Forwarded message:
From: silly@ofb.net Subject: Re: Democracy... Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
The congress doesn't pass laws regarding marriages. Yet. Not really true, IMO. Consider
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03396:@@@L
Signed into law in 1996, The Defense of Marriage Act, seeks to define "marriage" as a marriage between one man and one woman, in an attempt to prevent gay people from getting, say, married in Hawaii and then getting the same protection as other married people.
Unfortunately, it it seems to be in character with the "full faith and credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution, which follows "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 same rationale could be used in turning state-issued driver's licenses into National ID Cards, couldn't it?
Section 1. 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 interpetation you offer is bogus. The article says Congress shall pass what laws are deemed necessary to guarantee that the rights and priviliges of one state are enjoyed in the others. It does *NOT* say they have a right to define *what those privileges actualy are*. It has one other effect in that it prohibits safe haven states. Though it would seem to imply that once a person changed residence from one state to another and obtained citizenship in the new state some extradition could be refused... Example: Bob is living in Texas and growing pot, it is illegal. In Louisana on the other hand personal possession is allowed for quantities up to 500 lbs. Bob decides that he would rather live in Louisiana. Until Bob actualy obtained Louisiana citizenship he would still be considered a Texas resident and therefore responsible to the laws of that state. So if Texas were to extradite prior to Louisiana citizenship Bob would have to be extradited. However, once Bob became a Louisiana citizen and no longer a Texas citizen his prior actions wouldn't be extraditable. A sort of get out of jail free card. At no point is Congress given the authority to define state law, only that it must guarantee a representative form of government in each state - not that they all have to be identical. The 10th would prevent such an extension of authority. The reality is the actual law could be incredibly simple: Every state shall respect and protect the rights and priviliges of any citizen of another state who is resident within the boundaries of the state. The state shall further protect those rights even if they are in direct conflict with the laws of that state. So if a Texas DPS officer pulled over a car from Louisiana he couldn't hassle them in regards to the pot they had in the car. Even though it was illegal for Texas citizens. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------