| Full Faith And Credit Clause |
Article Index for Full |
Shopping Clause |
Website Links For Full |
Information AboutFull Faith And Credit Clause |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE | |
| united states constitution | |
| legal history of the united states | |
|
TEXT HISTORY PRIOR TO RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITITION A similar clause existed in Article IV of the Articles Of Confederation : "Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State." Articles of Confederation (1777). A Pennsylvania court explained in 1786 that this provision in the Articles of Confederation did not direct that "executions might issue in one state upon the judgments given in another", but rather was "chiefly intended to oblige each state to receive the records of another as full evidence of such acts and judicial proceedings."''James v. Allen'', 1 Dall. (1 U.S.) 188, 191-92 (Pa. 1786). Later, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadephia, James Madison said that he wanted to supplement that provision in the Articles of Confederation, in order to let Congress "provide for the execution of Judgments in other States, under such regulations as might be expedient." Records of the Federal Convention , ''The Founders Constitution''. By September 1 of 1787, negotiations at the Constitutional Convention had led to the following draft which included supplementary language as Madison had requested: Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another. Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitutution . After several further modifications, the Full Faith and Credit Clause assumed the form in which it remains today. During the ratification process, James Madison remarked further on this subject, in '' Federalist #42 ''. He wrote that the corresponding clause in the Articles of Confederation was "extremely indeterminate, and can be of little importance under any interpretation which it will bear."Madison, James. '' Federalist #42 '' (1788). Of the expanded clause in the Constitution, Madison wrote that it established a power that "may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States." INTERPRETATION AFTER RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION In wrote for the Court that it was the federal statute (rather than the constitutional provision) that made records from one state effective in another state: It is argued, that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence, when admitted. This argument cannot be supported. The act declares, that the record, duly authenticated, shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state court from whence it is taken. If in such court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other court. Although the Court was engaged in statutory interpretation in ''Mills'', the Court eventually characterized ''Mills'' as a constitutional decision, in the exception" to both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the accompanying federal statute. In 1939 , the Court in ''Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident'' wrote: are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See ''Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co.'', 127 U.S. 265; ''Huntington v. Attrill'', 146 U.S. 657; ''Finney v. Guy'', 189 U.S. 335; see also ''Clarke v. Clarke'', 178 U.S. 186; ''Olmsted v. Olmsted'', 216 U.S. 386; ''Hood v. McGehee'', 237 U.S. 611; cf. ''Gasquet v. Fenner'', 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events''Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n'', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=306&invol=493 306 U.S. 493 , 502 (1939). The Supreme Court continues to apply its public policy exception differently for state judgments as compared to state laws. In the 2003 case of ''Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt'', the Court reiterated that, " precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments."''Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt'', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-42 538 U.S. 488 , 494 (2003), quoting ''Baker v. General Motors'', 522 U. S. 222, 232 (1998). If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage (such as Polygamy , Miscegenation , Consanguinity , or Gay Marriage ), civil judgments and orders, criminal conviction and others. In cases of out-of-state Judgments , the Court has stated that there may be public policy exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but not a "roving" public policy exception as there is for out-of-state Laws .''Baker v. General Motors'', 522 U.S. 222 (1998). SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CONTROVERSY The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been noted for its application involving orders of protection, for which the clause was expounded upon by the Violence Against Women Act , child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith And Credit For Child Support Orders Act (), and its possible application to Same-sex Marriage , Civil Union and Domestic Partnership laws and cases, as well as the controversial Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment . The clause has been the chief constitutional basis for the repeated attacks on the DOMA. Regardless of whether DOMA is constitutional, most legal scholars recognize that it is superfluous in some cases given the public policy exception in matrimonial choice of law. For even if DOMA is deemed unconstitutional, the long precedence of the public policy exception weighs in against the recognition of same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in states whose public policy prohibits it. As of early 2004, 39 states have passed their own laws nearly all of which specifically reject same-sex marriages recognized in other jurisdictions. Many of these laws have been passed in the last few years. By taking a legal stance on the issue these states have helped inform the Supreme Court what the public policy of the various states are before the Court takes up the issue and it is left to review the constitutionality of those policies. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the landmark '' Lawrence V. Texas '' decision that he feared application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy "the structure... that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." If Scalia's dissenting opinion held true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them. Likewise, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case of '' Goodridge V. Department Of Public Health '' is being eyed by observers on both sides of the issue because of similar concerns stemming from this clause. Supporters of the DOMA, however, have claimed that the clause could very well be used to defend the law. They say that the clause’s explicit language spelling out the role of Congress is precisely what makes the law Constitutional, without the further need for the Federal Marriage Amendment. They point out that Congress has made several laws, including those on firearms controls and safety standards, employment discrimination, disability, and rights to unionization, and environmental protection, which have all withstood Constitutional attacks on the basis of full faith and credit. In August of 2007, a federal appeals court held that, "Oklahoma’s adoption amendment is unconstitutional in its refusal to recognize final adoption orders of other states that permit adoption by same-sex couples."'' Finstuen v. Crutcher '' (10th Cir. 2007). FOOTNOTES EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|