "post-constitutional" state justifies taking extraordinary measures, including potentially using the military for domestic law enforcement and significantly altering the structure of government agencies.

Vought's conclusion from this rationale is that conservatives need to embrace what he calls "radical constitutionalism," which involves going beyond traditional legal and political constraints to enact their will and restore what he sees as the true constitutional order

Q3: How does Vought's view of the executive branch differ from traditional conservative perspectives?

A3: Vought's view of the executive branch differs significantly from traditional conservative perspectives in several key ways:

1. Rejection of constitutional constraints: Vought argues that the U.S. is in a "post-constitutional moment," claiming that the constitutional order has been destroyed by a leftist revolution. This contrasts with traditional conservative views that emphasize adherence to and preservation of the Constitution.

2. Expanded presidential power: Vought advocates for an "energetic president with the power to bend the executive branch to the will of the American people". This goes beyond traditional conservative views of limited government and separation of powers.

3. Dismantling the administrative state: While many conservatives criticize bureaucracy, Vought's approach is more radical. He aims to "gut the 'administrative state' from within" by removing federal employees perceived as obstacles to the president's agenda.

4. Etc.

Three points:

• Although Vought claims he wants the president exercise power to bend the executive branch to the will of the American people, a lot of what Vought and DJT want in terms of specific civil rights and other policies are opposed by majority public opinion, about 57%. A hallmark of American radical right authoritarianism is that, when circumstances permit, majority public opinion is ignored and policies most do not want are imposed if authoritarian leaders want it. That comes from the definition of authoritarianism.

• Although Vought claims that we are a "post-constitutional regime", allegedly by violating the separation of powers among the three branches of government the framers laid out, that is sheer blithering nonsense. The framers strongly disagreed about separation of powers. They never resolved their disagreements in their lifetimes. Reputable historians have made that very clear. Also clear is that fact that to prevent tyranny, the Framers implemented a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. That was designed to keep one branch from becoming too powerful. Vought's disingenuous argument about a powerful executive flies directly in the face of separation of powers the Framers established.

• DJT lied to us when he said he knew nothing about and no one related to Project 2025. Vought is deeply related to it, being a key author. Nonetheless DJT also said he hated some of what was in it. He flat out lied on both points. That's no surprise because he's a chronic liar. MAGA elites lied about it too:

Project 2025 is actually "the agenda," a prominent MAGA figure has said, despite Donald Trump repeatedly denying any connection with it during the election campaign.

And ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon has strongly endorsed the comment by conservative political commentator Matt Walsh, who said on X, formerly Twitter: "Now that the election is over I think we can finally say that yeah actually Project 2025 is the agenda." Walsh's post had 5.9 million views and 6,800 reposts. (emphasis added)

By now, the truly authoritarian intent of both DJT and CN are clear and not rationally deniable. The open questions are how fast will they go and how far will they get.