"...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.
“”...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.”
“and the effect thereof” means... “and the effect thereof”. There is not a single word in that phrase about secession or “run-of-the-mill act”s. I can’t conceive of how you are reading that into the phrase, is it in one of the penumbras or the emanations?
Again, as I said in my other response, even if your reading were somehow accurate, Congress would have to pass such acts covering the “effect thereof” before the states would have to obey them, which they did not, so it’s a moot point.
“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.”
This is not valid Constitutional logic. If a state has a right, and it has not yet been limited by Congress, then it is free to exercise that right. It does not have to wait for Congress to pass any laws limiting or prescribing the manner in which it can exercise the right before it acts on that right. Perhaps you can argue that Congress should have passed laws covering this circumstance, but they did not, so you cannot expect states to be bound by laws that never were passed. I think your argument here is called “wishful thinking”.
“You’re dead wrong about that. Article 4 also covers how a state is admitted.”
I was not speaking of Article 4 as a whole, simply the full faith and credit clause, which is the section you originally referred to in order to support your assertion.
“If Article 4 covers how a state is admitted, naturally it covers how a state secedes...”
Naturally? Sorry, but naturally, Article 4 only covers what Article 4 says that it covers, and nothing in Article 4 says one single word specifically about secession. You admit as much in your other post, so I’m not going to let you claim otherwise now.
“Article 4 says this plainly.”
The only part of article 4 that talks about federal property is in Section 3, which deals with admitting new states. The language in this section is then, under standard legal principles, limited to the subject of the preceding statements in the section, and has always been understood to simply give Congress legal authority over territories and possessions of the US that are not within the boundaries of any existing state. You cannot magically make it apply to anything else, that’s just not how things work. If you don’t believe me, ask any lawyer, or post a thread here and ask one of the many lawyers on FR to weigh in with their learned opinions as to whether statements in laws are subordinated to and limited by the preceding statements in that section of the law.
“I’d say the Civil War proves you wrong there. Apparently there was a dispute over whether South Carolina could claim Fort Sumter.”
You are confusing practical ramifications of secession with a legal impairment to secession, which is what I was talking about. A legal, diplomatic, or military dispute that may arise from secession cannot impair the right of the state to secede. It might impair the state’s ability to exercise that right, but it does not change the legality of that right one bit.
“No, that’s why we have the Congress, as Article 4 says.”
“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 think I’ve covered these arguments well enough in the other post.
“The two most important documents in history are the bible and the Constitution, in that order.”
Agreed.
“I don’t need any book writer to tell me what the Constitution says.”
Well, I was talking about concepts which predate the Constitution, underpin the Constitution, and in fact, supercede the Constitution. The reason natural rights supercede the Constitution is because they emanate from God, not from man, so they cannot be bound or modified by any acts of man, including the Constitution. Without these rights, we would not have had any right to make our own Constitution in the first place, so you cannot discount them and then refer to the Constitution as any kind of authority. The reason I refer to Hobbes is because I think he did the best job explaining these rights and their consequences, of which you seem to not be adequately informed. You may argue that you do not need to be informed of them, but you cannot properly understand the Constitution and the many complex issues surrounding it without understanding natural law and natural rights, any more than you could understand the Constitution without previously receiving some preliminary instruction in English grammar, vocabulary, and basic concepts like law and government.
If we were talking about the Bible, the argument that it is self-interpreting and able to stand on its own could be valid, but God did not write the Constitution, so the Constitution cannot be so perfect, complete, and self-interpreting. If it were, we would have no need of amendments and courts, and any child possessing a modicum of reason could opine eloquently about it. As it stands, most American adults do not properly understand many concepts in the Constitution, despite all of their education, including required courses in school specifically on the subject. If they did, we wouldn’t be in the mess that we are in as a country.