"Full Faith and Credit" in NYS

[sailortoo]

Just to provoke some thought: Current (5-29-2008) news item refers to Governor Patterson of New York State stating that Gay marriages in California will be recognized in the State of New York (YES, this is gun/legal related!). He has stated that the U.S. Constitution Article IV (Full Faith and Credit) makes it necessary for New York to accept California Gay marriages - then why does the same Article IV NOT require the State of New York to recognize the legal state licensing, in various states, to be armed? Drivers' licenses, marriage licenses & other licenses fall under the "Full Faith and Credit" Article, so can some one with deeper legal knowledge than I please explain the "why" of this disparity. I realize it is defacto not working now, but why?
sailortoo

 

[Technosavant]

I had that same thought. If they are going to use "full faith and credit" to recognize one thing, then it seems to me that they're going to get caught coming the other way for concealed carry permits.

CA to NY might be one thing, but if CA begins demanding that other states accept those licenses as valid, other states might begin demanding that CA recognize other types of licenses as valid.

 

[JeffCinSac]

Just had to comment on this one...

I have a California CCW license, which NY doesn't recognize. Where's MY "full faith and credit?"

 

[Standing Wolf]

Where's MY "full faith and credit?"

In the hands of the leftist extremists, who decided long ago we commoners need not apply.

 

[KenW.]

I grew up in NY state and I have NO FAITH in it. Glad I left 26 years ago.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Keep this in mind if Heller goes our way and someone decides to challenge NYS gun laws. Everyone quit their bitching, they just gave us all the cause we need to challenge them.

 

[sailortoo]

Prince Yamato - You Got It! I see this type of state action as opening a door for later (after Heller) "well, it's OK for Gay marriage, why not us?" type of legal attack ("precedent" is a favorite way to show that your argument is valid). Looking forward to "after Heller".
sailortoo

 

[Prince Yamato]

I mean, all they're doing is establishing reciprocity... if you can establish reciprocity for one controversial issue, why not another? One side deems their issue to be harmless and worthy of reciprocity and so does the other side. They both involve civil rights issues... seems pretty obvious to me!

 

[Shade00]

States don't have to recognize the licensed activities of other states, particularly if they conflict with the public policies of the state in question. Furthermore, a state doesn't have to apply a law just because it's law in another state; that would kind of negate the law-making ability of the several states, wouldn't it?

Anyway, while carry licenses are akin to driver's licenses, driver's licenses are backed by commerce agreements and other codified acts that generally require reciprocity.

The question for carry licenses is one of reciprocity, not FF&C. A licensed activity is just that; it's not a right as per today's reading of the Constitution. FF&C was drafted primarily to require one state to recognize and enforce the judgment of another state.

So the moral of the story is that licenses don't fall under FF&C. Driver's licenses are an exception (because of other statutes, though). Sorry if that wasn't clear and lacked some detail. I'm tired and I don't know why I'm still up.

 

[nicki]

Gays and Guns.

California is committed to making Gays and Guns a major political issue in the 2008 election.

Something tells me that neither Hillary nor Obama can be happy with what the Cal Supreme court did and the Cal Legislature is doing prior to the Heller ruling.

Now all that has to happen is someone file a lawsuit in the 9th circuit to take God out of the pledge or something like that and Cal will really motivate social conservatives to the polls.

Nicki

 

[lawson4]

Licenses to practice law and medicine are not generally recognized in other states; you have to pass their tests to practice and get their license. Why would you think CWP would be any different?
lawson4

 

[kbsrn]

Because Driving and Practicing

medicine aren't rights given in the USC and the right to bear arms is.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Drivers' licenses, marriage licenses & other licenses fall under the "Full Faith and Credit" Article

No, they don't. As Shade00 said, a marriage license from one state is not valid in another state. A Certificate of Marriage, however, is. You cannot get married in TN based on a NY marriage license. However, if you get married in NY, TN will recognize that you are married, even when you are no longer in NY.

All of this gets dicey when states now have different definitions on "marrage."

medicine aren't rights given in the USC and the right to bear arms is.

The Constitution (Second Amendment) didn't give the right to keep and bear arms. It protected the right. There is legal argument as to whether the protection applies against the states. Still, the license/right/privilege to carry concealed is what is being licensed. Most courts (except for in VT) and state constitutions do not recognize concealed carry as a right.

 

[kbsrn]

Your right

The USC doesn't give the right, it recognizes pre-existing rights that all citizens have that the government can't take away. Of course the argument is how much can they be regulated.

 

[Art Eatman]

Looks to me like the problem here in this thread is from not realizing that the "full faith and credit" is ENABLING, not MANDATORY. That is, a state is allowed to recognize the licensing in another state, but is not required to do so.

 

[hugh damright]

Did NY pass legislation saying that they will recognize these "marriages", or is the Governor bypassing that step? Could the Governor also declare that NY must recognize Nevada prostitute permits, even though prostitution is illegal in NY?

 

[tube_ee]

An important distinction is that

Governor Patterson based his Executive Order strictly on written New York law, and not on the Full Faith and Credit clause.

New York law recognizes marriages performed out of state, and even in other countries, so long as those marriages were legal in the jurisdictions where they were performed. The statutes as written do not have an exemption for same-sex marriages. Absent legislation to insert such language, the Governor would seem to be within his powers to issue this order.

Even if it was the common, or even universal, understanding of the term "marriage" when the laws were written that it meant "between one man and one woman", they didn't put it in the law, so it isn't the law. If you're going to take the position that laws mean what they say, and do not mean what they do not say, then you've got to take the good with the bad.

If New York law states explicitly that CCW permits from other states are not valid in New York, that's a whole different issue. One that would need to be litigated, as you're talking about an interpretation of the Constitution, and how that interpreted language should be applied in your specific case. That's clearly a Judicial function, unless you're one of those that thinks that Marbury v Madison was a gross abuse of power. Good luck with that argument. But a direction to the administrative agencies of government that is based on the written text of the laws is clearly an Executive function.

The two cases are quite different.

--Shannon

 

[Jeff White]

Your drivers license may be good in all 50 states, but that doesn't mean that it's treated the same way. Currently 43 states have signed a compact to report traffic violations committed in another state to the home state and the home state has agreed to take appropriate action against your license if you fail to to comply with the terms of a traffic ticket in the other state. For example, in Illinois they will suspend your license for driving outside your classification. If you get caught riding a motorcycle in, say Texas, without the proper endorsement on your Illinois license, Illinois will suspend your license once Texas reports the violation to Illinois. Get a speeding ticket in Indiana, and it counts as a moving violation against your Illinois license. Three moving violations in 12 months and your license is suspended.

But this reciprocity is only between the 43 compact states. I'm not sure how the 7 states that aren't in the compact handle out of state violations, but there is no true nationwide reciprocity for traffic offenses, even though all 50 states will recognize your out of state DL as a permit to legally operate a vehicle.

Jeff

 

[ctdonath]

Simply put: explanations are not binding; laws & executive orders are.
The only thing that matters is what those documents say.

He could have said "everyone should like pepperoni pizza, therefore I am issuing this order" and it would have the same legal weight.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The full faith and credit provision in the US Constitution does little more than require the states to apply common law rules of comity to the acts and actions of sister states... with one critical distinction. It empowers congress to pass laws with respect thereto.

The common law rules of comity is an extremely complicated 3rd year law school course usually entitled "Conflict of Laws" and is really beyond an extended discussion on this board, but for the exception I alluded to.

Congress has the power, IMHO to force reciprocity for CCW by outlining the basic criteria (ie such as taking a test on firearms safety and useage) and then indicating that if your state's CCW meets that criteria then other states must recognize it.

This is an under utilized federal power. IIRC, there are only 2 statutes which congress has passed under this authority. The first is merely procedural, dealing with the acceptable forms to use to prove the official acts of another state. The 2nd law is more substantive, dealing with when a child custody order must be recognized by another state.

 

[sailortoo]

FF&C

I certainly do appreciate all the expertise that is available (sans $ ) to explain some of the obtuse aspects of the law. What seems to be straight forward English, frequently turns out to be "wherefores" and "exceptions". I guess Article IV is a crap shoot, whether or not it means anything useful. I am still looking forward to "after Heller", as we will all get another big dose of legal obfuscation as to what "is is". At least there are a number of legal minds on THR - hopefully, they will make it understandable, eventually.
sailortoo

 

[tube_ee]

Le_45...

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.

This seems to raise far more questions than it answers, at least to the literate layman.

If the passing of a law is a "public act", then wouldn't we all be subject to all the laws of all the States, all the time? If not, then what exactly is a "public act" of a State?

Within the confines of this discussion, aren't both marriage and CCW licenses "records"? Depending on context, they could both be "judicial proceedings" as well... you can be married by a judge. The rule of judges in CCW permitting I don't know about, but it's easy to construct the appropriate hypothetical case.

The second clause seems to empower the Congress to set up rules delineating how it is to be demonstrated (presumably in court) that whatever is in question is, in fact, a "public act, record, or judicial proceeding," and also rules for the resolution of conflicts as to meaning (the "effect thereof".) In other words, it's about procedures, rather than content.

What is the general trend of FF&C jurisprudence? Or is there one?

--Shannon

 

[legaleagle_45]

tube ee wrote:

This seems to raise far more questions than it answers, at least to the literate layman.

It is a difficult area even for trained professionals.

If the passing of a law is a "public act", then wouldn't we all be subject to all the laws of all the States, all the time?

That of course could create distinct hardships... and conflicts when State A provides for one thing and State B provides exactly the opposite. There are a bunch of rules involving this area, even listing the names of just a few of them will boggle a laymans mind... So, of course I will do so:

1.) Lex loci--- rule that a marriage which is good in the country where performed is good elsewhere.
2.) Lex loci contractus-- the rule that contracts are to be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the country where entered into.
3.) lex rei sitae---the rule that immovables may be disposed of only in accordance with the law of the country where situated.
4.) lex domicilii---that moveable goods adhere to the person of their owner and hence are disposable by him, even when located elsewhere, in accordance with the law of his home country ....

That is just a few, and then, of course there are exceptions to all of them rules.... Such as a marriage need not be recognized if it would be morally repugnent and against public policy to do so... This usually arises in situations where one state allows marriage between closely related parties while the sister state specifically prohibits same as incestious. Thus, in my view, NY does not HAVE to recognize gay marriages under the full faith and credit provisions of the US Constitution, but may do so, or be bound to do so pursuant to their own laws and their own public policy.

As far as CCW is concerned, I do not think full faith and credit applies. A license allows one to act in accordance with the terms of the license and are territorial in nature. Examples: Hunting license, fishing license... even marriage license. Certain relationships are transitory in nature and follow the person around where ever they may go. The marriage relationship, parent and child relationship, divorce, etc are such beasts.

Drivers license are not transitory, but as a practical matter all states apply a rule of reciprocity, otherwise their would be chaos.

Now, you want me to start explaining the rules regarding the enforceability of foreign judgments... in rem and in personam jurisdiction... Pennoyer v Neff, International Shoe and Buckeye Boiler?

Did not think so....

 

[sailortoo]

FF&C

Ah - my basic problem with current differing CCW laws, statutes, regulations comes directly under legaleagles_45s' comment "Drivers' licenses are not transitory, but as a practical matter all states apply a rule of reciprocity, otherwise their (sic) would be chaos". That is EXACTLY why we need FF&C with CCW, just because there is currently CHAOS from state to state, trying to figure what is legal, where to find the laws/statutes for each and every state. It is one of the primary points in the current debate and effort for CCW in National Parks. :banghead: Patience - ?
sailortoo

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Looks to me like the problem here in this thread is from not realizing that the "full faith and credit" is ENABLING, not MANDATORY. That is, a state is allowed to recognize the licensing in another state, but is not required to do so.

I beg to differ. The language in the Constitution reads as follows:

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.

Full faith and credit "shall" be given ... There is nothing "enabling" about the word "shall" -- that's mandatory language. The "may" applies to the fact that the Congress "may" decide how the states should show proof of their acts to the other states.

And to the gentleman who posted somewhere above Art that the FF&C provision applies only to judgments -- that's also not what the language of the document says. Judicial proceedings are only part of what is mandated by the Constitution to be recognized across state lines. At its basis, the granting by a state of a license (or permit) to carry a concealed weapon is a public act; it is an action by a state agency, pursuant to a state law. A strict reading of the Constitution could not reasonably conclude anything other than that the other states are required to recognize carry permits issued by any state.