Full Faith and Credit Clause

Contending that pre- and post-ratification evidence indicate that the Effects Clause did not give Congress unlimited power to determine the conclusiveness of state judgments, as this interpretation would fundamentally impair federalism and state sovereignty. 

Analyzing the Constitutional drafting process and subsequent implementing legislation to contend that the Full Faith and Credit Clause was understood to instruct sister-states to recognize official executive documents that contain factual information from another jurisdiction. 

Examining Madison’s speeches and writings on the Full Faith and Credit Clause and concluding that Madison sought a clause that would embody a vague but dynamic deference obligation between the states that could be increased by Congress over time.

Utilizing the history of congressional efforts to exercise the power granted by the Full Faith and Credit Clause along with pre-Founding documents and state court decisions to argue that Clause was not generally understood to mandate the effect of state records in other states, but rather to leave such determinations to the legislative branch.

Arguing that states must only give effect to sister-state acts, records, and proceedings to the extent that it is mandated by federal congressional law. 

Arguing that Congress was intended to have broad power under the Effects Clause to enact legislation such as DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require states to recognize marriages celebrated in other states.

Arguing that the first sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause contains compulsory, self-executing language instructing states to recognize sister-state acts, records, and proceedings.

Concluding that the Effects Clause portion of the Full Faith and Credit Clause grants Congress unqualified power to determine the extent of faith and credit states should accord to other states’ acts, records, and proceedings.