From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:44:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Democracy... (fwd)
Message-ID: <199809162310.SAA10167@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: silly@ofb.net
> Subject: Re: Democracy...
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:27:36 -0700 (PDT)

> > > The congress doesn't pass laws regarding marriages. 
> > Yet.
> Not really true, IMO.  Consider
> 
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03396:@@@L
> 
> Signed into law in 1996, The Defense of Marriage Act, seeks to define 
> "marriage" as a marriage between one man and one woman, in an attempt to 
> prevent gay people from getting, say, married in Hawaii and then getting 
> the same protection as other married people.
> 
> Unfortunately, it it seems to be in character with the "full faith and 
> credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution, which 
> follows "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the 
> Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved,
> and the Effect thereof."
> 
> The same rationale could be used in turning state-issued driver's 
> licenses into National ID Cards, couldn't it?


Section 1.  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. 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

The interpetation you offer is bogus. The article says Congress shall pass
what laws are deemed necessary to guarantee that the rights and priviliges
of one state are enjoyed in the others. It does *NOT* say they have a right
to define *what those privileges actualy are*. It has one other effect in
that it prohibits safe haven states. Though it would seem to imply that once
a person changed residence from one state to another and obtained
citizenship in the new state some extradition could be refused...

Example:

Bob is living in Texas and growing pot, it is illegal. In Louisana on the
other hand personal possession is allowed for quantities up to 500 lbs. Bob
decides that he would rather live in Louisiana. Until Bob actualy obtained
Louisiana citizenship he would still be considered a Texas resident and
therefore responsible to the laws of that state. So if Texas were to
extradite prior to Louisiana citizenship Bob would have to be extradited.
However, once Bob became a Louisiana citizen and no longer a Texas citizen
his prior actions wouldn't be extraditable. A sort of get out of jail free
card.

At no point is Congress given the authority to define state law, only that
it must guarantee a representative form of government in each state - not
that they all have to be identical. The 10th would prevent such an extension
of authority.

The reality is the actual law could be incredibly simple:

Every state shall respect and protect the rights and priviliges of any
citizen of another state who is resident within the boundaries of the state.
The state shall further protect those rights even if they are in direct
conflict with the laws of that state.

So if a Texas DPS officer pulled over a car from Louisiana he couldn't
hassle them in regards to the pot they had in the car. Even though it was
illegal for Texas citizens.


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------