Article Four of the United States Constitution

This is a discussion on Article Four of the United States Constitution within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I'm wondering why our 2A groups aren't going after reciprocity through Article Four or the United States Constitution? It allows us to use our state's ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Article Four of the United States Constitution

  1. #1
    Member Array coolfrmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    100

    Article Four of the United States Constitution

    I'm wondering why our 2A groups aren't going after reciprocity through Article Four or the United States Constitution?

    It allows us to use our state's Driver's License as we drive through other states. It allows us to not to be required to get remarried if we move to another state.

    I love how our gov't & special interest groups pick and choose when & what part of the Constitution they want to champion & follow.

    WE SHOULD ALL FOLLOW & CHAMPION ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

    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.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    Sorry to say it, but in the instance you are quoting, the government is not picking and choosing.

    To get a better handle on it, read McDonald and Heller closely. You can thank the Supreme Court.

    The Thomas opinion should have been the majority opinion in McDonald. However, both justices Roberts and Scalia are known incrementalists. Neither likes sweeping changes. Alito was left with no choice but to submit his terribly watered down majority opinion to assure a victory. Like it or not, he gave us a 5-4 victory rather than a 6-3 defeat.

    Chris

  4. #3
    Member Array coolfrmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    100
    The problem is the supreme courts like to make law & enforce their own agenda instead of interpreting law like they should be doing. Maybe it's my simple mind. If it's good enough to accept XYZ then it should be good enough to accept ABC.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    The Courts seems to interpret the Constitution to meet the law they are reviewing instead of interpreting the law to see if it meets the requirements of the Constitution.
    As in...we want to regulate firearms so we must make shall not infringe mean something other than it says. We write laws and then interpret the Constitution to fit them later if needed.

    Michael

  6. #5
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    Well, I think we are taking the first step in the right direction.

    Rep John Boehner, the new Speaker of the House, is apparently changing the House rules regarding the submission of bills to the floor. All bills submitted for consideration will need to have Constitutional authority before it will reach the floor. Unless the relevant Constitutional authority is on the top page of the bill, the clerk will either return the proposed bill to the member(s) concerned, or just drop in the trash. Without the proper authority, no bill will ever reach the floor.

    While I like the idea, it doesn’t go far enough. Boehner also needs to apply the same criteria to bills referred from the Senate, or for that matter, any bill coming out of the White House.

    Chris

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595
    Just to look at the opposite side, can you imagine the mischief if Texas had to give full faith and credit to the New York State's public acts on gun ownership?

    There is a premise to the question asked which is not correct. The example of driver's licenses was mentioned and given as an example of something which falls under this provision cited in post 1. In reality that isn't the reason why driver's licenses are accepted across state lines.

    You can see even more gray and confusing areas where one state will recognize a gay marriage while another will refuse later to allow that couple to apply for a divorce, or refuse to recognize the marriage at all.

    In short, that provision probably doesn't mean what its plain language appears to us all to mean. One would have to go through innumerable Federal appeals court and Supreme Court rulings to get at what that means in today's world.

    I think it mostly means only that rulings by a court on a specific individual case in state A must be upheld by a court in state B. Again, using the marriage example, if a court in Iowa orders a divorcing couple to split their assets in a certain manner, that issue does not get re-litigated in Illinois if there are assets held in the second state.

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    Well, I think we are taking the first step in the right direction.

    Rep John Boehner, the new Speaker of the House, is apparently changing the House rules regarding the submission of bills to the floor. All bills submitted for consideration will need to have Constitutional authority before it will reach the floor. Unless the relevant Constitutional authority is on the top page of the bill, the clerk will either return the proposed bill to the member(s) concerned, or just drop in the trash. Without the proper authority, no bill will ever reach the floor.

    While I like the idea, it doesn’t go far enough. Boehner also needs to apply the same criteria to bills referred from the Senate, or for that matter, any bill coming out of the White House.

    Chris
    He lacks the constitutional authority to do that. The House can not dictate to The Senate or the other way around. They can pass different bills on the same subject and then reconcile them in conference.

    Also, on the surface this business sounds good, but it is mischief; or can be used for mischief. Traditionally, and done without fanfare or publicity, the various committees and staff sort those things out in committee before bills go to the floor for a vote. So we are looking at grand standing here.

  9. #8
    Member Array coolfrmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    Well, I think we are taking the first step in the right direction.

    Rep John Boehner, the new Speaker of the House, is apparently changing the House rules regarding the submission of bills to the floor. All bills submitted for consideration will need to have Constitutional authority before it will reach the floor. Unless the relevant Constitutional authority is on the top page of the bill, the clerk will either return the proposed bill to the member(s) concerned, or just drop in the trash. Without the proper authority, no bill will ever reach the floor.

    While I like the idea, it doesn’t go far enough. Boehner also needs to apply the same criteria to bills referred from the Senate, or for that matter, any bill coming out of the White House.

    Chris
    +1.. Too bad it wouldn't be made retroactive.

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    Sorry to say it, but in the instance you are quoting, the government is not picking and choosing.

    To get a better handle on it, read McDonald and Heller closely. You can thank the Supreme Court.

    The Thomas opinion should have been the majority opinion in McDonald. However, both justices Roberts and Scalia are known incrementalists. Neither likes sweeping changes. Alito was left with no choice but to submit his terribly watered down majority opinion to assure a victory. Like it or not, he gave us a 5-4 victory rather than a 6-3 defeat.

    Chris
    Which is picking and choosing. It just happens to be the SCOTUS rather than Congress or the Executive branch this time. THis started in 1804 when Marshall abused the interstate commerce clause.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    In short, that provision probably doesn't mean what its plain language appears to us all to mean. One would have to go through innumerable Federal appeals court and Supreme Court rulings to get at what that means in today's world.
    Hopyard - I don't disagree with your interpretation of the way the courts view the Constitution. For a document that was written for the folks to be able to understand, the courts seem to want to find meaning where the original intent did not have it. Congress seems equally unwilling to impeach judges/justices that abuse their authority. Vote people, vote.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298

    Enumerated Powers Act

    Some months ago I wrote and called my Representatives in Washington about requiring Congress to show where in the Constitution they received the authority to pass certain legislative acts. The following is a letter from my Senator in response to my requests.
    **********
    "Dear Mr. XXXXX,



    Thank you for writing to express your concern regarding the constitutionality of recent bills. I offer my sincere apology for the delay in my response, and I hope I can still be of service to you.



    I absolutely support your idea to require all Congressional bills to begin with a reference to the constitutional authority behind them. In fact, in June of last year, I joined with 23 co-sponsors to introduce the Enumerated Powers Act (S. 1319), proposing exactly that requirement. The act also contains point of order provisions that would enable members of Congress to hold their colleagues accountable to their constitutional oaths. Some members of Congress would undoubtedly continue to ignore constitutional boundaries, but this act would provide a compelling tool with which American citizens could hold their representatives accountable.



    Our founders left us a remarkable document that contains the power to preserve our freedoms for generations to come, and I am convinced the immediate passage of the Enumerated Powers Act is essential. The proposal was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, and I spoke on its behalf the following day. No further action has been taken by the Committee. My hope is that citizens like you will take the lead in your communities and rally Americans to call for the enactment of this measure and to hold our elected leaders accountable to its premises.



    State leaders can also find many ways to be strong in the face of federal encroachment. In fact, the State of Oklahoma, in its 51st Legislature (2008), passed a resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, and serving notice to the federal government to "to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers." Oklahoma legislators are currently working on other pieces of legislation designed to protect states' rights. If you have not already done so, I encourage you to contact your representatives in the state legislature. You can find their contact information <a href="http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx">here</a>.



    Thank you again for your email and for your interest in our nation's return to its founding principles. I welcome any additional thoughts you may have, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.



    Sincerely, A

    Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

    United States Senator
    Michael

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,771
    It really boils down to the application, and the acceptable act, to which the interpretation is applied. Marriage vs. gun ownership is not an apples to apples comparison -- though one could argue that it could or should be, it's really not. Same for drivers licenses vs. a CWL.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  14. #13
    Member Array coolfrmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmacque View Post
    It really boils down to the application, and the acceptable act, to which the interpretation is applied. Marriage vs. gun ownership is not an apples to apples comparison -- though one could argue that it could or should be, it's really not. Same for drivers licenses vs. a CWL.
    I don't see how it's not... As I see it. Article Four makes it an apples to apples.

    the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State
    Nothing in the article makes exceptions or declares any Record more important than another or a stand alone issue.

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595
    A few years back, when former Senator Specter was a Republican and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he got on the floor one time and had a hissy fit about something or other that the Supreme Court had done. He ranted on about how his committee was just as able to read and interpret the constitution as those justices, and he even through in a less than polite, "who are they" or perhaps "who do they think they are," within his rant.

    The bottom line here is that for much of that document no one knows what it means. It is OK for The House to justify a piece of legislation or not, by citing some supposed Constitutional authority for it, but The Senators might hold a different view about the constitutionality. The President might veto because s/he hold a different view, and our courts of appeal could split all over the place later and render conflicting opinions--- and that is common place.

    And of course, we here will ramble on about what something plainly means and how stupid others are that they can't understand plain language, or that they are ignorant of history, or ignorant of what the founders meant--- as if anyone can really know or such a thing actually exists.

    If it make Boehner happy to put that on each piece of legislation, I have no problem with it, so long as it is done in good faith and not with contorted construction, and not with disregard for precedence, and not with disregard for practical real world consequences of bizarre interpretations.

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If it make Boehner happy to put that on each piece of legislation, I have no problem with it, so long as it is done in good faith and not with contorted construction, and not with disregard for precedence, and not with disregard for practical real world consequences of bizarre interpretations.
    Hopyard - with the exception of the bolded part, I agree. If the precedence is unconstitutional, i.e., outside the enumerated powers of the Congress, they must refuse to deal with it - unless it is to reverse a prior unconstitutional vote.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. The Constitution Of The United States
    By QKShooter in forum Reference & "How To" Forum
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: April 1st, 2013, 12:34 PM
  2. United States v. Chester
    By dldeuce in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 4th, 2011, 12:51 PM
  3. R.I.P. The United States of America
    By Free American in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: July 21st, 2009, 01:31 AM
  4. The Intent of The Second Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America
    By Bumper in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 19th, 2004, 02:01 AM

Search tags for this page

article four of the u.s. constitution (4 points)

,
constitution reciprocity
,
reciprocity constitution
,
reciprocity in the constitution
,
reciprocity in us constitution
,

the idea behind article 4 of the u.s. constitution was to

,

the idea behind article 4 of the u.s. constitution was to:

,
u.s. constitution reciprocity
,
what does article four of the us constitution mean
,
what does article iv of the united states constitution stand for:
,
what does the article 4 in the constitution mean
,
what was the idea behind article 4 of the constitution
Click on a term to search for related topics.