3.15.2010

ARTICLE IV section 1 and section 2

Article IV - The States

SECTION 1. Each State to Honor all others
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.

SECTION 2 - State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

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.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)
 (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Article IV governs the relationships among the states. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states treated one another like independent sovereign nations, but under the Constitution states had to respect one another’s court decisions and laws. From marriage and divorce, to criminal prosecutions, to the status of slaves, the states were bound to acknowledge the validity of another state’s laws even when they disagreed with the outcome.
 
NOW PAY ATTENTION TO THAT ADMENDMENT 13 THINGY THERE.  "INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE" AS IN TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S HEALTHCARE.

4 comments:

The Griper said...

this is a section of the Constitution that can be troubling for me.
for instance:
Section I
this deals with contracts and each state must honor the contracts of every other state. that is fine so far. but history shows us that those contracts must be consistent with contract laws of the other State too.
example:
before Utah was allowed to join the Union it had to change their laws in regards to marriage so that it was consistent with the marriage laws of the States in the Union in regards to bigamy.
this same situation is occurring now with gay marriages where some States are not allowing them while other do.
------------
i don't think your argument of using the 13th amendment to declare Obamacare care unconstitutional would hold up. the states have every right to legislate universal health care within their states. and the 13th amendment would prevent that. the problem lies in the federal government legislating universal health care

LandShark 5150 said...

After more thought, I'm with you on that, but I think that the arguement of involuntary servitude could be brought forth on many issues of our current welfare state condition. And as you said the problem lies with congressional legislation.
The marriage issue, is still not a defined item in the constitution. And it should be kept that way, to me, for the reason of gun laws are state issue. Gun laws, being constitutional, vary from state to state. And the state shouldn't bring the fed into it (like chicago did). Chicago and the Illinois constitution guarantees that right to it's citizens. Bringing the fed in will only take the states rights away thru that nasty little 'incorporation clause'. Once this is used on one the gay marriage issue brought into the same light.
And the involuntary servitude, giving to one at the expence of another, should be brought up on this. The 'right' to marry whomever one wishes comes with the responibity of that action. If ones lifestyle causes a negative burden upon them, it shouldn't be at the expence for others to bare. And yes that phrase can and should be used in the broad stroke, painting a large area.
I am not only straying from topic but threw the compass away. Sorry about that. Let me get to work here, I'll toss it around the noggin and give more later on it.
Thanks Griper for your input.

LandShark 5150 said...

Ok griper -- the broad painting of the involuntary servitude I used to defend my point was a tad over the top and scattershot at best. But I am begining to think that the constitutional shreds that are at least a speed bump to our politicans, are a joke now and are only used as an oppositional tool, as the current healthcare circus shows. I just wish Washington would just say the damn thing is dead and when the grave side services are going to be held. That way the above post can be the herald of the day, and we reclaim our history by repeating it.

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

YUP...