The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Full Faith and Credit Clause of The U.S. Constitution
and The Equal Protection of the Law Doctrine

Full Faith and Credit Clause

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is defined in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution as:

"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 ‘Full Faith and Credit Clause’ refers to the recognition, acceptance, and enforcement of the orders and judgments of another jurisdiction in legal proceedings. Specifically, it is the recognition of one state’s legal decisions by another state. This section helps to ensure that judicial decisions made in one jurisdiction will be recognized and honored in every other jurisdiction. One purpose for this is that it prevents someone from moving to another jurisdiction to avoid a court judgment or to file a new lawsuit in an attempt to obtain a more favorable outcome on a matter that has already been decided. It also says that the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. 

The Full Faith and Credit clause applies only to civil judgments and is invoked to enforce civil judgments. When a valid civil judgment is rendered by a court that has jurisdiction over the parties, and the parties receive proper notice of the action and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Full Faith and Credit clause requires that the judgment receive the same effect in other states as in the state where it is entered.  A party who obtains a judgment in one state may petition the court in another state to enforce the judgment. When this is done, the parties do not relitigate the issues, and the court in the second state is obliged to fully recognize and honor the judgment of the first court in determining the enforceability of the judgment and the procedure for its execution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a state to substitute another state’s law or policy for its own, which means it does not have to honor something that is specifically against its own law. The issue of licensure is an example of this limitation. For example, someone who has a driver’s license in Arkansas may legally drive during a visit to Missouri. If they move to Missouri, however, they will be required to obtain a driver’s license in their new home state. This holds true for hunting licenses, firearm licenses, and marriage licenses (although rarely done as each State extends the courtesy to other States in regard to marriage licenses), to name a few. Licensed professionals are another example of each state being allowed to maintain and honor only their own legislation. Doctors, pharmacists, contractors, attorneys, and other professionals who want to practice in multiple states must obtain a separate license in each state.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not the application of one State's laws in another State but is used only in the judicial proceedings of one state in another. Therefore, you cannot argue that one States’ law is applicable in another State. For instance, if one State had the age of sexual consent of 18 years old, and another State had the age of sexual consent of 17 years old, a 17-year-old could not go the State that had the 18-year-old sexual consent, have sexual relations, and be arrested, then claim under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution that since their State had a 17-year-old sexual consent law, they had no broken the law of the State that had an 18-year-old sexual consent law. The Laws of a State are applicable to any person within the jurisdiction of that State, and the laws of another State are not applicable in another State.

I would also note that Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution deals with criminal proceedings of a person who has been charged or convicted of a crime to not be able to flee the jurisdiction of the State to another State to avoid the prosecution of the crime, nor to avoid the judgment of the crime. In this case, the charge or convicted person may be extradited to the State in which there is a prosecution or a judgment.

Therefore, those that would argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to anything other than judicial proceedings do not understand the meaning of this clause under the Constitution, and you should pay no heed to their argument and perhaps be wary of anything else they may say about the Constitution.

The Equal Protection of the Law Doctrine

Equal Protection of the Law refers to the idea that a government may not unequally apply the application of its governing laws that would favor or disfavor an individual or groups of individuals. This doctrine requires that all governments must treat an individual or group in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. Equal protection forces the government to govern impartially -to not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of our Constitutional and Civil Rights. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection as it states:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” [emphasis added]

The ‘without due process of law ‘clause has been interpreted by the courts to require Equal Protection of the Law as well as Due Process of the Law – as you cannot have one without the other. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires States to practice equal protection and due process of the law. The 14th Amendment states in part:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [emphasis added]

If this amendment is utilized to require one State to recognize another State’s law, I would respond that this is a misreading of the Equal Protection of the Law doctrine. The Full Faith and Credit Clause nor the Equal Protection of the Law doctrine does not require a state to substitute another state’s law or policy for its own, which means it does not have to honor something that is specifically contrary to its own law.

The issue of licensure is an example of this limitation. For example, someone who has a driver’s license in Arkansas may legally drive during a visit to Missouri. If they move to Missouri, however, they will be required to obtain a driver’s license in their new home state. This holds true for hunting licenses, firearm licenses, and marriage licenses (although rarely done, as each State extends the courtesy to other States regarding marriage licenses), to name a few. Licensed professionals are another example of each State being allowed to maintain and honor only their own legislation. Doctors, pharmacists, contractors, attorneys, and other professionals who want to practice in multiple states must obtain a separate license in each State. States often extend a courtesy of recognizing some other States licensing, but this is a courtesy that need not be extended if a State Legislature does not wish to recognize the other States' licensure.

Therefore, it is not necessary for one State to recognize another’s State’s laws, nor any other Civil and Criminal laws that are the prerogative of a State. It is only required that they recognize the judicial proceeding of another State under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Unconstitutionality and Ignorance

The law is not all as I have written in my Article, "The Law is Not All, for the law must have a foundation to build upon. If there is no foundation for the law, then the law is only the dictates of the masses or the decrees of despots. In America, this foundation is the ideas of the Constitution, which itself was founded on the ideals of The Declaration of Independence as I have written in my Chip on "07/03/21 The Ideas and Ideals of The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution". Also, in America, as I have written in my Article, "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", we have a hierarchy of importance to this foundation as I have examined in my Article, “A Hierarchy of Rights”. When a Law or a Court ruling is in opposition to these ideals and ideas, it is a national issue and not a state issue, and as a nation, we must bring the law and court rulings back into compliance with these ideals and ideas. To not do so is to make a law or court ruling with no foundation.

Thus, if the Supreme Court rules or Congress legislates outside the bounds of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of The Constitution or The Equal Protection of the Law Doctrine, they are in violation of the Constitution. When the Supreme Court rules outside of its jurisdiction, they become Lords, not Judges, as I have examined in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords", and Lords are antithetic to our American Ideals and Ideas. Whenever anyone makes an argument for a law or court ruling based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause or The Equal Protection of the Law Doctrine, they are often ignorant of the true meaning of this clause and doctrine. As such, you should be wary of any conclusions that they have reached.