After the initial shock of people hearing I am a monarchist, the next line is, “I don’t have a problem with monarchy provided it is a constitutional monarchy.” In other words, as long as the Constitution is all that matters, then you can have a king. One of the first complaints given against monarchy is an (out of context) appeal to 1 Samuel 8. God condemns kings, so it is argued, because kings are necessarily absolutist and will be a substitute for God.
But is not the Constitution equally a temptation to replace God? Listen carefully to the rhetoric of the Constitution Party and Ron Paul supporters. These people honestly believe that if the “Constitution were restored” (except for amendments 14 and a few others, while keeping the 1st Amendment on probation), then America would see an age of peace and justice. Besides the outright naivete of such a view (which will be discussed in detail below), how is this view not also idolatry? Can a piece of paper save?
What would happen the next day if such a thing happened? Nothing. The culture would be just as decadent. Corrupt judges and officials would continue to ignore the Constitution. This god is found wanting. Ironically, the game isn’t over yet. As St Gregory Nazianzus noted in his Third Theological oration, democracy leads to anarchy. I will add the next premise: anarchy cannot exist in a vacuum. It must see the accompaniment of a real absolutist ruler. The mob is fickle and easily persuaded. In hoping for a “republic” and “constitution,” divorced from the ancient liturgy, Constitutional man is (ironically) left with the form of government he most hated! Actually, it is worse than he originally feared. The monarchist interlocutor never argued for a tyrannical ruler, nor did he want to see the rights of man abolished (that was a later, post-Enlightenment view). But instead of a just monarch, the constitutionalist is left with the tyranny of 50% + 1.