constitution

Article 4

Article 4

Article 4The 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 include the
recognition of marriage as well as that of legally binding contracts. Due to
belief that such areas of 

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 include the recognition of marriage as well as that of legally binding
contracts. Due to belief that such areas of 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 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 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
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 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 which
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 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 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 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 fori” or in “conflict of laws,”
that which specifies a courts 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 judgment is entitled to the possession
of “full faith and credit

Share

Related Articles