Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lord Emsworth (talk | contribs) at 01:54, 1 June 2004 (→New states and federal property). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article Four of the United States Constitution relates to the states. It provides for the responsibilities states have to each other, and the responsibilities the federal government has to the states. Furthermore, it provides for the admission of new states and the changing of state boundaries.

Full faith and credit

The first Section of the Article requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted.

In Mills v. Druyee (1813), the Supreme Court ruled that the merits of the case, as determined by courts of one state, had to be recognized by the courts of other states. It was ruled, then, that state courts may not reopen cases whose merits have been conclusively determined by courts of other states. In a later case, Chief Justice John Marshall suggested that the judgment of one state court had to be recognized by other states' courts as final. Marshall's suggestion was not followed, however, when the Supreme Court decided McElmoyle v. Cohen in 1839. In that case, one party had obtained judgment in South Carolina and sought to enforce it in Georgia. Georiga law, however, had a statute of limitations that purported to bar actions on judgments if a certain amount of time had passed since they were rendered by the court. The court upheld Georgia's refusal to enforce the South Carolina judgment. It found that out-of-state judgments are subject to the laws and procedures of the states in which they are enforced, notwithstanding any priority accorded in the states in which they are pronounced.

Interstate relations

Section Three requires that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." The ambiguousness of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations. The interpretation endorsed by the Supreme Court is that discrimination by states between residents and non-residents is barred. Even In Corfield v. Coryell (1823), the Supreme Court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include "protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety ... the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State." Most other benefits were held not to be protected privileges and immunities. In the aforementioned Corfield v. Coryell, the Supreme Court sustained a New Jersey law giving state residents the exclusive right to gather clams and oysters.

Section Three also requires that fugitives from Justice may be extradited on the demand of executive authorities the states from which they flee. In Kentucky. v. Dennison (1861), the Supreme Court held that the federal courts may not, through the issue of writs of mandamus, compel state Governors to surrender fugitives. The decision was, however, overruled in 1987; now, the federal courts may require the extradition of fugitives. Once extradited, there is no requirement that the prisoner be tried for the offense charged in the extradition proceedings; the accused may be charged with and prosecuted for any offense in the state from which he fled.

Formerly, fugitive slaves were also required to be extradited upon the claims of their masters. The clause became moot when the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.

New states and federal property

Congress is empowered by Section Three to admit new states to the Union. No state, however, may be formed within the jurisdiction of another, or by the joining of different states or parts of different states, without the consent of all state legislatures concerned. States are admitted on equal footing with each other, and all citizens of the state at the time of admission become citizens of the United States. In Coyle v. Smith (1911), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not impose conditions on the exercise of state powers in the Act admitting the state. In the decision in question, the Supreme Court invalidated a provision whereby the state of Oklahoma was restricted in its choice of a capital.

Section Three also permits Congress to dispose of and legislate for all territories and properties belonging to the United States. The Supreme Court has held that states may not tax such federal property.

Obligations of the United States

The United States is obligated by Section Four to ensure a "Republican Form of Government" in each state. What exactly constitutes a republican government, however, is not up to the courts. In effect, the clause is non-justiciable; in Luther v. Borden (1849), the Court held that "it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State ... as well as its republican character."

Section Four also requires the United States to protect each state from invasion, and, upon the application of the state legislature (or executive, if the legislature cannot be convened), from domestic violence. Pursuant to the clause, Congress has authorized the President to call up the state militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.