Home Article 4

Article 4

“New States and Federal Property” Explained

In Section 3
of Article 4 of the Constitution, resides that of “new states and Federal
property.” There exist 2 clauses that specify that which has to do with
the State as well as the colonies. This first clause specifies that any such State
may have permission to garner admission into the Union as set forth by Congress
with the foundation of United States law at its back. However, no one State may
be created under the rule of another. In addition, no one State may be formed
as a result of the combination of various states or portions of states without
permission given by that of the State Legislature as well as Congress.

Despite the fact that the Constitution never maintained
any specific rule as to the prescribed equality of newly included states,
Congress does provide a clause that sets forth such statutes. As these states
were not representative of the original colonies, they are seen to be entitled
to some right to just and fair proceedings in connection to their inclusion.

An example
of the Constitution keeping a safe distance from regulation of equality from
one State to another is that which was shown during the presentation of a
provision in relation to the State of Alabama. In reference to this case, the Court
had struck down the aforementioned provision, in effect stating that the State
of Alabama maintain its own individual “sovereignty as well as
jurisdiction” over its lands. The Court reiterated that denial of such a State
right meant that it would be held in an unequal position in relation to all
others.

Doctrines of equality may also work against the
favor of a State, however. This is demonstrated by the predicament that the State
of Texas had fallen into. Due to its lack of control over a region of water
prior to inception into the Union, it thus lost control altogether following
it. Some relief was, however, given over to some states in the form of the
“Submerged Lands Act of 1953.” This Act returned certain portions of
land to states, while still leaving others wanting.

Though not
expressly stated within the United States Constitution, the Court stated in Texas
v. White that it may allude to the “perpetuity and indissolubility of the
Union”. In specific terms, the Court holds that there is potential for
such division, though strictly according to each State’s legislative practices.

What Are The Rights and Obligations of United States

What Are The Rights and Obligations of United States

The last section of Article 4 of the Constitution is that
of the “Obligations of the United States”
. Two
clauses reside within this section, the first being that of the
“republican government”
. Under this clause, the United States sets
forth that every
State included within the Union
practice that of a republican system of government. This clause has been called
the “guarantee clause,” as well.

Though the Constitution itself does not present us with
an adequate explanation of this clause, we may look no further than that of the
Federalist Papers
, where we are met with the initial beliefs and
intentions of this country’s
Founding Fathers.
Within these papers, a distinction exists in relation to that of a realistic
republican system of government. It describes it in terms of its distinction
from general democracy,
from which it was believed that the founders
wished to steer away.

In the time period amid the 1840s, the “Dorr
Rebellion” made
the Supreme Court’s ruling as to the clause’s
meaning of the utmost necessity. This
Rebellion,
directed by Thomas Wilson Dorr, stemmed from his anger in relation to
modifications within the electoral system of the
State of
Rhode Island. As many of those involved were arrested due to their attempts at
instituting new
State Constitutions,
a
Federal
suit was
filed that
claimed that such arrests were illegal due to Rhode Island’s
State Government’s existence
as opposite to that of “republican” in nature.

In the Supreme Court case Luther v. Borden, it was ruled
that only the Congress of the United States of America be allowed to determine
what type of government a
State maintained. Due to such a significant
proceeding, the United States Congress was forced to set forth specifications
by which the “republican nature” of
a State’s
government may be decided. 

Full Faith and Credit Clause

Full Faith and Credit Clause

The “Full Faith and Credit Clause” stems from Article 4 of the United States Constitution. The ideal of full faith and credit arises from that of the “Articles of Confederation,” which actually was the Constitution’s predecessor. Within this doctrine, it was stated that full faith and credit be afforded to all states in connection to the legal proceedings of all other states of interest. Courts specified that this section did not actually give states full reign to overrule judgments in others, but rather entailed that states exchange records as additional bases to court proceedings that may involve them.
In 1787, James Madison desired for additional statements to be included within this significant area of concern. The additional terminology set forth that, in addition to a State possessing such full faith and credit, it would also be at the discretion of the Legislature in accordance with the laws set forth, to decide the ways in which such records or acts may be instituted and employed in one State as stemming from another. 
Following subsequent alterations to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, we are finally presented with what we know it as today as residing within the United States Constitution. In the final composition of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, it set forth that such full faith and credit be bestowed within each individual State to the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of all alternative states. In addition, it was specified that Congress possessed authority, afforded to it by Federal law, to determine the ways in which the aforementioned items and proceedings of concern be instituted as proof as well as in relation to its final effect upon legal proceedings.
In Mills v. Duryee the Court stated that the Full Faith and Credit Clause be extended to include a guarantee of the institution and existence of records within foreign courts. This is due to the fact that they must maintain and possess a streamline of the maintenance of faith and credit in all courts.
One area of interest that deals with such issues of full faith and credit is that of “same-sex marriage,” or rather, “civil unions” in regions that have resisted such legislative changes. As many states have defined marriage as consisting only of members of the opposite sex, they have also concurrently disallowed their State governments from recognizing same-sex marriages instituted in other states or from outside of the country. This presents an area of contention as many states have made same-sex marriage legal by way of either their own State Legislature or Supreme Court ruling.

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

Federal Property Explained

Federal Property Explained

The second clause that resides within the third section of Article 4 is entitled “Federal Property and the Territorial Clause”. It authorizes Congress to do away with as well as create and maintain all lands existent within each State residing as Federal properties. In addition, it specifies that nothing within the Constitution will place any restraints whatsoever upon the right of the United States Government to reign over such rules for each State. The Government reserves the right to set aside lands by its own volition.
This Clause allows Congress to reside over the transactions attached to that of Federal property. This leaves the United States as the final authority when referencing concerns of Federal properties. One specific issue that arose in connection to Federal properties of the United States was that of what was termed “insular areas”, according to Congress. Cases referring to these areas were ruled by the Supreme Court, who then decided that these areas entailed regions or lands that the United States did maintain ownership over, but also simultaneously did not exist as a real part of the country. Due to this specification, Congress was granted the authority to impose specific parts of the Constitution to distinct areas.
Such an area that raises this Clause as its area of contention is that of the region of Puerto Rico. Up until now, Puerto Rico has maintained itself as residing under “United States sovereignty” as a “commonwealth.” Throughout many attempts to detach itself from the United States, results have always retained previous decisions, including maintenance of its commonwealth status.
Despite the wish of some to retain independence, it seems that still many more wish things to remain the same. Despite a specified amount of autonomy maintained by the commonwealth, the United States still retains absolute power in terms of governing this island.
In the Supreme Court case Downes v. Bidwell, seen as a landmark case in relation to that of insular cases, it was held that the United States be allowed to attain lands as well as employ absolute power in the determination of the rights of its residents. This set forth the term sometimes used, which is that of “unincorporated territories,” which may then be attached to the island of Puerto Rico as one such example.