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.
Your whole position now is reduced to saying that states have to wait for Congress to pass a law restricting their rights before they can exercise them. That’s an indefensible proposition, and certainly not a conservative one.
All it would take to remove that right completely, if your position were correct, would be for Congress to simply not act. POOF! The rights of the states are gone. Ludicrous.