Of course I rebutted it, when I said there is federal property involved. Secession is an act the requires the Congress to prescribe the manner in which it is proven.
Yes, emotion has everything to do with how you framed the question. I simply stated a fact, that States have the right to secede. Then I elaborated that secession would always bring up a necessary problem of seizing immovable military assets, and that this problem is normally dealt with in a few different ways. You are the one who tried to frame the question to trap me into saying that I would support California seceding and following a particular path to handle that problem. If you read my answer, you’ll see I made no such assertion, I just said they have a right to secede at any time, as a general principle.
It is what makes your position ridiculous. A state has the right to secede, yes, but they must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which they do. It's ridiculous to assert that California could have sent a letter on Dec 8, 1941 saying they're out of here and all federal warmaking ability will be scrapped. Do you really think the founders were that stupid? That's a lot of what Article 4 is all about, to allow Congress to not allow a state to take the United States to suicide, nor to steal the property of all the states. All federal property is property of all the states, and the Congress must decide on how to deal with that property when a state wants to leave. A state can't just steal everything that's in it's borders that was paid for by all the states.
If you didn’t want to color the question with emotional baggage, then firstly, you would have picked a neutral scenario with no emotional connotations, and secondly, you wouldn’t have immediately gloated about your misinterpretation of my answer as if I had fallen into your emotionally-laden trap.
Emotion has nothing to do with it. It's a contingency that makes your position ridiculous. You would allow the suicide of the country over a state's whim of secession. It's why people like you are on the wrong side of a lot of issues. You can't think things through and you can't read what is right in front of you, the founders wisdom in letting Congress set the rules for a state's act to be proven.
“Of course I rebutted it, when I said there is federal property involved.”
No, you didn’t. Congress can only make general laws on how acts are proved. That means laws which apply to all acts, not a special law for this act, and that act, and oh, this act you have to bring before Congress for approval. You are just ignoring the plain language of the clause because you want it to say something else. You are still insisting that “prove” somehow is a concept equivalent to “approve”, which a basic grasp of the English language refutes.
“A state has the right to secede, yes, but they must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which they do.”
This is a self-contradictory statement. The states have an inherent right to secede, or the most fundamental concept of American government, the right to self-determination, is a lie. If they can only secede by getting approval from the government they wish to separate from, then that is neither self-determination, nor an inherent right. Your position is equivalent to saying that we had no right to declare independence unless we got prior approval from King George or the British Parliament.
“That’s a lot of what Article 4 is all about, to allow Congress to not allow a state to take the United States to suicide, nor to steal the property of all the states.”
No, the section of Arcticle 4 that you are relying on in your arguments is not about that at all. It is simply about the States respecting or honoring the lawfully passed statutes of other states. There is not a single word in that section about what you are talking about, except perhaps in your imagination.
“All federal property is property of all the states, and the Congress must decide on how to deal with that property when a state wants to leave.”
According to you, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says this, despite your repeated misreadings of a few words to try and twist them to your argument. If there is a dispute over the Federal property, that is not sufficient to impair a state’s right to secede. It’s simply an issue that must be dealt with by some method between the two disputing parties. That’s why we have courts of law, diplomats, and armies.
“Emotion has nothing to do with it. It’s a contingency that makes your position ridiculous.”
I’m afraid you that you don’t seem to have a proper grasp on the concepts of natural rights and natural law that our country’s philosophy of government is founded on. One cannot assert that an absolute right is not absolute because in some circumstances, it will lead to some negative consequence. The only limitation on absolute rights is when they may impede on the absolute rights of others, and that is when you need the judicial system to step in and define where the boundary lies, or subordinate one right to the other. When you say that asserting a right is ridiculous because such a conflict arises, and so that right must not be absolute, you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts we are discussing. I’d suggest you go read some Hobbes, because he can explain it much more eloquently than I can.
I’m making a separate post to highlight the crux of the 2 flaws in your “Constitutional” argument, since these are the key points which demolish your entire argument, and you keep conveniently declining to answer my repeatedly pointing them out to you. If you won’t answer this post, then I’ll consider the argument over and I won’t respond to anymore of your posts, since a debate where one side evades the key issues is fruitless.
The first is your ignorance of the meaning of “general law”, the second, your misinterpretation of the word “prove”. These are legal terms, not subject to your personal interpretation, so I’m going to just go ahead and give you the legal definitions, in the hope that you will stop embarassing yourself and abandon these senseless lines of argument.
“General”
“Pertaining to, or designating, the genus or class, as distinguished from that which characterizes the spccics or individual. Universal, not particularized; as opposed to special. Principal or central; as opposed to local. Open or available to all, as opposed to select. Obtaining commonly, or recognized universally; as opposed to particular. Universal or unbounded; as opposed to limited. Comprehending the whole, ordirected to the whole; as distinguished from anything applying to or designed for a portion only. As a noun, the word is the title of a principal officer in the army, usually one whocommands a whole army, division, corps, or brigade. In the United States army, the rank of “general” is the highest possible, next to the commander in chief, and is only occasionally created. The officers next in rank are lieutenant general, major general,and brigadier general.”
Quoted from Black’s Law Dictionary
http://thelawdictionary.org/letter/g/page/5/
The key, in terms of the phrase “general law”, is “Universal, not particularized; as opposed to special.” Congress does not have the right to make particular or special laws concerning proving acts by the states. The laws governing the proving of an act of secession are, therefore, the same universal laws governing the proving of every other law.
“Prove”
“In a legal proceeding, to present evidence or logic that makes a fact seem certain.”
Quoted from NOLO’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/prove-term.html
As you can see, prove does not carry any connotation of approval, but pertains only to demonstrating a fact, in this case demonstrating the laws, acts, statutes, etc that a State has passed. Your assertion that Congress must prove acts of State, is, in fact, completely backwards. Congress defines laws which tell States how to prove their laws to the other States. So it is not even Congress that must do the “proving”, it is the State!
“And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Congress may prescribe the manner in which the acts shall be proved. Paraphrasing, since I know you have trouble with the word “prove”: Congress may prescribe the manner in which laws are demonstrated to be valid. Who is Congress prescribing this to? It is the States, since it is the States who must demonstrate their laws to the other States, so that they may give them full faith and credit. If Congress needed to prescribe something to itself, there would be no need to put that in the Constitution, since it would be an internal matter covered by parliamentary procedure.
Please, either refute these definitions or stop ignoring or misinterpreting them in order to prop up your faulty argument.