here's my head spinning

First, I have to say how much it amuses me that one friend, Gail, does not consider a day to be complete unless she has eaten meat (recent blog entry). Not large quantities, but at least a little. To the other extreme, my friend Tami does not even eat animal products, and no meat for 20 years.

I love diversity!

But the real point, why my head is spinning:

Here's just a taste of what we get every day, all day long.

I emailed my prof:
What's the difference? It seems that Art. IV speaks on both due process isues as addressed in Amendment XIV (which first calls it due process) and full faith and credit which is addressed in 1738. What am I missing/have I forgot?

His reply:
Confusion warranted. It is true that FF&C to judgments (as well as the qualification for judgments lacking in jurisdiction), is addressed by article IV, at least as construed by the Court; and the qualification on FF&C is also addressed by DP (of course, before the DP clause of the 14th A, FF&C was all you had). So, they do similar work in some sense by qualifying the constitutional scope of FF&C: judgments lacking in PJ are not given FF&C. The DP clause does not, however, mandate FF&C to anything; it only limits it (arguably in a way that FF&C under Art IV already did).

[ If you really want to get technical . . . the non enforceability of judgments lacking in PJ could only be enforced “collaterally” under Art IV (i.e., in a later proceeding seeking recognition of an earlier judgment). DP meant that a judgment could be challenged (as Field puts it) “directly” i.e., on appeal to the u.s. supreme court from a lower state court proceeding that was arguably lacking in PJ. You could not do that under article IV. In that respect DP did add something to FF&C.]

The FF&C statute, on the other hand, in effect defines the scope (or perhaps even meaning) of FF&C. FF&C is not a self-defining term. The statute says that “full” = “same” credit the judgment rendering state would give it (subject to a DP limitation). No more, no less. Also, FF&C statute is read as saying that federal courts as well as state courts shall give FF&C to state court judgments. Article IV FF&C only speaks to the credit that a STATE court has to give another state court judgment. 1738 is an exercise of the power to enforce the FF&C clause that is included in clause 1 of article IV.