“It says Congress has the right to prescribe the manner in which a state proves its acts. Secession is an act.”
Sure, and that’s all it says. It doesn’t say anything about dispossession of Federal property, or special conditions on proving secession acts, like you keep asserting. In fact, the words “general laws” directly contradict your assertion that a special process is needed for secession, which you still have not rebutted.
“Emotion has nothing to do with it. You said California would have the right to confiscate our federal warmaking ability on Dec 8, 1941.”
Yes, emotion has everything to do with how you framed the question. I simply stated a fact, that States have the right to secede. Then I elaborated that secession would always bring up a necessary problem of seizing immovable military assets, and that this problem is normally dealt with in a few different ways. You are the one who tried to frame the question to trap me into saying that I would support California seceding and following a particular path to handle that problem. If you read my answer, you’ll see I made no such assertion, I just said they have a right to secede at any time, as a general principle.
If you didn’t want to color the question with emotional baggage, then firstly, you would have picked a neutral scenario with no emotional connotations, and secondly, you wouldn’t have immediately gloated about your misinterpretation of my answer as if I had fallen into your emotionally-laden trap.
Of course I rebutted it, when I said there is federal property involved. Secession is an act the requires the Congress to prescribe the manner in which it is proven.
Yes, emotion has everything to do with how you framed the question. I simply stated a fact, that States have the right to secede. Then I elaborated that secession would always bring up a necessary problem of seizing immovable military assets, and that this problem is normally dealt with in a few different ways. You are the one who tried to frame the question to trap me into saying that I would support California seceding and following a particular path to handle that problem. If you read my answer, you’ll see I made no such assertion, I just said they have a right to secede at any time, as a general principle.
It is what makes your position ridiculous. A state has the right to secede, yes, but they must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which they do. It's ridiculous to assert that California could have sent a letter on Dec 8, 1941 saying they're out of here and all federal warmaking ability will be scrapped. Do you really think the founders were that stupid? That's a lot of what Article 4 is all about, to allow Congress to not allow a state to take the United States to suicide, nor to steal the property of all the states. All federal property is property of all the states, and the Congress must decide on how to deal with that property when a state wants to leave. A state can't just steal everything that's in it's borders that was paid for by all the states.
If you didn’t want to color the question with emotional baggage, then firstly, you would have picked a neutral scenario with no emotional connotations, and secondly, you wouldn’t have immediately gloated about your misinterpretation of my answer as if I had fallen into your emotionally-laden trap.
Emotion has nothing to do with it. It's a contingency that makes your position ridiculous. You would allow the suicide of the country over a state's whim of secession. It's why people like you are on the wrong side of a lot of issues. You can't think things through and you can't read what is right in front of you, the founders wisdom in letting Congress set the rules for a state's act to be proven.