“”General” would mean the process of secession would apply to all the states, and “prove” means that once a state gets the process and follows the directives then secession would be validated.”
Well, you’re getting close to the correct meaning, but your interpretation is still not valid. Don’t take my word for it, though. After all, if Congress has the authority to pass laws governing how the acts shall be proved, then they have already done so, and we can just look at what those laws say. Any speculations on your part as to what those laws would be, if they were never actually passed, are irrelevant. So, what laws did Congress pass implementing this clause?
“The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738...”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Full+Faith+and+Credit+Clause
Let’s look at the US Code 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738 which implements the statute, since this is the “general law” that Congress passed, under authority of this clause, to implement the process described therein.
“28 USC § 1738 - State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1738
(This is the current version of the law, but essentially the same law was in effect since 1790, only some wording which is inconsequential to our argument has been modified. You can see the original law here: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_1s6.html)
That’s it. Nothing about special rules for secession, or submitting secession acts to Congress for to be “proved” under you definition of that word, or disposing of Federal property. Just, exactly as I have said, the State must follow one standard process, for any and all acts of the legislature, to certify that the law was validly passed, before it must be given full faith and credit by the other states. Your argument is demonstrated to be fallacious, so I’d suggest you abandon it and try some other line of attack before you make yourself look foolish.
“For instance, since secession is such a momentous act, perhaps the Congress would require a referendum of all the voters in that state, or of super-majorities of the legislature.”
Even if we stipulate that Congress had such authority under this clause, you are completely ignoring the fact that Congress would have to actually pass such laws BEFORE the states would have to honor them. Not only that, but the states could challenge the constitutionality of such laws in the courts, and they might not even be held to be valid. That’s moot, though, because no such laws were ever passed by Congress, therefore the States were not obligated to follow them. States are simply not bound by the products of your imagination, 150 years after the fact.
“It’s ridiculous to think the secessions of 1861 were legitimate secessions, there were no agreements on anything, just wanton stealing.”
They were passed lawfully by the state legislatures, and they were “proved” by the method specified by Congress, so they certainly were legitimate. Your continued attempt to confuse that issue with the issue of Federal property isn’t relevant at all as to whether the acts of secession were legitimate. You can argue that the seceded states acted unlawfully as regards the Federal property, but that has no bearing as to whether the acts themselves were valid.
“#1 Does Article 4 cover the entry of states in the union? If so, wouldn’t that be the most logical place to look to see how the exit of states is to be inferred? Naturally, Madison didn’t explicitly write in the Constitution how to destroy the Constitution, so he wouldn’t lay secession out step by step, but we can see that Congress is the controlling authority when it comes to relations between the states.”
Yes, Article 4 covers the entry of states into the union. It might be a logical place to look for information on how states could exit the union, but since there is nothing in the Article referring to this circumstance, it’s not logical to keep trying to find something in the Article that is not there. Also, I’d say that Congress is not a “controlling authority” on interstate matters, but a mediating authority. Confusing those two concepts is exactly what has led to many of the egregious federal overreachs that conservatives despise, especially the unlimited expansion of Federal authority through the interstate commerce clause.
“#2 If South Carolina would have allowed the congress to set the process for secession and then followed that process including restitution of federal property, then would there have been a squabble over Fort Sumter?”
South Carolina had no authority to allow or disallow Congress to make any laws. The Constitution is the only authority that governs what laws Congress is allowed to make. Congress chose not to make any laws governing secession, and Congress showed no intention of making any such law, so what exactly are you suggesting South Carolina should have done? Begged and pleaded for Congress to put restrictions on their right to secede?
If Congress had made such laws, and this is completely theoretical, then perhaps the dispossession of Federal property would have been covered by them, and then perhaps the issue could have been setted amicably. They didn’t do that, and have never done that since, so we are just degenerating into wild speculation here, which is pointless.
Congress has never prescribed the manner in which a state would prove its secession. A state that wants to secede must allow Congress to do that as Article 4 says.
Even if we stipulate that Congress had such authority under this clause, you are completely ignoring the fact that Congress would have to actually pass such laws BEFORE the states would have to honor them. Not only that, but the states could challenge the constitutionality of such laws in the courts, and they might not even be held to be valid.
Yes it would take a while. It took a while to join. Such a momentous move by a state should take a while to allow the people of the state to confirm secession is what they really want to do.
They were passed lawfully by the state legislatures, and they were “proved” by the method specified by Congress, so they certainly were legitimate.
They did not follow Article 4, they were not legitimate.
Yes, Article 4 covers the entry of states into the union. It might be a logical place to look for information on how states could exit the union, but since there is nothing in the Article referring to this circumstance, it’s not logical to keep trying to find something in the Article that is not there.
Oh, it's there. If South Carolina had followed Article 4, there would have been an agreement on Fort Sumter before the process of secession.
Also, I’d say that Congress is not a “controlling authority” on interstate matters, but a mediating authority. Confusing those two concepts is exactly what has led to many of the egregious federal overreachs that conservatives despise, especially the unlimited expansion of Federal authority through the interstate commerce clause.
The states agreed to allow Congress to pass general laws on proof of acts, not to mediate them. I'd call that controlling authority between states. When Congress abuses that from time to time, then vote them out. But there was no abuse in 1861 because the southern states didn't allow Congress to even get involved.
South Carolina had no authority to allow or disallow Congress to make any laws.
A four year Civil War says otherwise. The constitutional process should have been followed.
Congress chose not to make any laws governing secession, and Congress showed no intention of making any such law,...
South Carolina never gave the Congress the opportunity.
...so what exactly are you suggesting South Carolina should have done? Begged and pleaded for Congress to put restrictions on their right to secede?
No where have I said that a state has to beg. I've said all along a state can secede, but they have to follow Article 4 and take it to Congress to get terms of separation.
If Congress had made such laws, and this is completely theoretical, then perhaps the dispossession of Federal property would have been covered by them, and then perhaps the issue could have been setted amicably. They didn’t do that, and have never done that since, so we are just degenerating into wild speculation here, which is pointless.
The way secession was attempted in 1861 sure as hell didn't work. I suggest following Article 4 next time.