Constitution quiz - Contracts.

[miko2d]

Imagine there is a contract signed by two sides.

 A state legislature creates a law that allows/mandates one side to break that contract. Is such a law constitutional?

 miko

[Sikboy]

I believe this happens all the time with rergard to building/zoning issues.

what in the Constitution would prevent this law?

-Sik

[Udie]

Section 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin and Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainer, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

 No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of war in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's what I found about contracts in my copy of the Constitution.  I bolded the part that I think pertains to your question.  And I think that yes it would be unconstitutional.

[ra]

It is against the Constitution:

Dartrmouth

[Udie]

wow I got one right

[miko2d]

Very good Udie, ra. The states are specifically prohibited from interfering with the contract obligations.

 Now, could you tell me what would happen if a State adopted such a law revoking an existing contract and an affected citizen appealed to the Supreme Court?


 Udie, Since you quoted the whole clause including "No State shall ...  make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;", a bonus question: What would happen if a state mandated other things than gold or silver coin or equivalents as a tender in payment  of state taxes, fees, tax refunds, etc.?

 miko

[GRUNHERZ]

Oh god miko not your gold obsession again....

[Sikboy]

Oops.

-Sik

[Gunthr]

I think Miko is waiting behind the door with a baseball bat, proceed at your own risk!  

[Udie]

hey! let's get this back on topic.

I AM THE ROXXORS AT CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRITATION!  I AM 1337!!!!!



You can call me the constitutional ninja! All your rights are belong to me!

[mietla]

Originally posted by Gunthr
I think Miko is waiting behind the door with a baseball bat, proceed at your own risk!  

I can see that.

[miko2d]

Gunthr: I think Miko is waiting behind the door with a baseball bat, proceed at your own risk!  

  Right you are!

 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case "Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell":
 The state of Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that negated some conditions of the pre-existing loan contracts in favor of debtors. The Supreme court upheld the law by 5-4 vote.

Justice Charles Evans Hughes expressing the view of the Supreme Court majority said : “The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts..."

 Basically, if a State believes that its economic interests - as some politicians perceive them - warrant favoring some groups through interference with contracts - Constition be damned!

 miko

[mietla]

Originally posted by miko2d
Basically, if a State believes that its economic interests - as some politicians perceive them - warrant favoring some groups through interference with contracts - Constition be damned!

 miko

And that surprises you? They are raping the Constitution daily.

[AWMac]

Ameerka ezz no way theateened by thee Constitution... etts juss plane Redikiulis.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Udie
Section 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin and Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainer, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

 No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of war in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I thought breaking and impairing oligopoly and monopoly contracts was what the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was all about.

And again during Prohibition, when the brewers suddently found themselves engaged in illegal activities.

I think, in the Dartmouth example, that it was a case of the state government attempting to convert an enterprise to its own use, with such use in violation of the contract between that enterprise and a foreign government.