This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). United States Constitution High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: " Person", " People", " Place", " Thing", and " Events." U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Thing(s). Puerto Rico Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

what exactly are the laws of extradition from one u.s. state to another? are states really going to extradite someone from new york to california for a warrant for a speeding ticket? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.159.86 ( talk) 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC). reply

An editor removed all the links in headings, commenting links should never be used in headings: WP:MOS. Actually, WP:MOS says "Avoid using links inside headings themselves.... Instead, link from the first occurrence of the term in the prose of the section." (my emphasis). It does not say never. I have no problem with removing the links in the headings, provided the editor doing the removal follows through and adds the removed link to the text. If you object to the links, do not simply delete them; instead move them as indicated. TJRC ( talk) 02:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This statement needs a cite. "Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally. Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states when traveling in other states." Broadcaster101 ( talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Someone has made a mess of the "territory and property" clause section of the Article Four page - it is so hacked up near the end of the penultimate paragraph that the argument regarding the disputes cannot be followed. It looks like someone started to edit the section and after cutting parts just forgot about it. If the original entry cannot be restored and if there is no one knowledgeable about the subject to fix it up, perhaps the hacked up part should be deleted. Sonyack ( talk) 19:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I have removed the hacked up part as I could not find any source for the opinion it appeared to be advancing, and it was an anonymous edit in the first place (by 74.242.66.244 10 February 2010). For the record it read thus:

Although scholars look to the real meaning of "the Territory belonging to the United States" as meaning the geographic area belonging to the United States as the word "territory" actually means and "other Property" as territories"

-- Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 18:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The following paragraph:

• "The Constitution does not require that states be admitted on an "equal footing" with the original states. In fact, the Constitutional Convention rejected a proposal requiring the equality of new states. Congress nevertheless included an equality clause in the statehood acts of admission of states. Congressional restrictions on the equality of states, even when those limitations have been found in the acts of admission, have been held void by the Supreme Court."

Seems to be contradictory. The first part suggests that it is acts of Congress that require equality of new states when they join the union, and that equality is not in the Constitution. However, the last part of the paragraph, and subsequent text in the article, suggests that it is actually Congress attempting to limit equality, while the Supreme Court is upholding equality as necessary constitutionally. Which is correct?  —  Amakuru ( talk) 10:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The meaning is absolute: The Federal Government must govern as a Republic to the States. The entire Constitution outlines and mandates the government. It's modeled after England, why else would they name the region New England? There is no alternate interpretation of the guarantee clause. I see nothing in the US Constitution anywhere that mandates how a state must govern itself: Amendment X would apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.45.129 ( talk) 14:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  The clause requires not only a Republican government at the federal level but at the state level as well. The US Constitution does not allow any state to be a dictatorship for example. Having said that, the power of Congress to control even federal elections actually applies only to the House of Representatives as the Constitution, even with the Guarantee Clause does not give it power to regulate local or state elections nor does Congress have power to regulate presidential or senatorial elections. You can look through the entire document and you will find there is no place, not even in the guarantee clause, where the US Constitution was Congress given the power to nationalize elections via something like HR1 for example.

This requested move to lowercase clause's of the Constitution is already in a relisting, editors and readers of this page may have an interest. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply