The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that the ‘full faith and credit clause’ under Article 261 of the Constitution of India, was introduced to provide legitimacy and conclusiveness regarding.
pattern on this, you know, it s one that in the past has shown itself to be the opposition to gay marriage that has prevailed. so he will actively push for a constitutional amendment? his view is that, given the nature of states sanctioning gay marriage and the full faith and credit clause, federal marriage amendment should be enacted. but i think the truth is, when you look at this election, chuck, i think most people are focused on jobs and the economy and the cost of energy and the health care, the impact of the obamacare bill. i m not diminishing that it s not an important issue but the most important issue that you have that voters are talking about. the clarity here is that the president has for the state to decide and mitt romney is not? when it comes to marriage. they are reversed when it comes to what they want the federal government to well, sides of the same-sex
presidential office. the supreme court previously rejected term limits for members of congress, and that s not the identical case to be sure. but the supreme court distinguished between offices held by the people and offices determined by the states. and i think that the court would look ascant at arizona and other states grafting on these types of conditions. if i were in your class and you were saying argue the other side, argue that this is a good law and a constitutional law, how would you make your case? well, in deference to mr. seel, i think article two does require that you be a natural born citizen. and i think what arizona is likely to argue, and this is in many ways analogous to their immigration approach, is that we re not imposing anything new, we re not imposing a new condition to be satisfied. we re simply asking for
the federal courts. there s arguments that can be made that arizona is not imposing a new condition but enforcing a condition of the constitution. but i think it is fatally flawed. most importantly, i think it violates article four, section one of the constitution, the full faith and credit clause. that s the clause which states are obligated to recognize documents like birth certificates of other states. without that clause, everything would basically shut down in the united states. and here you have a state, hawaii, is saying this is it. we have certified. he was born here. and arizona is simply saying we won t accept that. we want proof along these lines. i think a federal court would have a real problem with that, because states could impose any number of such requirements. and there s also the problem of states creating a patch work of systems of requirements on the
but i think we re on excellent constitutional ground. well, i m not afraid tonight to say i m skeptical, but carl seel, we appreciate your time and perspective and you mentioned the constitutionality. let s talk more about whether this bill, whatever you may think about it, does pass constitutional muster for that. let s bring in george washington university professor jonathan turley. simple question, do you think the supreme court, if this piece of legislation were ever to get there, constitutional? i don t think it is. this is clearly a novel question that hasn t been presented to the federal courts. there s arguments that can be made that arizona is not imposing a new condition but enforcing a condition of the constitution. but i think it is fatally flawed. most importantly, i think it violates article four, section one of the constitution, the full faith and credit clause. that s the clause which states are obligated to recognize