More Constitutional Law

[wolven7]

"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."

'. . .the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.

'This Court must determine for itself how far the full faith and credit clause compels the qualification or denial of rights asserted under the laws of one state, that of the forum, by the statute of another state.'

See here.

Exceptions for conflicts? What about where there is no specific law that sits in conflict? Is it observed until such time as a law is passed?

I want one day, ONE DAY where everyone in the House, the Senate, The Supreme Court, and the White House sits down and reads the entire Constitution, front to back. Really reads it.

I think this should happen once a year. At least.

Comments

agreed

[kitsuchan.livejournal.com]

It's not that long, I don't see why they couldn't do it. I also support making the House or Senate read a bill out loud in full before voting on it.

Re: agreed

[wolven.livejournal.com]

ABSOLUTELY. That just seems... Obvious, you know?

Re: agreed

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Grassroots political movement?

It would stop such atrocities as the PATRIOT act, which would have taken almost nine months to read aloud.

yrs--
--Ben

[necessary.livejournal.com]

Conflict of laws may well be one of the more arcane parts of the legal world. The intricacies of that and the full faith and credit clause are deep and convoluded at times.

Reading the Constitution, yes, important. But the words on the page have much more weight (thousands of pages more weight) from ye olde Constitutional-interpreters. The House, Senate, and Executive need to remember. I think the Court knows well enough, to the point that I wouldn't be surprised if several Justices (if not all) could recite it, with puctuation and paragraph and line numbers.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I would Hope so, as it rests with them, most heavily.

But I think that Legislative and Executive definitely need to remember what the hell it is they think they're doing, and by what authority they think they're doing it.

[mendori.livejournal.com]

I'm all for constitutional law scholarship, hell, I thought about doing it, but its another thing entirely to occasionally remind people what the original document says.

What someone says it says and what it actually says - two different beasts entirely.

[necessary.livejournal.com]

"Actually says" is always an issue. I mean, we do have to determine what the definition of "is" is. And then, when we're done with that, we have to define "property," "liberty," "due process of law," "speech," "establish," "press," "religion," "arms," "judicial power," "full faith and credit," "supreme law of the land," and "advice and consent," among, well, any other word printed. So, "actually says"... I'm always skeptical of that one.

That aside, we should be reminded, especially our lawmakers, of what the real debate is when discussing the Constitution. And, frankly, most of the time its the defintion of "liberty" in the 14th Amendment. Not exactly an easy one to wrangle from just the word.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

And the same thing goes for Holy Books.