Article 4 Article 4

Article 4

Article 4

Understanding Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive Guide

Introduction:

Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article aims to uphold a balance of power between individual states while ensuring unity and shared responsibility for the nation as a whole. In this article, we will dive deep into the contents of Article 4 and explain its various clauses and provisions.

Section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is perhaps the most well-known clause in Article 4. This clause requires that each state respect the laws, records, and court rulings of every other state. This means that a court judgment in one state is binding in all states. Additionally, a state must honor the public acts and contracts of other states.

Section 2: Privileges and Immunities Clause

The Privileges and Immunities Clause ensures that citizens of each state are afforded the same rights and privileges as citizens of other states. This includes the right to travel freely throughout the country, the right to engage in legal and business activities, and the right to access public resources. This clause also prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states.

Section 3: Extradition Clause

The Extradition Clause requires that states return fugitives who have fled to another state to face trial or punishment for a criminal offense committed in the original state. This clause is essential to maintaining law and order across state lines and ensures that criminals cannot evade justice by fleeing to another state.

Section 4: New States and Federal Property Clause

The New States and Federal Property Clause outlines the process for admitting new states to the Union. The federal government is responsible for governing any territories or other areas that are not yet states. Once a territory meets certain requirements, such as population and economic stability, a process is initiated to consider whether the territory should be admitted as a state. This clause also guarantees that the federal government has the power to acquire and manage federal property and territories.

Section 5: Republican Form of Government Clause

The Republican Form of Government Clause requires that the federal government guarantee to each state a republican form of government. This means that the government of each state should be composed of elected representatives and leaders who are accountable to the people. This clause is foundational to the democracy and independence of each state, as it ensures that the people of each state have a say in how they are governed.

Conclusion:

Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution plays a critical role in maintaining the balance of power between individual states while ensuring unity and shared responsibility for the nation as a whole. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, Extradition Clause, and New States and Federal Property Clause are critical to establishing a functioning federal system. The Republican Form of Government Clause ensures that each state is governed by elected representatives accountable to the people. Without Article 4, the United States would not be the nation it is today, allowing states to exist independently while working together for the greater good.


The history behind Article 4 of the Constitution is comprised of the area of private law. In more specific terms, it is composed of that which is set forth from the guidelines of both jurists as well as court decisions in relation to their jurisdictions. In such cases where this local set of policies is not existent, individuals will still be subject to the laws of alternate jurisdiction.

Examples of this includes the recognition of marriage as well as that of legally binding contracts. Due to the belief that such areas of private law necessitated increased observance, individuals sought it to be placed within the Constitution to ensure its upholding on higher levels of Federal law.

Article 4 in most cases has functioned in direct connection to that of judgments. Two specific areas of judgment include the enforcement of a case in a locale other than where the original legal proceedings had stemmed, as well as when a new suit is taken from that of a previous one. A case that set the stage for future applications of Article 4 in the Constitution was that of Mills v. Duryee. Taking place in 1813, this case brought forth an action within the District of Columbia stemming from a judgment incurred within a New York State court. In such a case, the defendant had desired to reopen inquiries on that of the merits of their prior case by imposing a plea of “nil debet.”

This term entails that of debt in connection to a contract of some sort. The Court decided that the Constitution did not operate with the express purpose of restating common law, but actually with the desire to strengthen and make known the existence of judgments in other locales. Later in Hampton v. McConnell Chief Justice Marshall went further to state his belief that State courts recognize each other’s judgments so as to enforce and validate final judgments in accordance with each other.

A subsequent case that dealt with Article 4 of the Constitution was that of McElmoyle v. Cohen. The issue that resided within this the case was whether the statute of limitations of Georgia would maintain authority to ban actions within that State based upon the judgment attained within a South Carolina Court. In contrast to Chief Justice Marshall’s sentiments, the Court ruled that the Constitution did not maintain the authority to interfere with the elements of “lex fori”, or “conflict of laws,” which specifies a court’s governance over alternative areas of jurisdiction.

Therefore, it was decided that foreign judgments do not assume the power they once had in other locales so as to maintain the integrity of local legislation. In this way, the court of judgment is entitled to the possession of “full faith and credit credit”.private law necessitated increased observance, individuals sought for it to be placed within the Constitution to ensure its upholding on higher levels of federal law. Article 4, in most cases, has functioned in direct connection to that of judgments. Two specific areas of judgment include that of which involves the enforcement of a case in a locale other than where the original legal proceedings had stemmed as well as when a new suit is taken from that of a previous one.

A case which set the stage for future applications of article 4 in the Constitution was that of “Mills v. Duryee.” Taking place in 1813, this case brought forth action within the District of Columbia that stemmed from judgment incurred within a New York state court. In such a case, the defendant had desired to reopen inquiries on that of the merits of their prior case by imposing a plea of “nil debit.” This term entails that of debt in connection to a contract of some sort. The court decided that the Constitution did not operate with the express purpose of restating common law, but actually with the desire to strengthen and make known the existence of judgments in other locales.

Later, in “Hampton v. McConnell,” Chief Justice Marshall went further to state his belief that state courts recognize each other’s judgments so as to enforce and validate final judgments in accordance with each other. A subsequent case that dealt with article 4 of the Constitution was that of “McElmoyle v. Cohen.” The issue that resided within this case was whether the statute of limitations of Georgia would maintain the authority to ban actions within that state based upon the judgment attained within a South Carolina Court.

In contrast to that of Chief Justice Marshall’s sentiments, the court ruled that the Constitution did not maintain the authority to interfere with the elements of “lex for” or in “conflict of laws,” that which specifies a court’s governance over alternative areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, it was decided that foreign judgments not assume the power they once had in other locales so as to maintain the integrity of local legislation. In this way, the court of justice is entitled to the possession of “full faith and credit