After I am on the radio program, "Live And On The Air", discussing my book "25 Myths Of The United States Constitution", I will be in Corona teaching a Constitution Class. We have a new handout tonight regarding Article IV. Join us at 6:00 pm at AllStar Collision, 522 Main Street, Corona, California.
Concerning the States
Full Faith and Credit
Article IV, Section 1
begins with The Full Faith and Credit Clause. The clause reads, “Full Faith and Credit
shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws
prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.”
In simple, modern day
language, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause judgments rendered in one
State are acknowledged in others; when a U.S. citizen resolves an issue within
one of the States that resolution must be recognized by all other States.
The Founding Fathers
originally intended, with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to protect the
self-government autonomy of the States, while also promoting the union of the
sovereign States as well. To do this,
the Founding Fathers needed to make sure that judicial rulings in one State
would be respected by all States, because otherwise there would be a substantial
opportunity for abuse. Doing so affirmed
the autonomy of the individual States, while also ensuring that the states
remained unified.
Without the Full Faith and
Credit Clause, something as simple as a marriage would not be recognized
outside the State where the proceeding took place. If the married couple moved to another state,
it would be necessary to marry all over again, otherwise they would still be
considered unmarried. However, thanks to
the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the State that serves as the new home of the
transplanted married couple recognizes the marriage contract agreed upon in the
State of origin.
The Full Faith and Credit
Clause also protects against abusive litigation. If someone in one State sues someone and the
court delivers a valid judgment in favor of the defendant, the person who filed
the suit cannot file the same suit in another State against the same
person. Under the Full Faith and Credit
Clause, the outcome of the suit in the first State is recognized and considered
to be the final judgment. Likewise, someone
who is ruled against in litigation in a State cannot flee to another State to
evade punishment, because the ruling in the first State's court is still valid
in the new State.
As a result of the Full
Faith and Credit Clause, professionals like doctors and lawyers only need to go
to school once. As they move to new
States, they can apply for reciprocity in certification so that they can
practice in their new location. State
privileges like drivers licenses also benefit from the Full Faith and Credit Clause,
because when people move to different States, they can renew their driving
licenses in the new State without having to go through drivers' education a
second time, as long as the standards for licensure are similar between the two
States.
Privileges and Immunities
Article IV, Section 2,
Clause 1 gives the people of each state all the same privileges and immunities
uniformly in each state. In other words,
if a Texan moved to California, the Texan must be treated by California in no
different manner than the State treats Californians. A State could not pass a law keeping Texans
out of their state, but letting others in.
This violates the Constitution. A
State cannot play favoritism in such a manner for any reason. All persons must be treated uniformly in the
eyes of the law. This is the clause the
14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause sought to broaden, in order to ensure
that the former slaves would also be afforded the same protection, privileges,
and immunities.
Extradition
Article IV, Section 2,
Clause 2 provides that “A person charged in any state with treason, felony,
or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state,
shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be
delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.”
Fugitives that flee a State
from justice to another State will be extradited on the demand of
executive authority (governor) of the State from which the person fled
from. The Constitution, in this clause,
demands the extradition of fugitives who have committed "treason, felony
or other crime," which means that it includes all acts prohibited by the
laws of a State, including misdemeanors and small, or petty, offenses.
Since the word “shall” is used
regarding the extradition order by the governor of the State, that means the
extradition order will not be questioned.
That also means the accused cannot defend himself against the charges in
the extraditing State. The fugitive may
only defend himself against the charges in the State receiving him.
The courts have determined
that the accused may prevent extradition by offering clear evidence that he was
not in the State he allegedly fled from at the time of the crime in the case, Hyatt
v. People ex rel. Corkran (1903).
Fugitive Slaves
Article IV, Section 2,
Clause 3 is obsolete because of the abolition of slavery, as per the 13th
Amendment. During the era the
Constitution was written, slavery remained in place, and slaves were seen as
property by the States in which slavery was legal. The Constitution, as a compromise to assure
that southern States ratified the document, included Article IV, Section 2,
Clause 3, as a compromise, which demanded that escaped slaves be returned to
their owners in the south, even if that slave was in a northern State.
The Fugitive Slave Act of
1850 supported this clause of the Constitution, hoping to ensure under penalty
of law that the slaves were in fact returned should they turn up in the
north. Northern States were refusing to
return escaped slaves, and the federal government refused to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Act and the Constitution, creating, in the minds of the Southern
States, a constitutional crisis.
Nullification is often blamed for its part in the onset of the
American Civil War. Those that argue
that nullification was a part of bringing about the War Between the States will
argue that the Southern States were guilty of nullifying perfectly reasonable
federal laws. In reality, the Southern
States did not nullify any federal law.
It was the northern States that actively nullified federal law. They nullified The Fugitive Slave Act by
ignoring the legislation, and refusing to abide by it. However, since The Fugitive Slave Act was
constitutional, the nullification of the law by the northern States was
unlawful, and unconstitutional.
Threatened by the fact that the northern States were ignoring
constitutional law, the federal government was refusing to enforce the law, and
anti-slave candidate Abraham Lincoln had won the presidential election without
even being on the ballot in the South, eleven southern States withdrew from the
union in 1860.
New States
Article IV, Section 3,
Clause 1 gives Congress the authority to admit new States. If a new State is formed within the borders
of an existing State, from a portion of an existing State, or by combining two
States, then the State legislatures of all States affected must also get
involved. This provision came into play
is when West Virginia was formed from part of Virginia during the Civil
War. The Virginia State legislature had
to approve the formation of the new State of West Virginia before the new State
could claim it was a separate sovereign State.
In California, there has
been a number of recommendations for breaking up the large State, from a 2014
suggestion of forming six States from the former Golden State, to thirteen
counties that threatened to secede in 2010 as suggested by a local
politician. If any of these plans for
new States out of the existing State of California had an opportunity to follow
through with their threat, the approval process would still need to go through
the existing California State Legislature.
The loss of taxation, and representation in Congress, would probably
convince the legislature to deny losing any portion of their State to the
formation of a new State.
Territories and Federal Property
Article IV, Section 3,
Clause 2 gives the Federal Government "power over the territory and
property of the United States."
Territories like Puerto Rico fall under this clause, treating the
territories not as individual sovereign states, but as territories under the
control of the U.S. Government.
Territories still enjoy a certain amount of autonomy, but ultimately,
their governance falls under the authorities granted to Congress. Washington DC also falls under this clause,
which means that Congress has authority over the functions of the city. In reality, Washington DC was supposed to
only be the seat of government, and was not supposed to contain any
residencies. Many of the framers
envisioned Washington DC as being a thriving commercial center.
Border Security and Insurrection
Article IV, Section 4
reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government,” meaning that each State may have its own
constitution, as well as a representative government based on the rule of law.
The second part of Article
IV, Section 4 provides that the United States “shall protect each of them [the
States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”
The Federal Government,
according to the final clause of Article IV, must protect each State from
invasion, which, in line with the Necessary and Proper clause of Article
I, Section 8, is a firm directive to the federal government to keep the
national borders secure so as to protect the States from foreign invasion. If executive agencies fail to take the
actions necessary to secure the border in order to protect the States from
invasion, the militia can be called into service by either the Congress, or the
governor of the State being invaded, in order to repel the invasion.
The Federal Government, in this clause, is also
tasked with quelling domestic violence.
This part of the clause refers to insurrection, and it is likely the
writing of this clause was directly influenced by the occurrence of Shays'
Rebellion in 1786.
No comments:
Post a Comment