This post continues my examination of what the Constitution actually says. Today, article 4 ... 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."
This first section requires that the states give each other full faith and credit and that the U.S. Congress can prescribe laws to ensure the states do this. This is one of the most difficult states rights issues. We claim that a state has the right to do what it wants, but that isn't entirely true. The full faith and credit clause requires that one state honor something another state did. So, if you are married in Tennessee, that marriage is legal in California. This goes for having a license to drive and many other areas of our lives. However, there are a lot of areas where this isn't followed. You can't teach in one state and then move to another and teach there without becoming re-certified (this restriction is true for most professional certifications). So, what is the difference in the two and why does one obviously fall under the full faith and credit and the other obviously doesn't? This is actually a simple matter. The full faith and credit clause was designed to unify the states without surrendering their sovereignty. This has traditionally been enforced in regards to legal proceedings, judicial judgments and contracts. A professional certification does not fit under any of the three areas I just mentioned and therefore would not fall under the full faith and credit clause. At least, this is how this has been used for the past 220 years.
"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.)"
Again, this is to unify the states while maintaining their sovereignty. The first clause is to guarantee citizenship in all states. This was actually a problem under the Articles of Confederation where border crossings were put up and citizenship of persons was not universally recognized throughout the states. Therefore, this first clause was to solve a problem that developed under the first constitution.
The second clause is really nothing more than a simple extradition treaty that basically states that one state must turn over a fugitive to another. This was largely ignored by northern states before the Civil War, often deciding that slaves could not be turned over under this clause and running away from servitude was indeed a crime in the south, so the north should have followed this clause. Fortunately, they did not.
This last clause has actually been superseded by the 13th amendment. It even more directly requires the states to turn over runaway slaves. So, in effect, this is the clause the northern states were violating when they refused to turn over slaves. The clause was written as a compromise in order to get the southern states to ratify the constitution and it was changed with the 13th amendment following the Civil War. The northern states acted unconstitutionally, but, in my opinion, entirely morally when they refused to turn over runaways. This is to their credit and they based this on state sovereignty and nullification, two concepts very much ignored today.
"Section 3 - New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
This is seemingly a simple clause, but it has seen some interesting events over time. It reads that new states are to be admitted by the Congress, that no state can be formed out of another state without permission and that no state can be formed by two or more states without permission of all and of Congress. This seems pretty straightforward. However, nobody asked Virginia permission to carve West Virginia out of it. Now...that was a time of war and thus may be forgiven (maybe), but nobody has since tried to merge them together again either. Another interesting event happened when (I think it was Hawaii) wanted to receive statehood, but Congress continued to drag their feet over approving it. The elected representatives simply marched up to the capital building in DC and demanded to be seated. They were. This sort of removed the whole "admitted by the Congress" portion since there was never official permission given. One could argue that Congress gave de facto permission simply by seating the delegates.
This second clause is important. I mentioned earlier how Congress could not take territory from an already existing state. This clause is important because it gives the federal government (Congress) the power over all lands of the U.S. Now...this is obviously referring to territory lands or lands that aren't states. This means DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, Midway, etc. Also, any state before it became a state was subject to Congress. Once becoming a state, the government no longer has claim to any land in the state without permission. I think this clause has been corrupted to allow federal land grabs on a regular basis within the states and that needs to stop. Utah is making an effort at this and we'll see where it leads.
"Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
So, we guarantee Republican government to all the states. In other words, each state must use republicanism as the foundation of its governing constitution and the federal government is required to protect each state from invasion or from domestic violence. The clause regarding domestic violence is important though because it can easily be misused. It specifically states that the individual state must request this specific help from the federal government. That the executive (governor) or the legislature of the state must make a formal request. In other words, outside of protecting from invasion, the federal government cannot act in any way within the borders of each state without first being asked. This most recently came into play when President Bush got so much heat for not acting faster in regards to the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Technically, he followed the Constitution by waiting for a request from the governor of Louisiana. Almost all of the delay in that incident was because the governor of LA felt they didn't need federal help and refused to make the formal request. The tragedies of New Orleans fall on the shoulders of LA, not the President of the U.S. Many argue he should have just gone in anyway. Perhaps so. After all, he would not have been the first President to violate the constitution in a time of crisis. He chose to act constitutionally in that case. That is both commendable and tragic, as it turned out. However, the Constitution exists to protect us from the federal government, so this clause is very important. It also prohibits the federal government from using our own military for operations within our borders without the specific request of the state affected. This is why the national guard exists and is so important.
