Replies

[#3Fun] Effect thereof, their effect, what's the difference? It is "the effect thereof." It is not their effect. The difference is the effect thereof grammatically refers to the effect of proving or authenticating of documents, not to the legal effect of what is contained in the documents. The authority to interpret state laws is reserved for state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Strader v. Graham (1850), that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a State court upon its own laws.

[#3Fun] And it's funny that you quote judges when I quote the Constitution.

#3 only MIS-quotes the Constitution. When #3 "quotes" the Constitution, a review of the Constitution reveals the phrasing does not exist within the Constitution.

[#3Fun] It's simple enough to read the Constitution and it clearly says that the Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and the effect thereof.

That reading is, in fact, not only not simple but impossible. As usual, that phrasing is not there.

Of course, #3Fun MUST change the wording of the Constitution to create HIS meaning.

The Constitution does NOT say "Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and their effect."

What the Constitution says is "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

What the Constitution imports is that Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and Congress may prescribe the effect thereof, of authenticating said Acts, Records and Proceedings in the Manner prescribed by Congress. Congress may by general laws prescribe the Manner of authenticating legislative Acts, and Judicial Records and Proceedings. In presenting records of Legislative Acts, or Judicial Records or Proceedings, the State must provide proof of the authencity of the record. Congress may prescribe the manner of authentication. Congress may prescribe the effect of authenticating legislative Acts, and Judicial Records and Proceedings in the manner prescribed. Congress did precisely that by the Act of May 26, 1790.

U.S. CONST. Art 4, Sec 1

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.

Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which [whatever] shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Congress may, and did, prescribe the manner in which State Acts shall be proved (authenticated), and the Effect of said authentication. "The Effect thereof" refers to the effect of the prescribed authentication, not the effect of the State legislative or judicial act.

The Act of May 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 122) states
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto:
That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form."

THE MANNER IS WHICH STATE LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL ACTS ARE PROVED (AUTHENTICATED)

the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto
the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any statea, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form

THE EFFECT OF PROVING (AUTHENTICATING) STATE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTS

"shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States"
judgments "shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken."

THE CURRENT FEDERAL STATUTE 28 USC 1738 states,

"The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.

The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form."

As the Supreme Court noted in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935), Congress exercised its power in this regard, and the Act of Congress "provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another." The clause deals with the authentication of documents for recognition in the courts of another state. Once authenticated (proved to be true documents) as prescribed by law, such documents "shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken."

It is not their effect. The difference is the effect thereof grammatically refers to the effect of proving or authenticating of documents, not to the legal effect of what is contained in the documents. The authority to interpret state laws is reserved for state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Strader v. Graham (1850), that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a State court upon its own laws. [#3Fun] And it's funny that you quote judges when I quote the Constitution. #3 only MIS-quotes the Constitution. When #3 "quotes" the Constitution, a review of the Constitution reveals the phrasing does not exist within the Constitution. [#3Fun] It's simple enough to read the Constitution and it clearly says that the Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and the effect thereof. That reading is, in fact, not only not simple but impossible. As usual, that phrasing is not there. Of course, #3Fun MUST change the wording of the Constitution to create HIS meaning. The Constitution does NOT say "Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and their effect." What the Constitution says is "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. What the Constitution imports is that Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and Congress may prescribe the effect thereof, of authenticating said Acts, Records and Proceedings in the Manner prescribed by Congress. Congress may by general laws prescribe the Manner of authenticating legislative Acts, and Judicial Records and Proceedings. In presenting records of Legislative Acts, or Judicial Records or Proceedings, the State must provide proof of the authencity of the record. Congress may prescribe the manner of authentication. Congress may prescribe the effect of authenticating legislative Acts, and Judicial Records and Proceedings in the manner prescribed. Congress did precisely that by the Act of May 26, 1790. U.S. CONST. Art 4, Sec 1 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. Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which [whatever] shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Congress may, and did, prescribe the manner in which State Acts shall be proved (authenticated), and the Effect of said authentication. "The Effect thereof" refers to the effect of the prescribed authentication, not the effect of the State legislative or judicial act. The Act of May 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 122) states "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form." THE MANNER IS WHICH STATE LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL ACTS ARE PROVED (AUTHENTICATED) the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any statea, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form THE EFFECT OF PROVING (AUTHENTICATING) STATE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTS "shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States" judgments "shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken." THE CURRENT FEDERAL STATUTE 28 USC 1738 states, "The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form." As the Supreme Court noted in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935), Congress exercised its power in this regard, and the Act of Congress "provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another." The clause deals with the authentication of documents for recognition in the courts of another state. Once authenticated (proved to be true documents) as prescribed by law, such documents "shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken."

Supreme Court blah, blah blah. The Constitution is easy enough to read and it says Congress can pass laws for states to prove their acts and their effect. Secession is an act ands falls under this of course. And whether the effect refers to the act or the laws makes no difference because the effect will be the same to any state.