It is a little strange you should cite Article IV. This is the article that includes: No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. It was this Article that many of the northern states repudiated (after the peculiar institution became unprofitable in the north) and refused to enforce - violating the contract of the constitution and ensuring the South would move to dissolve the political bands. The great Massachusetts Senator (and Unionist) Daniel Webster - revered in the North and South - spoke on this issue in 1851 saying: “If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations?” “I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.”So you're saying because the north didn't use their full resources to return slaves to their "masters" that the southern states were not bound by anything in the Constitution. I see cops speeding all the time for no good reason, so I don't have to follow any traffic law?
I think a state trying to break up the union is on a different level than an escaped slave.
I know you believe in “Union by bayonet” but article IV is not your friend.
I believe in states following the Constitution when they want to leave, and if they're not willing to follow this agreement, then bring in the bayonets, especially after an attack.
The full faith and credit clause was designed to strengthen the laws of the states, not to license an all-powerful central government in Washington.
It was designed to keeps states from implementing dumb acts that other states would have to pay for.
“So you’re saying because the north didn’t use their full resources to return slaves to their “masters” that the southern states were not bound by anything in the Constitution.”
That’s what Daniel Webster said. Read it for yourself.
Note to self: P.G. disagrees with Daniel Webster.
“I believe in states following the Constitution when they want to leave . . .”
Please post the language of the Constitutional procedure for leaving the union whose existence you infer.