Final Protective Fire


Links to some interesting places:
R.J.Rummel's blog
Junk Science Blog and debunking discussion forum.
Pirate Ballerina
Dave Kopel's Home Page
Volokh Conspiracy
Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit
Prof Bainbridge Blog
Clayton Cramer
David Friedman's homepage
Vodka Pundit
Tiki Lounge
Jim Dunnigan's site
Cold Fury
Karl's blog

email to finalprotfire at

Note that there is someone sending the KLEZ ( and now SOBIG.F ) virus with forged blogger emails. I will never send you email with attachments - delete any immediately.

Archives ( hard links ):
August 07
July 07
June 07
May 07
April 07
March 07
February 07
January 07
December 06
November 06
October 06
September 06
August 06
July 06
June 06
May 06
April 06
March 06
February 06
January 06
December 05
November 05
October 05
September 05
August 05
July 05
June 05
May 05
April 05
March 05
February 05
January 05
December 04
November 04
October 04
September 04
August 04
July 04
June 04
May 04
April 04
March 04
February 04
January 04
December 03
November 03
October 03
September 03
September 03
August 03
July 03
June 03
May 03
April 03
March 03
February 03
January 03
December 02
November 02
October 02
September 02
August 02
July 02
June 02
May 02


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

An interesting US Supreme Court opinion was published today. This opinion looks at first glance to be a boring question about whether or not the California Franchise Tax Board can be sued in Nevada state courts. But in reality it is a slightly more interesting question about the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. This is the clause that gay rights activists have claimed would require all 50 states to recognize gay marriage if they succeed in getting one state to recognize it.

Unfortunately, its my opinion that the Supreme Court precedent in this area is against them. This case illustrates why, the case is about a person who, not liking the CFTB's attempt to get him to pay a disputed tax assessment, sued that board in Nevada. As the opinion begins: "We granted certiorari to resolve whether the Nevada Supreme Court's refusal to extend full faith and credit to California's statute immunizing its tax collection agency from suit violates Article IV, ยง1 of the Constitution. We conclude it does not, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court." The CFTB argues that California law makes them immune in Nevada. This is all the more amusing because the previous USSCt opinion in this area, Nevada v. Hall 440 U. S. 410 (1979), was when a California court ignored Nevada's soverign immunity statute in a negligence suit naming Nevada as a defendant in a matter arising from a traffic accident.

Today, a unanimous USSCt ruled, following that previous case, that Nevada is not obligated by the US Constitution to apply California law of soverign immunity in Nevada courts where it contradicts Nevada's own law. Its my belief that this illustrates the flaw in the claim that gay marriages would have to be recognized by other states. These cases about the Full Faith and Credit clause would mean, in my opinion, that a state that banned gay marriages within its own borders would not be required to recognize the validity of a marriage solemnicized under another state's law.