Replies

"We don't obey any Constitution. Lip service, yes, obey, no way."

Here is the good news.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10,

1. No state shall...pass any bill...law impairing the obligation of contracts,

Amendment V

Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

The Illinois law also blatantly and almost contemptuously, violates the U.S. Constitution.

With that being said, consider the following:

U.S. Supreme Court

HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) 502 U.S. 21

Monetary damages under (Federal Law) 42 U.S.C. 1983.

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:

We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of (Federal Law 42 U.S.C) 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10,
1. No state shall...pass any bill...law impairing the obligation of contracts,

Not a problem. The state is not obligated to enforce illegal contracts. They aren't voiding any existing contracts, but are putting restrictions on which future contracts will be legal. Those will be enforced, and the obligations are not therefore impaired. I'd love to hear you alternate explanation - that still has such a thing as an illegal contract.

Amendment V

Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Again, no private property is being taken. The potential of greater future profits has never been held to be property. I'm aware there is a movement, largely here on the right, to hold such, but it's certainly not the case today - or at any time during our history. Claiming it is true, is the very epitome of judicial activism most of us stand against.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people.

OK. And?

You're saying the right to have illegal contracts enforced is a right? Or maybe we have the right that anything once legal must remain forever legal provided it turned a profit? Seriously, what is this unenumerated right you're supporting here. Please be specific.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

The Illinois law also blatantly and almost contemptuously, violates the U.S. Constitution.

Well, I think I've gone through and shown that this Illinois law does not violate the U.S. Consitution. If it did, that same prohibition would, in fact, apply to the states, through the 14th - just as you assert. But as it does not violate the constitution, the 14th is silent about the States.

Enjoy,

Drew Garrett