Continuing from Q: What is the Role of "Quid" in "ne quid obstet"?, with Livius (9.8.6):
"ne quid divini humanive obstet quominus iustum piumque de integro ineatur bellum."
"so that there may be no restriction, human or divine, to prevent your entering on the war without violating either religion or justice."
[Translation: D. Spillan (1849). Available on Perseus, Livy 9.8.6]
"let nothing, human or divine, obstruct the war which will be entered into anew, so that religion and justice are not (violated)."
The verb "obsto" takes the dative case (Oxford); "usually takes the dative" (Wiki); here, direct object, "war" = "bellum" is in the accusative case.
Why is this?
An aside, if I may: "violated" is understood. How does the reader know that this is the meaning? It has already been stated: "let nothing, human or divine, obstruct the war..." implying that "religion and justice" are to swept aside along with anything else that may get in the way, of the war.