“”...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.
Secession has security and property implications to other states, there are effects on other states. Therefore a state must allow the Congress to set the general laws of secession as Article 4 says.
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.
The Congress wasn't weren't given the opportunity. That's what made the 1861 attempt illegitimate.
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”.
No, its simple. If a state wants to secede it must allow Congress to pass the general laws of secession. The southern states didn't do this, therefore it was an illegitimate secession.
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 then naturally it covers how a state secedes or else it would have been in a different Article. You're married to your contention that that section has nothing to do with the rest of Article 4. That's a ridiculous way to think of how the Constitution is written. Article 4 covers relations between the states and the Congress. Of course that section covers how a state is to approach secession.
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.
You're saying every act a state could have ever thought of passing should have been included in Article 4. That's a ridiculous way to look at it. If Madison would have mentioned every act a state could conceive of into perpetuity, Article 4 would have went on forever.
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.
No, its simple. Article 4 says a state must allow the Congress to pass the general laws on how to prove their acts, and secession is an act, with effects.
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.
Like I said earlier, I don't need the pope or most televangelists to tell me what the bible says, and I don't need any lawyer to tell me what the Constitution says since both were written to me. There have been plenty of lawyers on both sides of the issue since day one.
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.
Again, had South Carolina followed Article 4, there would have been an agreement on Fort Sumter. Article 4 was not followed, therefore there was no legitimate secession. Secession is an act of a state and therefore covered by Article 4.
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.
That's where you're totally wrong. This worship of the "elites" where it's assumed they can tell us more than our own eyes is one of the biggest obstacles to keeping our freedoms. If people would think for themselves rather than wait for word from on high, the hucksters of the world would not get away with all the frauds they commit. You say a citizen cannot be an authority on the Constitution unless he is in agreement with your favorite author. That's outrageous to someone like me who loves freedom and knows that the constitution was written to me, and not just the lawyers and writers. Like I said, Madison wrote it simple, all the states have to do is follow it.
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.
No, the reason the bible and the Constitution are not followed is the same reason most people have never done right from the beginning of time...because they don't care. Since the beginning of time well less than half of any people throughout history have cared about such things. And of those, a small percentage look at it with the work it takes to understand it. You care enough about the Constitution to try to prove your favorite author correct, but you're not really looking at it for intent and truth, because you have a theory you're married to and won't let go no matter what you have to rationalize. I look at both in the simplicity in which they are written, knowing that both are written to me. There is intent and structure to both. Its why Jesus said that the bible is written in parables so that only his people would understand it. Of course the Constitution is not even written in parables so it should be simple. In the bible, if you start parsing every word not thinking about intent and structure, you can't get the parables. Lawyers are not looked at too kindly in the bible, for good reason...they screw up what should be simple.