Yea, I'm with the one who is confused...

What does this mean? Is it basically stating that each state can be a nation of itself, so to speak?

Somebody help me understand this and stop bantering...

_________________
RICH

Ruach34 wrote:

_________________
Christiaan

_________________
Jessara

KrispyKrittr wrote:

_________________
Christiaan

I found The Truth Project helpful in thinking this through a bit and I recomend it. http://www.thetruthproject.org/

[b][u]From a biblical worldview [/b][/u], sovereignty is important to God. It is a matter of headship. God is not silent on “the separation of authority” and relationship. The fall did not obliterate the image of God “stamped” on us and our social systems show that in the way we have established spheres of sovereignty and relationship. This is particularly true in the US structure that has some biblical truths as its foundation.

So blurring the boundaries, usurping authority matters greatly. When the State usurps the authority of the family, for example, people notice and some resist. When Labor seeks to have authority over (become) the State, people notice and some resist. When a wife seeks headship in a family, husbands notice and some resist.

I am encouraged by this news that someone has noticed the blurring/usurping of the federal government’s authority to dictate to States. Not because some State might divorce itself from the US, but because a real principle upon which to resist inroads of God-lessness in the US seems to have been re-discovered. I wonder what authority Oklahoma delegated to the US that, in their [u]careful oversight of that delegated authority[/u], they were moved to remind the US of this relationship principle. It is unlikely that the US Supreme Court, addressing Constitutional issues, could find a way to [u]legislate[/u] against the constitution. This is clever given the Judicial branch’s usurping of Legislative authority in recent years here. Of course it could backfire.

I understand Krispy's point and he's right about the technical aspects of state's rights and it being closer to constitutional fact. I'm removing my former post because I thought it was a bit harsh. I will say this however. Slavery may have not been the paramount issue in the natural but God still ended it so perhaps it was a paramount issue for Him. We all know that God also used a man named William Wilberforce to deal with the slave trade years before. Perhaps this back to back victory over slavery was no coincidence in terms of what God wanted despite the fallout of all issues involved.

P.S. to my previous:

To those of you that don't know history: If I control your understanding of history, I control your future. God is involved in history. the Bible is history. Seriously! Check out The Truth Project.

Edited: I understand wanting to "rush to the end". I am unclear where, in myself, that comes from. And lets remember gentelness.

Krispy is right. Slavery was not the exclusive reason for the war but I would like to add, that although slavery was not the singular cause of the Civil War it was at the heart of the sectional impasse between North and South in 1860 and had been a problem for many years before.

Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office. The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was "the cornerstone of the Confederacy" after Southern states seceded. After Southern defeat, Stephens said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights, and became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause. Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause.

All but one inter-regional crisis involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause and a twenty year extension of the African Slave Trade in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846), the Gag rule that prevented discussion in Congress of petitions for ending slavery from 1835–1844, the acquisition of Texas as a slave state in 1845 and Manifest Destiny as an argument for gaining new territories where slavery would become an issue after the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), which resulted in the Compromise of 1850.

Source [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War]here[/url]

Sorry for getting off subject. Go OK!

_________________
TJ