Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean like the party controlled ballot status control mechanisms in place in all 50 States?
The Constitution grants no power to political parties.
Their power comes from "politics".
Wanna play politics?
A state statute that explicitly states that it will not accept the legal records of another state will be unconstitutional on its face as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. To date almost every birther bill in each state runs afoul of the Constitution.
A state statute that explicitly states that it will not accept the legal records of another state will be unconstitutional on its face as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. To date almost every birther bill in each state runs afoul of the Constitution.
Well then, I guess Hawaii and others will just have to accept Montana's ballot status requirements on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Well then, I guess Hawaii and others will just have to accept Montana's ballot status requirements on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Nope, Montana will have their bill declared unconstitutional on its face before a federal district court.
Since you don't seem to understand what Full Faith and Credit means, let me briefly explain.
Quote:
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken
A record of one state shall have the same credit in every court within the US. A state does not have to alter their acts of authentication of legal documents to meet the demands of another state. Hawaii's birth certificates are consistent with federal guidelines and are sufficient for all purposes, therefore the particular form of birth certificate the state of Hawaii provides is legally sufficient in any other state in the union. If Montana decides that it is not, a federal district court will correct them for violating the Constitution.
Nope, Montana will have their bill declared unconstitutional on its face before a federal district court.
It'll hafta be tried on merit to determine its constitutionality.
No tellin' what might show up in the discovery process.
Good luck with your time-line Birth Control!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
