Integrity Legal

The administration of this blog has been monitoring the evolving situation in the United States of intrastate legislation among some of the sovereign 50 States to reform legal tender laws. There are some recent developments regarding this interesting and legally complex issue that could have ramifications for the global commodities markets, global business community, APEC, ASEAN, Thailand, and China. To quote directly from Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, in a post on the TruthAlliance.net website entitled “Utah Senate Passes Gold/Silver Legal Tender Law; Awaits Governor Signature“:

The Utah Legislature on Thursday passed a bill allowing gold and silver coins to be used as legal tender in the state — and for the value of their precious metal, not just the face value of the coins.

In a previous posting on this blog it was noted that the lower chamber of Utah’s government, the Utah House of Representatives, had passed the legislation referred to above, but at that time there seemed to be little information pertaining to the reasoning behind the passage of such legislation. The article cited above is quite informative in its coverage of this unfolding situation. To quote further from the aforementioned article:

The legislation directs a state committee to look at whether Utah should recognize an official alternate form of legal tender which could become a path for creating a formal state gold standard.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, said he has not yet taken a public stance on the bill.

State Rep. Brad J. Galvez, the chief sponsor of the measure, said he views it as a preliminary step on the path toward securing Utah’s business climate.

“If the dollar continues to fall, what this will do will help stabilize the value of the dollar in Utah, so it helps stabilize the economy,” Mr. Galvez, a Republican, said.

While similar legislation has been proposed in nearly a dozen states, Mr. Galvez said that if Mr. Herbert signs his bill, Utah will be just the second state to official recognize the coins as legal tender. Colorado has recognized gold and silver for decades, he said.[sic]

Those reading this posting are encouraged to click on the hyperlinks above to read the text of this article in full.

Clearly, Utah is not the only American State that is taking monetary measures with an eye toward maintaining a comparative advantage in the national and international business markets along with a healthy State economy. It will be interesting to see what position will ultimately be taken by the Governor of Utah as his stance on the issue has yet to be discerned as of the time of the writing cited above. Issues involving the currency within States can have tremendous ramifications and it would appear that due consideration is being taken.

The article was also notable for this blogger as it elucidated a thought from a legislator in Virgina who is advocating for similar legislation in that State. To quote further from the article by Stephen Dinan:

In Virginia, Delegate Robert G. Marshall, a Republican, successfully pushed through a bill — not yet signed by the governor — that authorizes the state to mint gold, silver and platinum coins. He said that there is probably a good market for collectors who would prefer not to have to buy federally minted coins and said state-minted ones would create a backstop against inflation.

“I’m looking at Congress, and I’m looking at what the Chinese are doing, and I don’t have a lot of confidence in what’s going on there,” Mr. Marshall said. “This is one way where Virginia can help our citizens as a security hedge against the inflationary action of Congress.”

This was an interesting insight for this blogger because it provides hope that more legislators on the State level are looking abroad when formulating policies which are designed to have a direct impact upon the lives of State Citizens. Although the United States Federal government’s enumerated powers provide wide latitude in matters of an international character, some international trends can have a significant economic impact upon the economics of a purely intrastate nature. Therefore, in the world in which we now live even legislators at the State level must have an eye on the evolving business and economic dynamics of countries as far geographically afield as Thailand, China, or any of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Member states in order to make fully informed decisions regarding the enactment of legislation which could impact those within that legislature’s jurisdiction.

As noted in the quotation above, the Governor of Virginia has yet to sign the legislation pending in that State. Therefore, the ultimate outcome remains to be seen, but one thing remains clear: few lawmakers are taking this legislation lightly as evidenced by the alacrity of these legislatures’ votes and the taciturn position of these States’ respective Governors.

This issue is coming to the foreground of the national political spectrum at a time when the legal issues surrounding the issue of same sex marriage and interstate Full Faith and Credit Clause interpretation versus the Federal-State sovereign relationship in the context of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized pursuant to the laws of sovereign American States is coming to the attention of the United States Federal Appellate Courts in the form of cases which have the potential to directly contravene the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). In an American Immigration context, Federal legislators such as Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York have continued to push legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would allow the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to adjudicate petitions for same sex “permanent partners” of United States Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents in the same manner as different sex couples.  How the issues associated with legal tender reform and the issues associated with Full Faith and Credit for State recognized same sex marriages will be resolved remains to be seen, but clearly such issues will remain noteworthy as time goes on.

For information related to these issues please see: US Visa Thailand or Same Sex Visa.

Tags: Governor Gary R. Herbert, Governor of Utah, Governor of Virginia, Legal Tender Reform, Same Sex Marriage, The Utah Specie Tender Act of 2011, Uniting American Families Act, Utah House Bill 317, Utah House of Representatives, Utah Legislature, Utah Senate, Utah State Representative Brad J. Galvez, Virginia Delegate Robert G. Marshall
Posted in American Business, American Institute Taiwan, ASEAN Business, Cambodia Business, China Business, Fiance Visa Thailand, Myanmar (Burma) Business, News, Online Gaming, States' Rights, Thailand Business, Upcoming Legislation, US Constitution, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

In what could possibly be one of the most convoluted political and legal issues currently in the American zeitgeist it has been reported by various sources that President Barack Obama is under pressure from many different groups regarding his recent decision not to enforce key provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). To quote directly from an article posted on AfricaOnline.com:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich suggested last week that President Obama overstepped his constitutional bounds when he announced he would no longer defend Defense of Marriage Act in court.

In matters pertaining to United States Constitutional law the lines between the political and legal spheres begin to blur and for this reason the issues surrounding what may be the most interesting legal situation in recent history are difficult to sort out for those who have not kept up with the evolving posture of this issue. To provide a brief summation: the United States Federal government is currently barred from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples pursuant to the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Meanwhile, 7 jurisdictions in the United States, including 6 sovereign States, currently license same sex unions. Meanwhile, many sovereign American States have promulgated State Constitutional amendments forbidding recognition of marriage between same sex couples. Currently, there is a case that has been adjudicated by the Massachusetts Federal District Court which found that States have a fundamental right to marry those within their jurisdiction. Amongst advocates of States’ Rights, the significant issue in the DOMA cases is: FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized within the States’ jurisdiction. To continue quoting Mr. Gingrich according to AfricaOnline.com:

“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president,” Gingrich said. “Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”

For those unfamiliar with the Roe versus Wade decision, this was the Supreme Court case which allowed women to receive abortions based upon an interpretation of the US Constitution. It is interesting that Mr. Gingrich noted the lack of “Mainstream Media” attention to this issue as there are those who could argue that the issue of equal rights for the LGBT community is an issue often overlooked by major media outlets. Clearly, the issue of same sex marriage is provoking strong reaction from various sectors of the American political spectrum, to quote directly from the website ThinkProgress.org:

Now, in the right’s furor over the administration’s announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached.

After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA – “I would support that in a moment,” remarked Franks – he went on to say that he would “absolutely” favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move “could gain collective support”…

It would appear as though this issue is causing a great deal of political turmoil for Mr. Obama, but what is even more interesting are the underlying issues at stake for both the LGBT community and the sovereign States which comprise the United States of America.

To be clear, this blogger fully believes that the right to marry whomever one chooses to marry is a fundamental inalienable right and equal protection of that right should be accorded to members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community. In this blogger’s personal opinion, if two people wish to consensually enter into a marital union, then their respective genders should not be relevant for purposes of government recognition of that union. However, there is an even stronger argument in favor of requiring Federal recognition of same sex marriage and this argument stems from the fact that 6 states have allowed some form of same sex union (civil union or marriage). Clearly, States have traditionally been vested with the power to solemnize and legalize marriages within their respective jurisdictions and the Federal government should be required to recognize such unions, but the provisions of DOMA preclude such recognition. For example, same sex bi-national couples who have legalized a marriage in, say, Massachusetts cannot be accorded the same immigration benefits as their different-sex counterparts pursuant to the provisions of DOMA. There has been some discussion of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would rectify this problem in the context of United States immigration, but this still leaves a fundamental question unanswered: when did the Federal government get the right to dictate to the States what shall constitute a marriage?

As to the Obama Administration’s decision to not pursue cases in support of the Defense of Marriage Act: the sentiment is laudable, but ultimately this action may not be in the best interests of the LGBT community as such inaction results in fewer, if any, cases or controversies coming before the Supreme Court thereby removing the platform for the Supreme Court to make a broad binding decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act itself (and possibly the overall issue of same sex marriage in general), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the other legal issues, such as discrimination against same sex bi-national couples, which come “part and parcel” with continued enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act.

It is this blogger’s personal opinion that the United States Supreme Court will find in favor of recognition of same sex marriage, but in what could prove to be a sort of convoluted decision wherein Justices such as Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts find in favor of the right of the States to set policy regarding who can get married within their jurisdiction while the more “liberal” or “civil libertarian” wing of the Court finds in favor of granting same sex couples the right to Federal recognition of a legally solemnized State marriage based more upon a finding that the issue is one of civil rights.

For related information please see: LGBT Visa.

Tags: Add new tag, Attorney General Eric Holder, Barack Obama, civil rights, Constituional Law, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit Clause, LGBT Rights, Newt Gingrich, Obama Administration, Representative Trent Franks, same sex civil union, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, States' Rights, Supreme Court, Trent Franks, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Consitution
Posted in Editorial, lgbt immigration, Opinion, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Constitution | 1 Comment »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention through the Huffington Post website that a legislator in the sovereign State of New Hampshire has introduced a bill that could criminalize certain activities of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). To quote directly from the story posted on the Huffington Post official website:

A Republican state representative from New Hampshire named George Lambert has co-sponsored a bill that would make it a felony to touch or view someone’s private parts without probable cause.

Lambert was interviewed by MSNBC on Wednesday to discuss the bill, which would apply to TSA pat downs, as well as the agency’s x-ray scanners. The bill would essentially make it a sexual assault to conduct an invasive pat down or look at images of a traveler on one of the TSA’s new high-tech scanners.

Clearly, the TSA’s current policies on so-called “pat downs” (which many argue are unduly invasive and violate Constitutional protections prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure) and scanning are under fire from many different circles. However, the question must be posed: is New Hampshire Constitutionally permitted to enforce criminal sanctions against TSA officers? TSA officers operate under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal government’s Department of Homeland Security. Most currently binding American jurisprudence has found against the notion that State’s may enforce State law against Federal agents or institutions. The most notable case in this vein is probably McCulloch v. Maryland. In the language of the McCulloch decision, the Court found that the State of Maryland did not have the right to levy a tax upon the Bank of the United States. This decision set the stage for the, now rather sophisticated, premise that the States’ power to enforce State law is curtailed when attempting to enforce that law against the Federal government. Through later cases, this notion was expanded upon. This blogger recently found an interesting article on this topic entitled: What Kind of Immunity? Federal Officers, State Criminal Law, and the Supremacy Clause. This article delves deeply into the issues associated with Federal preemption of State prerogatives in matters pertaining to Federal operations and Federal agents and this blogger highly recommends those interested in this issue click on the link above to read this article.

It would appear from the plain language of the McCulloch decision that the States’ ability to enforce actions against the Federal government are not restricted completely. To quote directly from page 2219 of the What Kind of Immunity? article noted above, the article’s authors, Seth P. Waxman and Trevor W. Morrison, cited a section of the McCulloch decision which is noteworthy:

[N]o principle [of state power] . . . can be admissible, which would defeat the legitimate operations of a supreme government. It is of the very essence of supremacy, to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested insubordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence.

At first blush, the above citation may appear to fully favor the Federal authorities on the issue of whether the sovereign State of New Hampshire has the authority to enforce criminal penalties against TSA officers, but one phrase is critical to an analysis of New Hampshire’s proposed legislation and that phrase is “legitimate operations“. In the McCulloch case, the Bank of the United States was deemed to be a legitimate operation of the Federal government notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not expressly permit such an institution because the Court reasoned that the Federal government, through the Necessary and Proper Clause, could establish a bank so as to facilitate the express Federal powers granted under the Taxing and Spending Clause. In short: the Federal government’s ability to tax and spend is considered a “legitimate operation” of the Federal government and if a bank facilitates that operation, then it is operating lawfully.

This analysis begs the question: Is groping Americans’ genitalia (also referred to as “enhanced pat downs”) and capturing nude body scanner images a “legitimate operation” of the Federal government? If not, then the State may have a right to enforce State criminal law against those who engage in such activity. That said, this issue is far from resolved and the State of New Hampshire has yet to actually promulgate this legislation, but clearly the issues noted above make for interesting jurisprudence.

For related information please see: US States.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Enhanced Pat Downs, Federalism, George Lambert, McCulloch v. Maryland, New Hampshire, Preemption, Seth P. Waxman, Sovereign State of New Hampshire, State Representative George Lambert, States' Rights, Supremacy Clause, Transportation Safety Administration, Trevor W. Morrison, TSA, TSA Body Scanners, TSA Genital Groping, TSA Groping, US Constituion
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, States' Rights, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Constitution | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Attorney General of the United States, apparently at the request of the President, has opted to discontinue pursuing cases that would enforce the provisions of section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). To quote directly from a letter written from United States Attorney General Eric Holder to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives the Attorney General noted:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in Windsor and Pedersen, now pending in the Southern District of New York and the District of Connecticut. I concur in this determination.

The administration of this blog highly recommends that those reading this posting click on the links above to read the Attorney General’s actual letter to Congress regarding this matter. That said, the administration of President Barack Obama should be guardedly commended for their position on this controversial and important matter. This announcement could be a boon to the LGBT community and the unfortunate same sex bi-national couples who are separated due to the fact that there has yet to be passage of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would circumvent DOMA and thereby allow those persons married to someone of the same sex to petition for immigration benefits in the same manner as their different sex counterparts. Bearing that in mind, there are some who could argue that the administration’s position on the issue could cause some unanticipated problems for those who wish to see swift equalization of rights for the LGBT Community, at least in the short term. Such an argument could be based upon the fact that failure to pursue these cases could lead to a situation where the public is unable to get the issue before the Supreme Court (more analysis on this below). To continue quoting from the Attorney General’s letter to Congress:

Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.

As noted in the first sentence of this above cited paragraph, the administration’s decision not to pursue Federal cases to block recognition of same sex marriages could theoretically stall efforts at ultimate recognition of same sex marriage in the Courts. The reason for this is based upon the fact that Courts can only “make new law” when there is a “case or controversy” pending before them. The President’s failure to pursue such cases could effectively blunts efforts to get same sex marriages recognized in the Courts. To put it simply: a case involving the issue of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) can only get before an Appellate Court (including the Supreme Court) if the party that lost in the lower court brings an appeal. Where the Obama administration has stated that they have changed their position on the issue of judicial scrutiny of same sex couples the fact still remains that in order for the Courts to render a final decision on the issue, a case must be properly brought before them. The Holder letter went on to note:

We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.

Interpretation of this line of the letter is critical for the future of same sex marriage cases pending before the Courts because the Obama administration (or a later administration, for that matter) may be placed in a position in which they are forced to appeal against a ruling in favor of same sex couples in order for the issue to be brought to the official attention of the higher Courts (most especially the United States Supreme Court). Failure on the part of the Obama administration to pursue the government’s current position in favor of DOMA all the way to the Supreme Court could lead to a situation, not unlike that once seen in the cases involving the old Widow’s Penalty in an immigration context, where same sex marriage is ruled legal in, say, the Second Circuit, but might not be legalized across the United States if the Attorney General’s office refuses to request certiorari from the United States Supreme Court and simply opts to accept the 2nd Circuit’s ruling.

At the same time, the administration is not actively involved in efforts to discourage recognition of same sex marriages. From a political standpoint, the President’s apparent decision to discontinue pursuit of such cases is rather shrewd in that, as noted in the last sentence of the paragraph cited above, it allows the administration to avoid something of a “political hot potato” without actually doing anything that might offend those arrayed against the recognition of same sex marriage. Meanwhile, as a practical matter, the administration’s decision changes nothing about the current state of affairs with regard to same sex marriage. In fact, if the administration refuses to appeal such cases to the Supreme Court, they would effectively close off one of the two avenues by which DOMA could be overturned (the other being outright repeal by the US Congress). The Defense of Marriage Act remains “on the books” and therefore continues to be an impediment to Federal recognition of same sex marriage (even those solemnized and legalized by the States).

From this blogger’s perspective, the administration appears to be attempting to make efforts in support of the LGBT community on the issue of same sex marriage, but in reality the two branches of government that can truly make a change to the current Federal policy on same sex marriage are the legislative branch of government and the judiciary. At present, two significant cases are pending in the judicial system. One case in California attacks DOMA from more of a civil right’s perspective while the Massachusetts Federal District Court found DOMA unconstitutional based upon, among other things, an analysis of that State’s (or more accurately: Commonwealth’s) inherent right to solemnize and legalize marriages within their jurisdiction. To quote directly from the opinion in the Massachusetts case:

State control over marital status determinations predates the Constitution. Prior to the American Revolution, colonial legislatures, rather than Parliament, established the rules and regulations regarding marriage in the colonies. And, when the United States first declared its independence from England, the founding legislation of each state included regulations regarding marital status determinations.

Many analyze this issue from the perspective of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. There is a very valid argument that discriminating against same sex couples due to their gender/sexual orientation is a violation of Equal Protection. However, the argument in favor of the States’ inherent rights to make rules and regulations regarding marriages within their jurisdiction is a potent argument which should not be overlooked. Equal Rights for the LGBT community is a Civil Rights matter, but where 6 Sovereign States and the District of Columbia have taken the initiative and allowed same sex unions it begs the question: why is the Federal government contravening clear State policy on matters that have traditionally been within the exclusive bailiwick of the States?

This blogger has repeatedly written postings analyzing the issue of same sex marriage from the perspective of States’ Rights as well as Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. What is the most interesting aspect of this issue from the blogger’s perspective is the fact that the more socially conservative wing of the Supreme Sourt could end up voting in favor a same sex marriage based upon a States’ Rights line of thought. To quote directly from the dissenting opinion written by Justice Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas case (which both the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Justice Thomas joined):

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.

All of the Justices noted above dissented in the Lawrence opinion based upon the reasoning that the States’ retain the right to regulate homosexual conduct within their jurisdiction. The Court itself went the other way in that decision, but the above citation from the dissent is important because it shows that those Justices might rule favorably upon an issue involving Federal recognition of same sex marriage if the underlying facts were to show that the State sovereign had duly recognized such unions pursuant to their aforementioned “police powers” noted in the Massachusetts case cited above.

As of yet, these issues remain to be resolved, but one thing is clear: the political winds are changing with regard to LGBT rights. However, said rights have yet to be fully secured and until such time as they are advocates for equal marriage rights should continue to monitor this issue.

Tags: Barack Obama, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Eric Holder, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, LGBT, Same Sex Marriage, uafa, Uniting American Families Act
Posted in lgbt immigration, News, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Constitution | No Comments »

In a peculiar series of events, it would appear that some of the various United States are pondering the re-introduction of precious metals as a means and method of paying State government fees and other fees related to matters arising in an intrastate context. It would appear as though the Commonwealth of Virginia is taking the lead in this matter by proposing measures which could eventually lead to the State government adopting precious metals as the means of payment for State government services.

To quote directly from Jason Hamlin on the website marketoracle.co.uk:

In what could be the financial shot heard around the world, the state of Virginia is considering the establishment of a joint subcommittee to study whether the Commonwealth should adopt a currency such as gold or silver to serve as an alternative to the currency distributed by the Federal Reserve System in the event of a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

This blogger found the proposed Virginia legislation using the Virginia.gov website. In order to understand where the States derive their authority to adopt precious metals for purposes of intrastate governmental fees it may be best to quote language from the proposed legislation directly from the Virginia.gov website:

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States in Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wallace) 71, 76-78 (1869), and Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701, 706 (1884), has ruled that the States may adopt whatever currency they desire for the purposes of performing their sovereign governmental functions, even to the extent of adopting gold and silver coin for those purposes while refusing to employ a currency not redeemable in gold or silver coin that Congress has designated “legal tender”;

Those who understand the United States Constitution will no doubt be aware of the fact that the power to regulate intrastate affairs matters is not derived from the Federal government (nor the Supreme Court), but from the inherent sovereignty of the States themselves. The Supreme Court’s opinion on the matter is used to provide laypeople with insight regarding the Supreme Court’s position on this issue. As of yet, this legislation is still pending. However, those interested in this matter are well advised to check out the links above to find out more about the actual provisions of this legislation and the ramifications thereof.

It would appear that Virginia is not the only American State to ponder the adoption of precious metals as an alternative payment method for intrastate matters. Recently it came to this blogger’s attention that the state of Utah has seen similar proposed legislation. To quote directly from an article by Alex Newman on the website thenewamerican.com:

Under the proposed legislation, introduced late last year for the upcoming legislative session, the state government would be authorized to collect and return taxes and fees in precious metals. Additionally, Utah’s government could use gold and silver in connection with any intrastate transaction. But of course, it would be entirely up to citizens whether they preferred to use precious-metals coins or U.S. dollars…

In 2009, Federal legislation (H.R. 4248: Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009) was introduced by Representative Ron Paul which would have provided more currency options to those in the jurisdiction of the United States of America. However, this legislation failed to be enacted. To quote directly from govtrack.us:

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

As the United States of America is composed of 50 sovereign States as well as the Federal government the Federal legislature would be required to pass legislation regarding currency usage for matters falling under the Federal bailiwick, but State matters are dealt with exclusively by State legislatures. Clearly, the ultimate outcome for State legislation such as that noted above has yet to be determined. However, it would appear that there is more support for adopting precious metals for payment of government fees at the State level compared to the Federal level. That said, the future of both issues is uncertain.

Should legislation similar to that noted above be adopted by one or more of the United States, then this could have tremendous implications for the political-economies that compose the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or are geographically located within Greater Asia. Companies from Asia doing business in the USA may need to make some currency adjustments should business interests compel presence in a State which has adopted specie or precious metals as a method of paying State government costs and fees.

For related information please see: Stock Exchange Mergers

Tags: adoption of precious metals, currency, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank, Federal Reserve Notes, Fiat Currency, Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009, Gold, Gold bullion, Gold Standard, H.R. 4248, Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 557, interstate commerce, intrastate commerce, intrastate currency legislation, Lane County v. Oregon, Sound Money, specie, State currency legislation, States' Rights, The Sound Money Act, The Utah Specie Tender Act of 2011, Utah, Virginia
Posted in American Business, Cambodia Business, China Business, Laos Business, States' Rights, Thailand Business, US Constitution | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that a State Judge in a Nebraska Court appears to have been unwilling to grant a divorce to a same-sex married couple on the grounds that the State of Nebraska does not recognize the existence of the underlying marriage. It would appear as though the parties in question were originally married in Vermont (a State which recognizes and solemnizes marriages between individuals of the same gender), but wished to have their marriage dissolved in Nebraska (a State which does not solemnize nor recognize same sex marriage). To quote directly from a posting on WCAX.com, a website dedicated to providing news pertaining to Vermont:

According to Judge Randall Rehmeier, the state can’t dissolve their marriage because gay marriage isn’t recognized by the Nebraska Constitution. That means their marriage doesn’t exist in the state’s eyes.

The administration of this blog highly recommends readers go to the website noted above to read the full posting. The Judge’s reasoning may go to the heart of the overall conundrum that arises from what some would consider to be the uncertain nature of the current legal status of same sex marriages in the United States. As noted previously on this blog, within the USA there are currently 5 sovereign American  States that recognize and perform same sex marriages. Meanwhile, there are many other States and jurisdictions which do not recognize such marital relationships. Furthermore, there are even some American States which have State constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage or defining marriage as exclusively to mean a marital union between two people of differing gender. Concurrently, the United States Federal Government does not recognize same sex marriages pursuant to the language of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). Under the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act the Federal government is legally barred from recognizing marriages between two people of the same gender. This is a significant issue in the area of United States Immigration law as same sex bi-national couples are unable to obtain the same family based visa benefits as different-sex bi-national couples, regardless of the fact that the couple may have been lawfully married in one of the American States which recognizes same sex marriage.

In the midst of all of these conflicting policies and laws there are currently cases pending in the United States Federal Courts which address the issues associated with same sex marriage and government recognition thereof. At the time of this writing, Federal District Courts in Massachusetts and California have ruled that Federal failure to recognize State sanctioned same sex marriage is unconstitutional. However, those decisions have been stayed pending appeal. Those appeals could very possibly go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

At the time of this writing, the issue of same sex marriage is far from settled, but one thing is clear: it is unlikely that a solution will be easy to find. It is this blogger’s opinion that the issues associated with same sex marriage touch most particularly upon legal notions inherent in the Constitutional doctrine of Full Faith and Credit pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, analysis under the Full Faith and Credit Clause may not lead to uniform State acceptance of same sex marriage. In this blogger’s opinion, the Defense of Marriage Act was rendered unconstitutional the moment that a sovereign American State began recognizing and performing marriages for people of the same sex. This opinion is based upon the belief that the right to solemnize marriages between parties within the jurisdiction of a given State is a right reserved to said State under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under certain circumstances, States have cited their power to promote “public health and safety” as a basis for issuing marriage licenses.

In this blogger’s opinion, if a State has duly legalized a same sex marriage within their jurisdiction pursuant to the laws and procedures of said State, then the Federal government must recognize that marriage pursuant to what this blogger would describe as Vertical Full Faith and Credit (i.e. Federal recognition of certain State prerogatives regarding intrastate matters pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause). However, the law dealing with what this blogger would describe as Horizontal Full Faith and Credit (State to State recognition of State adjudicated matters) can be opaque especially with regard to issues which one state has deemed to be in violation of State public policy. If a sovereign American State has a Constitutional Amendment which specifically defines marriage as a marital union between a man and a woman, then there is a strong argument in favor of denying divorces to same sex couples within that State since it would violate State public policy to recognize the existence of the marriage in order to dissolve it.

As more and more same sex couples legalize marriages in the United States, it stands to reason that more such couples may one day seek divorce. The issues associated with Full Faith and Credit and LGBT rights have yet to be fully resolved, but it seems likely that this issue will remain controversial both from a political perspective as well as a legal perspective.

Those reading this posting should take note of the fact that there are myriad legal and political opinions on this subject and until such time as a binding decision is made in the US Courts or Federal legislature this issue will probably continue to remain unresolved.

For information about legislation designed to deal with the immigration restrictions placed upon same sex bi-national couples please see: Uniting American Families Act or UAFA.

Tags: Constitutional Law, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Gay Rights, Gay Rights News, Horizontal Full Faith and Credit, LGBT Rights, LGBT Rights News, Same Sex Divorce, Same Sex Immigration, Same Sex Marriage, same sex visa, States' Rights, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, US Constitution, US Courts, Vertical Full Faith and Credit
Posted in Editorial, lgbt immigration, Opinion, same sex visa, States' Rights, US Constitution | No Comments »