"The supreme law of the land is God's law, the Natural Law - the Ten Commandments. Society can only truly operate under those guidelines . . . ."

The State is that institution within society that claims the right to tax. Taxation is legalized extortion. It violates the Seventh Commandment. This is the case whether the State takes the form of a republic, a democracy or a monarchy.

The Founding Fathers established a Constitutionally-limited republic, not a democracy (the word "democracy" doesn't even appear in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution), with a government constrained to few and enumerated powers. But even those few and enumerated powers include the power to tax. So Constitutionally-limited republicanism violates the natural law. Plus, Constitutionally-limited republicanism invariably degenerates into democracy, which invariably degenerates into despotism.

To put the dilemma in stark terms, a limited protection racket is still a protection racket. Not only that, but it never stays limited.

I would say monarchy is superior to democracy. Monarchs tend to take longer run views than do democratic leaders. But natural order anarchy is superior to both monarchy and democracy. Under natural order anarchy, the market would provide for policing, dispute resolution and national defense. There is a market for liberty.

I can't do the argument justice here. You may want to check out retired UNLV economics professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe's groundbreaking Democracy--the God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order (Transaction Publishers, 2001). He develops a compelling case.