“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.
"...and the effect thereof." means secession isn't a run-of-the-mill act. Therefore it requires Congress to set the rules for proving it as Article 4 says.
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.
No, I said a state has the right to secede. I didn't say a state has to get approval from Congress. A state can secede but first it must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which secession is proven as Article 4 says.
No, the section of Article 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.
You're dead wrong about that. Article 4 also covers how a state is admitted. If Article 4 covers how a state is admitted, naturally it covers how a state secedes, and that is where allowing the Congress to prescribe the manner in which a state proves its acts comes in. You seem to think that Article 4 consists of one statement.
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.
Article 4 says this plainly.
If there is a dispute over the Federal property, that is not sufficient to impair a state’s right to secede.
I'd say the Civil War proves you wrong there. Apparently there was a dispute over whether South Carolina could claim Fort Sumter. lol If it is so cut-and-dry as you think, why was there a struggle over Fort Sumter? A lot of people disagreed with this silly statement of yours.
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.
No, that's why we have the Congress, as Article 4 says.
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.
South Carolina agreed to the Constitution, including Article 4. Can they secede, yes, but there is a process that must be followed, and that is to allow the Congress to set the rules for secession.
I’d suggest you go read some Hobbes, because he can explain it much more eloquently than I can.
There's your problem right there. The two most important documents in history are the bible and the Constitution, in that order. I don't need a pope or most televangelists to tell me what the bible says, and I don't need any book writer to tell me what the Constitution says. Both are written to me and I can read them on my own. You should try it sometime.