Ah, so we are talking implied powers. In Article I, the Congress is explicitly mentioned on only 8 clauses but you 'logically presume' that it applies to the remaining clauses as well. Should we 'logically presume' that a state could enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender; pass a Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant a title of nobility if Congress passed a law allowing them to?
But while we're on the subject, let me ask you a question on an slightly unrelated matter. Since Article IV, Section 3 states that Congressional approval is required for admitting new states and for any change in status such as combining, splitting into two or more states, etc. then couldn't we 'logically presume' that congressional approval would be needed for leaving the Union altogether? I already know the answer to this but it should be amusing to see your explanation. Have at it.
No. We are talking about the logical application of explicit powers. While clauses in Article I generally do not self-identify their power as being an act of legislation, we know that to be the case with virtual logical certainty for the reasons that (a) they are explicitly given to congress and (b) that is what congress does.
In Article I, the Congress is explicitly mentioned on only 8 clauses but you 'logically presume' that it applies to the remaining clauses as well.
No presumption is necessary. Article I, Section 1 states so explicitly for ALL of them.
Should we 'logically presume' that a state could enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender; pass a Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant a title of nobility if Congress passed a law allowing them to?
That clause is not a power but a caveat against the assumption of a power possessed by Congress. But since congress cannot generally delegate its power, no. A state could not do that so long as it was still in the union.
But while we're on the subject, let me ask you a question on an slightly unrelated matter. Since Article IV, Section 3 states that Congressional approval is required for admitting new states and for any change in status such as combining, splitting into two or more states, etc. then couldn't we 'logically presume' that congressional approval would be needed for leaving the Union altogether?
Nope. That is a contrary assumption without basis or support (sort of like proving from a negative). It also defies what could be concluded from the application of your exact same line of thinking to Article VII, which provides for uniltateral ratification of the constitution by the states without any corresponding approval in Congress.