Problems will persist to be sure, But problems will also be unique to the area.. and because of that they can be effectively addressed.

If only it was so easy. As a 10th supporter, I will still concede that many of the same problems we expereience will persist – even under a return to strict Constitutional principles.

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that it’s going to be ‘easy.’ Including Larry, and certainly not me. I won’t presume to speak for Larry any further than what I’ve just said. But I’ll give you a bit of my own perspective on the matter…

When I agreed with Larry’s statement I was agreeing with what the statement implies, not what it doesn’t imply, and certainly not what it can be twisted to imply. Anyone who thinks there’s a ‘quick fix’ for our current situation, including the tenth amendment and a return to state sovereignty, is an utter fool. We didn’t get ourselves into this mess overnight, and we’ll damn sure not get ourselves out of it overnight either. Genuine overnight conversions are so rare that they’re negligible at best. In this particular case, it ain’t gonna happen. Period. (not that I wish it to)

Hell, in my state (arguably the most consistently “conservative” state in the union) we have our own huge welfare apparatus which will take decades to dismantle if we start on it tomorrow. Someone once said (come to think of it it might have been me) that it will take at very least two full generations to undo the damage we’ve done over the course of the last 120 years or so in this country. And that’s if we start now.

So, yes, you’re right that our problems will persist, even with a return to State sovereignty under the constitution, or, as some call it “Balanced Constitutional Government.” But Larry is also right to say that our problems can be fixed by that method. Indeed, I see no other way to fix it, and to relegate the destructive (yet dominant) ideology of liberalism to the far corners where it belongs. But neither I nor Larry is suggeting that it’s going to be some kind of a cake walk. The alternative, however, is simply not an option.

These arguments about what God might and might not do always come down to God’s existence and His eternal nature. I know, I’ve argued it a gazillion times with as many personalities. In my answer above I’m simply bypassing all of the fodder, and getting down to where the conversation is ultimately going to lead anyway. And, yes, I’m also trying to back out of the discussion, because I can already see the handwriting on the wall. We ain’t going to get anywhere, in other words. So I really don’t see the point. I already have enough practice.

Whatever you personally think of the Bible, it claims to be God’s Word to his intelligent moral creatures. If God is who He transmits to us through his Word that he is, not only wouldn’t he ‘send us a healthcare law,’ it would be impossible of him to do so because such a thing would be a violation of his nature. Now, dependent beings like human beings have potentiality. In other words, we can be better or worse. But that’s our nature, not God’s. He is not a dependent being. Rather, he is a singular being wholly independent. Therefore, independent singularity that He is, he absolutely cannot violate his own nature (Yes, contrary to popular opinion, certain things are even impossible for God.). If he could, he would no longer be God, which is impossible.

Anyway, I don’t really care to get into a theological argument with you. I will, if that is your ultimate desire, but I’ve argued it so many times in the past that it really doesn’t even interest me anymore.