Doesn't this vow by implication say that you are above the law?

An ontological distinction should be made here. One single and unique word -- law -- is used to name universal principles and values, and also to designate circumstantial choices made to regulate and mediate society (in particular by means of case law). In order to get rid of this ambiguity, let's name them Universal Laws for the first case, and circumstantial laws for the second.

Many circumstantial laws contradict Universal Laws. There are two main reasons for this. One is that circumstantial laws are often established before Universal Laws are declared or recognized. Circumstantial laws thus carry past ideologies that are not adapted to our epoch (this is for instance the case with the Napoleon Code in France). The other reason is that systemic or secondary effects of a circumstantial law can provoke a result that is in contradiction with Universal Laws, which is exactly the case with conventional money. Its devastating systemic effects place it in contradiction with Universal Laws such as equality of opportunity and the right to the safety of the person, those being the foundations of modern constitutions. As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2, 3, 4, 17 and 25 are not respected because of the current monetary order.

The Vow of Wealth works with Universal Laws, and it postulates their priority over circumstantial laws.