U.S. Constitution An Analysis — Part 4
An analysis of the constituent document, article 4
Article IV
Section 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.”
Section 2
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. 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. 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.”
Section 3
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
Section 4
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”
Article IV of the United States Constitution is integral in defining the relationship between the states, as well as between the states and the federal government. It establishes the framework for federalism, ensuring a balance of power while promoting unity and cooperation among states. Article IV is composed of four sections that address various aspects of inter-state relations and the rights of citizens.
The first section, known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, mandates that each state must recognize the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. This clause ensures that legal decisions and documents such as court rulings, marriage licenses, and birth certificates are honored across state lines. The practical effect of this provision is to maintain consistency and legal continuity throughout the nation, preventing states from ignoring the judicial and administrative actions of other states. The clause promotes legal uniformity and cooperation, which is essential for a cohesive national structure.
Section 2 includes three clauses that collectively protect the rights of citizens and outline the responsibilities of states:
1. Privileges and Immunities Clause: This clause prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of their own residents. It ensures that fundamental rights and economic activities are equally accessible to all U.S. citizens, regardless of their state of residence. For example, a citizen of New York must be treated equally under the law in California as a citizen of California would be.
2. Extradition Clause: This mandates that a person charged with a crime in one state who flees to another state must be extradited back to the state where the crime was committed upon the request of the executive authority of that state. This clause ensures that criminals cannot escape justice simply by crossing state lines.
While the Extradition Clause itself does not explicitly mention exceptions, there are important considerations and potential exceptions based on legal principles and human rights concerns, particularly regarding the death penalty:
The governor of the state where the fugitive is found has the discretion to honor the extradition request. In practice, this means that the governor can refuse to extradite if there are compelling reasons, such as concerns about the application of the death penalty. In cases where the state requesting extradition allows the death penalty and the state where the fugitive is found does not, the governor of the asylum state may consider the potential for the death penalty as a factor in deciding whether to grant extradition. Some states have policies or legal precedents that allow them to refuse extradition if the fugitive would face capital punishment, unless assurances are provided that the death penalty will not be sought. International human rights standards and some state laws provide grounds for refusing extradition if the person could face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, including the death penalty. Although the Extradition Clause itself does not provide these exceptions, the application of broader legal principles can influence decisions.
3. Fugitive Slave Clause: Although this clause was rendered obsolete by the Thirteenth Amendment, it originally required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners, even if they were found in a free state. This provision was a point of significant controversy and tension, contributing to the sectional conflicts leading up to the Civil War.
Are you enjoying the content? If so, I would greatly appreciate it if you could hit that ‘clap’ button and follow me for more articles like this. Your engagement is crucial in helping me to continue delivering quality content. Thank you for being a part of our community!
Section 3 of Article IV of the United States Constitution plays a crucial role in the expansion of the nation. This section grants Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union and outlines the process for managing federal lands and territories. This section established a structured process for incorporating new states, ensuring that each new state would be admitted on equal footing with the original thirteen. Congress holds the power to admit new states, ensuring that the process is governed by federal oversight and not by unilateral actions of existing states or territories.
The process of admitting new states typically began with a territory applying for statehood. This involved a series of steps, including a census to determine if the territory had a sufficient population, the drafting of a state constitution, and a referendum in which the territory’s residents voted on whether to seek statehood. If these conditions were met, Congress would pass an enabling act authorizing the territory to draft a constitution if it had not already done so. Finally, Congress would vote on a resolution to admit the new state into the Union. This process ensured a methodical and democratic approach to expansion, balancing the interests of the federal government, existing states, and the aspiring state.
The ability to admit new states was instrumental in the westward expansion of the United States, often referred to as the “Manifest Destiny” era. This belief held that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent, spreading its form of democracy and culture. The incorporation of new states facilitated this expansion, as it allowed for the orderly development and governance of vast new territories acquired through treaties, purchases, and conflicts.
The Louisiana Purchase of 1803, which doubled the size of the United States, was a significant early example. Following the purchase, territories such as Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa were organized and eventually admitted as states. Similarly, the annexation of Texas in 1845, the Oregon Trail migration, and the acquisition of California and other southwestern territories through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 further propelled the nation’s westward expansion.
The process of admitting new states also had profound economic, social, and political implications. Economically, it opened vast new areas for agriculture, mining, and industry, fueling the growth of the American economy. Socially, it encouraged the migration of settlers, including immigrants, who sought new opportunities in the expanding frontier. Politically, it necessitated the balancing of interests between free and slave states, particularly in the pre-Civil War era, leading to significant legislative compromises such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850.
Puerto Rico and D.C. special status
In the framework of American federalism, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. hold unique positions that differentiate them from the 50 states of the Union. Both regions have distinct legal, political, and social statuses, which confer certain advantages and limitations.
Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States, officially designated as a Commonwealth. Its status is derived from the Treaty of Paris (1898), which ended the Spanish-American War and ceded Puerto Rico from Spain to the United States. The legal foundation of Puerto Rico’s current status is primarily rooted in the Foraker Act (1900) and the Jones-Shafroth Act (1917).
The Foraker Act, officially known as the Organic Act of 1900, was a United States federal law that established civilian government in Puerto Rico after it was ceded to the U.S. following the Spanish-American War. The act replaced the military government with a civilian government, consisting of a governor and executive council appointed by the President of the United States, and a legislative assembly elected by Puerto Rican voters. It established a judicial system, including a Supreme Court of Puerto Rico and district courts. Puerto Ricans were classified as “citizens of Puerto Rico,” not U.S. citizens. The act provided for the imposition of U.S. customs duties on goods shipped between Puerto Rico and the mainland United States.
The Foraker Act marked the beginning of formal U.S. governance in Puerto Rico but left many aspects of Puerto Rican political life under direct control of the U.S. government.
The Jones-Shafroth Act, enacted in 1917, expanded on the provisions of the Foraker Act and made significant changes to Puerto Rico’s political and civil status. The act granted U.S. citizenship to all residents of Puerto Rico, allowing them to move freely between Puerto Rico and the mainland U.S. and making them eligible for military service. It restructured the government by establishing a bicameral legislature, consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives, both elected by Puerto Rican voters. The governor was still appointed by the President, but more local control was given to the legislature. The act included a bill of rights, ensuring certain civil liberties for Puerto Ricans, similar to those enjoyed by U.S. citizens in the mainland. It also reaffirmed the role of the Resident Commissioner, who represents Puerto Rico in the U.S. House of Representatives with a voice but without a vote on the House floor.
Then we can highlight the following:
- Political Representation: Puerto Rico does not have voting representation in Congress. It elects a Resident Commissioner to the House of Representatives, who can participate in debates and committee work but cannot vote on the House floor.
- Presidential Elections: Residents of Puerto Rico cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections, although they can participate in party primaries.
- Federal Laws and Taxes: Puerto Ricans are subject to federal laws but are exempt from certain federal taxes. However, they pay other federal taxes, such as Social Security and Medicare.
- Cultural and Administrative Autonomy: Puerto Rico maintains a degree of cultural and administrative autonomy, allowing it to preserve its unique cultural identity and manage local affairs with relative independence.
- Federal Support: As a U.S. territory, Puerto Rico benefits from federal funding and programs, such as disaster relief and social welfare.
The Insular Cases (1901–1922) are a series of Supreme Court decisions that established the constitutional doctrine of territorial incorporation, distinguishing between incorporated territories (destined for statehood) and unincorporated territories (not guaranteed statehood). Puerto Rico falls into the latter category, giving Congress significant power over its affairs.
There have been several movements advocating for a change in Puerto Rico’s status. Advocates argue that statehood would provide full political representation and equal rights as U.S. citizens, while smaller factions seeks complete independence from the United States, emphasizing national sovereignty. Some propose an enhanced commonwealth status with greater autonomy while maintaining ties to the United States. Recent referendums have shown varying levels of support for statehood, and the issue remains a topic of significant debate both in Puerto Rico and the broader United States.
Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, is a federal district created by the Residence Act of 1790 and is governed by the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (1973). The Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the district, ensuring federal control over the nation’s capital.
Washington, D.C. elects a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives. The district has no representation in the Senate. Residents of D.C. gained the right to vote in presidential elections with the ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1961, which grants the district three electoral votes. While the Home Rule Act grants D.C. limited self-governance, Congress retains the authority to review and overturn local laws. As the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. receives substantial federal funding for infrastructure, security, and other services. It also enjoys a unique position as a global hub for diplomacy, politics, and culture, attracting international attention and investment.
Like Puerto Rico, D.C. lacks voting representation in Congress, limiting residents’ ability to influence federal legislation. The requirement for congressional approval of local laws can hinder the district’s ability to govern itself effectively and respond swiftly to local issues.
The Constitution provides for a federal district to serve as the nation’s capital, ensuring that no single state would hold undue power over the seat of the federal government. This arrangement was intended to prevent any potential conflicts of interest and ensure the federal government’s impartiality. There have been long-standing efforts to alter Washington, D.C.’s status, primarily advocating for statehood. Proponents argue that D.C. residents deserve full representation in Congress and greater autonomy over local affairs. They propose admitting D.C. as the 51st state, which would grant it voting representation in both the House and the Senate. Another proposed solution is retrocession, where most of D.C. would be returned to Maryland, from which the land was originally ceded, while maintaining a small federal district encompassing key government buildings. In recent years, the statehood movement has gained momentum, with the House of Representatives passing a statehood bill in 2020 and 2021. However, it faces significant challenges in the Senate, where political and constitutional concerns remain contentious.
Section 4, often referred to as the Guarantee Clause, obligates the federal government to ensure that every state in the Union has a republican form of government. This means that each state must have a government that derives its authority from the people and is not a monarchy or dictatorship. The second component of Section 4 obligates the federal government to protect states against invasion. This responsibility is straightforward and aligns with the federal government’s broader role in national defense. If a state is threatened or attacked by a foreign power, the federal government is required to act to protect that state, ensuring its security and sovereignty.
The final part of Section 4 addresses the federal government’s role in intervening in states to protect against domestic violence, which encompasses insurrections, riots, and other forms of internal disorder. This provision allows for federal intervention in state affairs to restore order under certain conditions.
Federal intervention can be initiated at the request of the state’s legislature or executive authority. If the legislature is not in session and cannot be convened, the governor of the state can request federal assistance. This mechanism ensures that states have the means to seek federal help quickly in times of crisis when they are unable to manage the situation with their own resources.
Throughout American history, Section 4 has been invoked in various instances to address significant internal conflicts and ensure stability. One of the most notable examples is the federal intervention during the Reconstruction era following the Civil War. During this period, the federal government intervened in Southern states to protect the rights of newly freed African Americans and to ensure that republican forms of government were re-established in states that had seceded from the Union.
Another significant instance of federal intervention under Section 4 occurred during the Civil Rights Movement. In the 1950s and 1960s, several Southern states resisted the desegregation mandates of the Supreme Court, leading to widespread civil unrest and violence. In response, the federal government, often at the request of state governors or under its own authority, deployed federal troops and nationalized state National Guard units to enforce civil rights laws and protect citizens from domestic violence. Notable examples include the intervention in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 to enforce school desegregation, and the deployment of federal troops to manage the 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches in Alabama.
These interventions underscored the federal government’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights and maintaining order, even when it required overriding state authorities. They also highlighted the tensions inherent in federalism, as states sometimes viewed federal intervention as an overreach into their sovereignty.
The provisions in Article IV were subjects of significant debate during the drafting of the Constitution. The Framers aimed to create a balanced federal structure that respected state sovereignty while ensuring national unity. The Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause were particularly important for fostering a sense of national cohesion and preventing parochialism. The Extradition Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause highlighted the tensions between states with differing legal systems and societal norms.
Article IV of the United States Constitution plays a fundamental role in maintaining the federal balance, ensuring cooperation and legal consistency among states, and protecting the rights of citizens. Its provisions have been central to the nation’s expansion, the resolution of inter-state conflicts, and the promotion of a unified national identity. Throughout American history, the principles enshrined in Article IV have been pivotal in shaping the relationships between states and the federal government.
If you liked this text and you like the work I’ve been doing here, I recommend my book, Shaping the world. In it I conduct a historical analysis from the feudal world to the post-Napoleonic era, addressing how these events have a direct impact on our current world, with its crises and ideologies. Take a look, it’s worth it, the book is available on the amazon platform in physical version and for kindle, and available free of charge to subscribers of the kindle unlimited platform.
Fallon, R. H., Jr. (2004). The dynamic constitution. Cambridge University Press.
