APP - what about article IV sections 1. and 2.

[Don Quixote]

does the remaining part of doma override article IV of the constitution? a partial text follows:



U.S. Constitution

• main page
• annotations

[h=1]Article IV[/h]

• Text
• Learn more

[h=2]Section 1.[/h] Fullfaith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts,records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And theCongress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts,records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
[h=2]Section 2.[/h] The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
















http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section1

 

[tekkychick]

I think sooner or later there will be a case where a married couple moves to a state where their marriage isn't recognized; they will either be denied a state benefit, be treated as unmarried in a hospital, or maybe they'll try to divorce; and it will end up in front of the Supreme Court, where they will need to decide if states need to recognize a marriage that was performed in another state.

After the Loving case, I can't imagine how they could rule against the married couple, but who knows?

 

[/MSG/]

does the remaining part of doma override article IV of the constitution? a partial text follows:



U.S. Constitution

• main page
• annotations

Article IV

• Text
• Learn more

Section 1.

Fullfaith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts,records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And theCongress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts,records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
















http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section1

Already been tried in McDonald v. Chicago. The USSC said, essentially, that yeah that's correct but they won't use such a ruling because it will lead to overturning about 125 years of legal precedent in a metric fuckton of cases.

 

[Don Quixote]

I think sooner or later there will be a case where a married couple moves to a state where their marriage isn't recognized; they will either be denied a state benefit, be treated as unmarried in a hospital, or maybe they'll try to divorce; and it will end up in front of the Supreme Court, where they will need to decide if states need to recognize a marriage that was performed in another state.

After the Loving case, I can't imagine how they could rule against the married couple, but who knows?

clearly the majority of scotus does not want to rule that lgbt marriage is legal in all states...yet, but what about article IV?

 

[Don Quixote]

Already been tried in McDonald v. Chicago. The USSC said, essentially, that yeah that's correct but they won't use such a ruling because it will lead to overturning about 125 years of legal precedent in a metric fuckton of cases.

do you really think that will stop them?

and there will have to be a ruling regarding article IV sooner or later

 

[tekkychick]

clearly the majority of scotus does not want to rule that lgbt marriage is legal in all states...yet, but what about article IV?

Not yet. But in a few years....

 

[tekkychick]

Not yet. But in a few years....

Unfortunately, in the meantime, a lot of couples won't be able to marry which will impact them in terms of benefits and responsibilities. Which sucks. Need to keep pushing on states to legalize it.

 

[/MSG/]

do you really think that will stop them?

and there will have to be a ruling regarding article IV sooner or later

It did 2 years ago. And the longer they go, the more unlikely they are to overturn it.

 

[Howey]

Waaaay above my paygrade, but the dominoes are going to start falling even more quickly now.

 

[Don Quixote]

It did 2 years ago. And the longer they go, the more unlikely they are to overturn it.

it reminds of when the feds told the mormons that they could not become a state until they gave up polygamy.

it is past time for the states and the feds to give up on controlling marriage and just register them and sort out the mess that divorce creates.

 

[/MSG/]

it reminds of when the feds told the mormons that they could not become a state until they gave up polygamy.

it is past time for the states and the feds to give up on controlling marriage and just register them and sort out the mess that divorce creates.

Except the lack of a POI ruling isn't just about marriage. It would overturn a metric ton of shit, I.E. the Slaughter House Ruling.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

the slope is too slippery.....

 

[Don Quixote]

Except the lack of a POI ruling isn't just about marriage. It would overturn a metric ton of shit, I.E. the Slaughter House Ruling.

poi ruling?
slaughter house ruling?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

poi ruling?
slaughter house ruling?

privileges or immunities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_Cases

 

[Don Quixote]

privileges or immunities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_Cases

i suspect that the poi/slaughterhouse rulings will be revisited and changed

scotus is not apolitical

i would also like to see the decision that corporations are considered citizens revisited and overturned

 

[SmarterthanYou]

i suspect that the poi/slaughterhouse rulings will be revisited and changed

SCOTUS had their opportunity for POI during mcdonald v. chicago. they chose to go the due process route. I think POI is dead and gone, never to be revisited.

i would also like to see the decision that corporations are considered citizens revisited and overturned

it certainly needs to be scaled back for sure. corporations should at least have some property rights to avoid having their buildings absconded by greedy municipalities.