== Explain the nature of the states' obligations to each other. ==?

Help! Thank you!

2 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Clause 1: Privileges and Immunities

    Main article: Privileges and Immunities Clause

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Clause One of Section Two requires interstate protection of "privileges and immunities". The ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations. Some contended that the clause requires Congress to equally treat all citizens. Others suggested that citizens of states carry forward the rights accorded by their home states when traveling in other states. Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which has instead held that the clause means that states may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 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 ... 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.

    Clause 2: Extradition of fugitives

    Main article: Extradition Clause

    A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

    Clause Two requires that fugitives from Justice may be extradited on the demand of executive authorities the states from which they flee. The Supreme Court has held that it is not compulsory for the fugitive to have fled after an indictment was found but only that the fugitive have fled after having committed the crime. The Constitution provides for the extradition of fugitives who have committed "treason, felony or other crime." It has been held that such a phrase incorporates all acts prohibited by the laws of a state, including misdemeanors and petty offenses.

    In Kentucky v. Dennison, 66 U.S. (How. 24) 65 (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 by Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987); now, the federal courts may require the extradition of fugitives.[1] Alleged fugitives generally may not challenge extradition proceedings. The motives of the governor demanding the extradition may not be questioned. The accused cannot defend himself against the charges in the extraditing state; he must do so in the courts of the state receiving him. It has, however, been determined that the accused may prevent extradition by offering clear evidence that he was not in the state he allegedly fled from at the time of the crime.[2] There is no constitutional requirement that extradited fugitives be tried only for the crimes named in the extradition proceedings.

    Fugitives brought to states by means other than extradition may be tried, even though the means of the conveyance was unlawful, as the Supreme Court ruled in Mahon v. Justice, 127 U.S. 700 (1888). In that case, a body of armed men from Kentucky forcibly took, without a warrant, a man in West Virginia to bring him back to the former state for formal arrest and trial.

    Clause 3: Extradition of laborers

    Main article: Fugitive Slave Clause

    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    When first adopted, this clause applied to fugitive slaves, and required that they be extradited upon the claims of their enslavers. This practice was eliminated when the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. However, the clause still potentially applies to other laborers. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, "not all situations in which labor is compelled by physical coercion or force of law violate the Thirteenth Amendment."[3] During the Civil War, in 1864, an effort to repeal this clause of the Constitution failed.[

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Christians have an legal duty to take a seat back in Christ daily and to be obedient in assembling of themselves at the same time to worship God. Exodus 31:sixteen-17, right here the Sabbath is declared to be ''an illustration between the Lord and Israel.'' the assumption of the Sabbath is six days of advent observed via ''an afternoon OF relax.'' Romans 10:4, end can advise ''fulfillment,'' it is Christ fulfilled each and all the standards of the regulation. interior the Bible the 1st day of the week and the sabbath day are the only 2 point out. And whilst the latter is stated it incredibly is often in reference to a Jewish worship; and by no skill in reference to a Christian provider..

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.