Apr1775, way back in Post #20, I gave a link to the Findlaw annotated discourse on just what the FF&C clause was about. It is 13 pages long and full of legal citations (Court cases). That is my authoritative source.
If 13 pages of legal discourse is too much for anyone, then you simply will go one believing that a State License is somehow a public Act or a judicial proceeding and its records.
So why kill our buzz?
It's a long and boring discourse, but I did read through it. Most of it. Not every word, but enough to get a feeling for it's direction.
It's written by a person or group of people, not the SCOTUS. IT's a view of a group of people of what the law is, and seems plenty educated. Beyond what I'm willing to do for a post on TFL, anyway.
Google "full faith and credit" and "drivers license" and you will get a whole lot of websites that would say different. They are of various levels of authenticity and education, but there is a strong belief that driver's licenses in particular would fall under this clause. And if driver's licenses do, then so could CCW's.
In the 1960's/70's there were many documents written, and it was taught to many, that the 2nd amendment had to do with militias, and was not an individual right. There are many educated documents written on this. With any luck SCOTUS, in June, will invalidate all of them.
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
That comma after Records has thrown some of you. The next sentence is even more clear:
That's a weird thing to say. That comma is just separting a list, and most schools of thought say you can either include a comma before the "and" in such a list or not, but it has no real meaning. When they wrote the constitution they were even less concerned about commas -- i.e. the final version of the 2nd amendment the last comma was included by the printer to make it easier to read and wasn't included in the original draft.
So perhaps you could explain why you think this comma is throwing any of us?
right up until the black robed 9 unsettle it. Or such a law gets passed and withstands the test of time, if not the courts.
Further, the States went through a long and involved process to obtain reciprocity of each others drivers licenses, just as they are now doing with CHL'S. The Feds couldn't intervene then, with the sole exception of interstate carriers, and they darn well can't intervene now.
For the Courts to agree that the Congress has such power now, would unravel anything left of Federalism. It would also negate the many, many precedents set with all the cases reaching back almost to the beginning of the judiciary.
Long and involved process of reciprocity? It was before my time, but not my parents. Some states began issuing driver's licenses in the early 1900's, but I believe it was North Dakota that didn't issue any until the 1950's (I can't find a reference, but my parents were actually living there when they received their license through the mail just by mailing in a request) or at least began requiring them.
Anyway ... there was never a problem driving between states back then. My parents drove all over the country, between different states, and didn't even have a driver's license for many years.
There's not as much left of federalism as there probably should be, but don't be so dramatic about how such a ruling would destroy the last vestiges of Federalism. It will empower the feds to make laws on how licenses are accepted between states, something many believe they already have (right or wrong). I didn't research every case in the annotation you cited, but I didn't see any that involved recognition of driver's licenses or other licenses.
And just because congress didn't get involved before, doesn't mean the court wouldn't have upheld their ability to.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good argument, and I'm even willing to assume it's right. But I still say if we can pass this law we do it and let the court's decide.
Not let some internet posters or even the article writers at that legal review site determine what we should/shouldn't support.
Thanks for the good post, but I'm still undeterred in my support of this law. I hope the rest of y'all are too.