Question for legal beagles, or another SCOTUS bashing session.

[longrifleman]

Article. IV.
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.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


This has been nagging at the back of my brain since the incident in Ohio with Hunter being stopped with those evil weapons that the HP didn't like. This is an ongoing problem for lots of folks all over the place. I'm sure that this has some case law to back up the ability of the state's to ignore licenses issued elsewhere but I don't think I have ever read it.

Also, I would like to know why CCW licenses are treated differently than the soon to be issued licenses to commit sod... er... gay marriage licenses. This question would also apply to all other types of licenses. I know that the states enact law for recpricosity (sp) on many subjects but why is that necessary from a clear reading of the Constitution? Or is expecting the Constitution to be applied as it is written my problem?

I understand the practical reasons why the states want to keep control but would like to learn the legal reasoning behind ignoring what I think is the clear meaning of the Constitution.

My understanding of some terms;

public Acts = laws passed by legislature

Privileges and Immunities = CCW license etal


Confused and ignorant hick in the sticks

 

[Gordon Fink]

This point comes up every few months or so. Long story short, the states have been selectively violating Art. IV, Sect. 1–2, for many years. Just ask lawyers and other licensed professionals.

But you’re right. Constitutionally, it should apply to CCW permits. Of course, CCW permits are themselves unconstitutional.

~G. Fink

 

[USAFNoDAk]

In addition, the Supremes ruled that states cannot limit welfare payments to people who show up from other states to the level of the original state they came from. The Supremes based this on the limits it would put on people to move from state to state. So if Texas welfare pays $500.00/month, and Minnesota welfare pays $800/month, a person can get a raise by heading north to Minnesota from Texas. Minnesota cannot pay them $500/month, but must pay them the full $800.00 month.

Well, if I own firearms which are legal in Minnesota, but not legal in another state, wouldn't the other state be preventing me from moving there? Why should I have to relinquish any of my legally obtained property just because I move to a different state, especially in light of the Second Amendment.

Who said govt. rules were fair? There is so much inconsistency it would be funny if it weren't such a hassle for us "common" folks.

 

[Dex Sinister]

Also, I would like to know why CCW licenses are treated differently than the soon to be issued licenses to commit sod... er... gay marriage licenses. This question would also apply to all other types of licenses. I know that the states enact law for recpricosity (sp) on many subjects but why is that necessary from a clear reading of the Constitution? Or is expecting the Constitution to be applied as it is written my problem?

Silly you, expecting the Constitution to be applied plainly.

Roughly for the same reason we have two judicial branches of thought about the Bill of Rights: one that says you cannot have any more rights than are explicitly listed in the BoR, and the other that says the government can restrict anything not explicitly listed in the BoR's.

You'll notice that neither of them are the option that you possess any rights you want, unless the government was actually authorized to control something.

SCOTUS killed off the Constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause early on, and killed off the same clause in the 14th amendment soon after it was passed.

Also, I would like to know why CCW licenses are treated differently than the soon to be issued licenses to commit sod... er... gay marriage licenses.

And technically, your implication isn't true. In a number of states even hetrosexual married couples are forbidden by law from performing anything other than "standard" hetrosexual procreative intercourse.

However, it's not the marriage license, it's the state of being married that is (or isn't) recognized. Driver's licenses are a better example.

Dex }:>=-

 

[tyme]

That's just the way judges have decided things. They've essentially gutted the full faith and credit clause, though perhaps it shouldn't have had much meaning in the first place -- how can Georgia claim to issue any kind of license good in every other state? What if GA issued a license to kill, would it be good in NY? It all boils down to morals and what states want to allow. Technically, under FF&C, if a state issued a license for every legal activity, no other state could have more restrictive laws, at least none that apply to out-of-staters.

The legal system is a joke. As Oliver W. Holmes (I think) pointed out (undoubtedly repeating an earlier scholar's sentiments) around a century ago, Judges make up their minds first and figure out an appropriate line of reasoning later. The result is that there are so many contortions involved in most opinions that nobody - not even legal professionals - can understand them or know exactly how they apply to another case.

An amusing book on the subject is Fred Rodell's Woe Unto You, Lawyers, made even funnier and even more disturbing by its age.