Skip to comments.How Liberal Judges Wiped Out A Key Clause Of The Constitution (Contract Clause)
Posted on 06/19/2017 11:17:09 AM PDT by reaganaut1
mericans who have read our Constitution might recall the words saying that state governments may not impair the obligation of contracts. Yet they frequently rewrite or dissolve contracts when doing so is good politics demanding that employers pay current workers more money or face punishment, for example.
Once a star in the Constitutions plan for liberty and limited state power, the Contract Clause is now almost completely forgotten. Vanderbilt Law School professor James W. Ely, Jr. tells that unhappy story in his book The Contract Clause: A Constitutional History.
Inserted into the Constitution without extensive debate, Ely writes, the Contract Clause was clearly prompted by the sour experience with state debt relief laws during the Post-Revolution Era. It was grounded in the premise that honoring contractual commitments served the public interest by encouraging commerce.
Unfortunately, like several other key constitutional provisions, the Contract Clause eventually fell victim to judicial interpretations that, by the latter stages of the New Deal, rendered it almost a dead letter. Elys book gives the reader a fascinating account of the roller-coaster ride of this clause.
The young American nation developed a commercial economy in which the enforceability of contracts for land, goods, and services was crucial. But, as John Marshall observed, the state legislatures were inclined to break in upon the ordinary intercourse of society, and destroy all confidence between man and man. In an attempt to stop that, the Constitutions drafters wrote Article I, Section 10 to read, No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. (In the same section, states were forbidden to issue paper money or enact ex post facto laws.)
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
We the People should use the Constitution to wipe out Leftist judges.
The Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, not the judiciary, is the supreme law of the land (Art VI, Cl 2).
And OBTW, the federal judiciary does NOT constitutionally make national law. The judicial branch is constitutionally limited to hearing individual cases and controversies (Art III, Sec 2, Cl 1), and their decision IF CONSTITUTIONAL applies ONLY to the parties of the case and any other case with the same question s of law and facts.
...if anyone cares...
I hope they kept the Sanity Clause.
Just look at how governors all fell into line with the illicit Obergefel opinion. How Republican governors attacked their citizens for not complying with the garbage.
The controlling political groups are completely debased. They’re killing the country.
You can't fool me ... there ain't no Sanity Clause ...
Not to worry. We can rely on the brave and stalwart defenders of the Constitutionthe House Republicansto impeach judges who violate their oath of office and act to destroy our nation’s freedoms. \sarc
I hope they kept the Sanity Clause.
= = =
The one in the Red Suit?
But, in Marbury v Madison, the court arrogated to itself the right of judicial review and then through subsequent rulings arrogated to itself even more power to interpret more things as any one of the parties to a contract sought relief in the courts.
Somebody knew the reference!!! :)
Party of the 9th part..
An alternative view of Fletcher v Peck — Marshall ruled that if you stole it fair and square, you get to keep it. Back in 1810 the issue was a land grant obtained by bribing the Georgia legislature. Today the issue is public employee pensions granted by collusive contracts, contracts between public officials and the unions that helped elect the officials. The union on both sides of the bargaining table. The taxpayers on neither, but stuck with the bill for generations.
A Night at the Opera is up there with Duck Soup, Horse Feathers and a Day at the Races :)
There is no “Sanity Clause”
Judicial review in the sense of judging the constitutionality of the acts of the two other branches is legitimate and not unconstitutional.
But “judicial supremacy” is certainly not constitutional. The judiciary consisting of unelected federal officials, is, if anything, the weakest of the three branches because its scope is limited to individual cases and controversies and it has no power to enforce its decisions. And the judiciary is subject to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land (Art VI, Cl 2) and any decision violating the Constitution is null and void.
Also because of the Supremacy Clause (Id.) as confirmed also by the 9th and 10th Amendments, all three federal branches and every state has the constitutional power to question the constitutionality of the acts of a branch of the feds.
When you reach 65, you HAVE to go on Medicare. While Medicare is an OK deal, my issue is that the US Gov’t in its wisdom has decided that no one can write insurance for any American citizen over 65.
I’ve always thought that was outrageous interference in the ability to contract.
I fell in love with the Marx Brothers in my early 20s.
49 now and own ALL of their movies on dvd.
They are before NO ONE’S time :)
Some clauses of the Constitution are observed, while most, like the contracts clause, are not. Those in force are those that established the three branches, elections, Washington DC as the seat of government, presidential vetoes, etc. I regard these as hard clauses, those that are observed and unabused.
On the other hand, most clauses in our Constitution are soft in nature, and comprise what James Madison referred to as mere parchment barriers. For instance, soft clauses are among the myriad that deal with regulation of commerce, taxation, free speech rights and the placement of all legislative powers in congress. These, the soft clauses, are disregarded, if not inverted, to serve purposes opposite of their clear intent.
On closer inspection, well find that hard Constitutional clauses have an institution or an interest group to defend them. Otherwise, and without defense, they are sure to fall into the soft category and be soon disregarded as Ms. Huldah relates.
Every unconstitutional change to the Constitution (only a valid constitutional amendment can legally change the constitution) including Leftist “soft” and “hard” clauses and “living document” nonsense, is designed for ONE thing and ALWAYS results in ONE thing: the INCREASE of the power of the federal government with the requisite DECREASE in individual liberty.
Our goal is to RESTORE our Free Constitutional Republic. That means reinstating the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended as the supreme Law of the Land against the feds. THAT means, among other things, dismantling the 80% constitutional portion for the federal government which, in turn, means sending hundreds of thousands of federal officials, bureaucratic heads, and government workers home packing without a job, but a day of rejoicing for restored freedom and prosperity for America and Americans.
It is too big a job and cannot be done without God. But there is evidence that God is doing this very thing and Trump’s miraculous election is the first step.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is a perfect example.
The democrats liberal progressive social believe the Santa Clause is right there in the U.S. Constitution. The two words they take out of context.
The “Santa Clause.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.