That sounds like a crock to me.
But what do I know?
And a question on a quiz came up. "If one state passes a law or issues a court decision what must all the other states do?".
Answer turned out to be "They must support that law or court decision, as required by the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution".
Can someone please interpret this for me? Does this mean we all have no right to resist police entrance into our homes because the Indiana Supreme Court says so?
That sounds like a crock to me.
But what do I know?
I don't know either, but consider that every state in the Union has open and/or concealed carry. Every single one of them. Well, with the exception of Illinois, that is.
So if the model were correct, then why doesn't Illinois have a concealed carry permit? Or at minimum, open carry. They got nothing.
Have these topics been explored by courts all across America? Yes. Does Illinois follow the rest of the states, all 49 of them, that allow the citizen to be armed? Nope! No way, no how, no gonna happen... capiche?
So if I go back to Illinois with my Colorado CCW (assuming I get it, that is!) would they honor my permit? Nope! Not mine, nor anybody else's.
The idea seems a crock on that basis, and I'd say the answer isn't backed up in reality.
Last edited by M-Taliesin; 07-07-2011 at 06:07 PM.
It does not mean that a law passed in one state must then be adopted by another. There is a Public Policy interest in this. Consider that some states once banned inter-racial marriage. Should the next state have been forced to follow? We also now have states that have banned same sex marriage and some that have passed acts to allow it.
The Clause has been used to enforce child custody determinations, which until the '70s were not recognized across state lines.
The Indiana decision has no bearing on conduct outside of Indiana.
Last edited by NavyMike; 07-07-2011 at 06:34 PM.
cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
I think in the context of the question that it simply means that states must respect each others laws. Say you did something that was illegal in California but not Nevada and then crossed into Nevada. Nevada would be obligated to arrest you even though you did not violate NV law. The would arrest and send you back to California.
"The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping."
More explanation here:
"When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."
2. Your question about the right to resist is far too general. I know of no right to resist a police entrance into your home. In fact, if they have a warrant or a recognized warrant exception, and you resist, you'll be arrested for obstruction, at least. Whether you have a legal right to resist a wrongful entrance, I have no idea.
How you are going to determine, at the time police are entering, whether they have a recognized warrant exception is beyond me. Even if you memorized all the recognized warrant exceptions, how are you going to find out whether the cops have one? Ask them? What if they give you a false answer, claiming one they don't have? Are you going to detect the lie? How are you going to compare the court opinions' recognized exceptions' circumstances to the circumstances the police claim? "Wait, while I google this"?
Don't feel bad. You're just discovering that your 4th Amendment rights have been raped over the last, say, forty years. Start digging and you'll find out how much the 4A has been emasculated.
The one place I can think may fit your quiz question is along the lines of marriage or drivers license. Any state will acknowledge another states marriage, even if that marriage would not be allowed in the other state. Example: one of my BIL's got a 15 year old girl pregnant. (this was 30 years ago). They lived in NYS and NYS required both parents to sign for a under 16 year old to legally marry and the girls father would not sign. I don't remember the state they went to, but where they did get married only required the permission of one parent. However, when they went back to NYS, the out of state marriage was accepted as valid.
Basically, in most cases, the question would need to be very specific for the answer given to be actually correct.
You may understand better if HR822 is passed. I will guarantee it will go to court (NY and IL along with other states will sue the national government saying it is an unconstitutional imposition on states rights) just to prove the falicy of that answer.
Look up HR 822 and see what it is trying to do. If your quiz question's answer was correct, there would be no need for HR 822....No?
States do NOT have to recognize marriages from another State if those marriages would be in violation of the recognizing State's laws. For example, Alabama will not recognize homosexual marriages from other States.
States also do not have to recognize driving licenses from other States if the driver would not be qualified to drive in the recognizing State. For example, State A allows 15-year-olds to earn licenses. State B requires license holders to be 16. State B does not have to recognize the license of a 15-year-old from State A.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not absolute. It cannot be used to subvert one State's laws with another's.
Consider this: A partner in a marriage cannot be forced to witness against their spouse. Or, in some states, having sex with a 15 year old will get a "statutory rape" charge against a 19 year old? (NY, WA and others) No? However, if said 15 year old is married to that 19 year old, physical sex is perfectly legal.
If the above 15 and 19 year old couple lives in a state that requires a person to be at least 16 (like WA) to legally marry, how could this happen unless the state recognized the marriage license of another state that does allow marriage before 16?
This also becomes a problem with foreign marriages.
Simple answer is you lose a civil case in one state and then go to another. You are still liable to pay the award and the new state's courts would enforce it. You commit a crime in one state that is not a crime in the state you flee to. You would be arrested and extradited, upon due process from the first state, back to face the sentence. It is not a be all and end all no wiggle room situation. The moron court in IN has power ONLY in IN for their interpretation. Stare decisis says it 'could' be used as precident in another state; however, the FF&C clause does not in any way force it to be. Clear conflict is adjudicated in Federal Court.
"For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V
It's a state's right issue ...
The fifty states are in fact fifty independent nations, all bound together to form one greater nation of equals.
On entrance to the Union, each has agreed to adhere to the Constitution and Supreme Court case law.
A state must adhere to it's own state laws but note, states have been known to and continue to "misbehave"
A state does NOT have to recognize a given statute from another state.
A state does NOT have to recognize case law from another state.
However in a given legal proceeding a given state or state legislature may elect to take note of the statute or case law as generated in another state.
Hope this helps
Last edited by tyc; 07-11-2011 at 05:22 PM.
To ALL Whom it May Concern:
The United States Federal Constitution 'Full Faith and Commerce Clause' is Applicable to The States ONLY by an Act of Federal Congress.
The Clause States: ' Full Faith and Credit SHALL be Given in Each State to The Public Ccts, 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.
However..., Congress has NOT Extended such Full Faith and Commerce Clause to ALL Cases.
As of yet..., Congress has ONLY Applied The Clause to Orders of Protection under Federal Law 28 U.S.C. 1738b.
*** NOTE: Congree may Extend The Clause for Guaranteed Inter-State Reciprocity for ALL Persons who Hold State-Issued Concealed Weapons Permits, under a Bill that is Currently Pending before The 2011 102th Federal Congress, Located here:
Last edited by aadvark; 07-25-2011 at 10:40 AM.
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.
Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)
I NEVER Thought of it that Way!
It could..., Key Word '...could...', be a New Way for The United States Federal Government to Regulate Interstate and Foreign Commerce!
The full-faith-and-credit clause has been described as the glue that holds the union together. It has been interpreted by the Sup. Ct. as a self-executing provision, notwithstanding Congress' power to provide regulations as to its enforcement. It requires each state to honor the official decrees, judgments, and acts of each of the other states. The extent of Congress' regulation has been to specify the means by which documentation of such may be authenticated.
It does not provide for the ability of any state to govern within the territory of another state. Recognition of the laws of another state has nothing to do with the extraterritorial application of those laws. So, no, Indiana's court rulings have no effect in Wyoming, for example, except as to the findings of fact expressed and the final judgments rendered. So, if one were to file suit in Indiana over the actions of jack-booted thugs posing as police officers, and lost that suit, and one of the JBT's moved to Wyoming, he couldn't then file suit under Wyoming law over the same facts, because the judgment of the Indian court was conclusive on that issue (there are other problems with that kind of strategy, that are irrelevant to this discussion).
It does not mean that Virginia has to recognize a "same-sex marriage" created by the Federal District of Washington. But, if two people entered into such an arrangement, subsequently obtained a divorce resulting an order that one was to pay the other spousal support or alimony, that order to pay would have to be honored in Virginia, even though the transaction creating the purported obligation was not lawful (and is, in fact, a crime) in Virginia. An order resulting from a suit over gambling debts in Nevada can be enforced in South Carolina, even though gambling is illegal in South Carolina.
The issue of no-knock warrants was first addressed by English courts in the late Sixteenth Century, giving rise to what was then called, "the castle doctrine". At common law, there is a requirement that law enforcement officials knock or give other audible warning, allow time for the occupants to come to the door, and serve whatever documents support the entry prior to entering. The specific reason given by the courts was that a man's home is his castle, and he's got as much right to defend his home as the king has to defend his, and that law enforcement officers who burst in unannounced can be lawfully killed in the process because their breach of the king's peace, and thus, law enforcement officers are prohibited from doing so in part for their own safety. I maintain that this is the law presently in states that recognize and incorporate the common law of England (such as Virginia). It clearly does not apply in states derivative of the Roman inquisitorial system (i.e., those based on or derivative of Spanish or French law or of those states in which Roman influence has recently expanded due to immigration, such as Massachussetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Hawaii, and Maryland).
Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com
By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.