That was why Roe v Wade was overturned, thus placing the decision back upon the states, where it belonged all along, whether to legalize abortion or not.
If the U.S. Constitution were not a contract it would not take amendments to alter it.
Citizens who live within one of the 50 states, share the rights afforded to them by both the state & the U.S. constitutions.
That's one of the reasons draconian gun laws are overturned, because the U.S. constitution take precedence over the state constitution if the U.S. constitution makes specific mention as they do in the 2nd Amendment.
As for why there are Constitutional lawyers, and Contract lawyers is akin to the medical profession and the specializing in an area of medicine, only this is specialization within law. While some understand contract law as it deals with contracts between two or more people, they may not understand some of the more finite understanding & rulings regrading constitutional law, and its contractual agreements with the citizens on either the state or federal level.
Sometimes states try to overreach (misuse) laws such as eminent domain. When they do a landowner can take the state or federal government to court. How would they be able to do that if constitutions were not contracts?
Again, I will reiterate that there is no limit to rectify fraud. Show me where that limits exists. You, and others, mistakenly believe that to be the case . If an election is fraudulently certified, it is still a case of fraud.
It may make for a constitutional crisis, but there is nothing that says once an election is certified there is no remedy.
In addition, when the Supreme Court made the ruling it merely stated: “FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING”, it didn't limit that ruling to just written or verbal contracts. It included everything.
No, it is not a contract between the states and the Federal Government. Yes, it defines what you say — it is the supreme guiding document, not a contract.
The ability to make amendments to the Constitution does not make it a contract. Amendments may be made to all sorts of documents that are not contracts.
Yes, citizens enjoy the rights afforded to them under the Constitution, but that does not make it a contract. And on and on with the rest of your list. This is getting ridiculous.
Here, maybe this very short video will help you understand. You will like it in that the professor stresses the ways the Constitution is similar to a contract. You may not like his firm stance that it is not, in fact, a contract:
“Professor Randy Barnett argues that the Constitution is not a contract but there are important similarities. Officials who swear an oath to defend the Constitution are bound to it contractually. Also, contracts are interpreted according to their written words (as opposed to intentions) and according to the meaning they had at the time of agreement. The Originalist theory of Constitutional interpretation also utilizes these principles.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-lmr6I2GAs
You're misrepresenting that phrase regarding who wrote it.
"Fraud vitiates everything" was in a book discussing Res judicata by Wells (sect. 499) and was cited by the Court in it's explanation of the case at hand.
Here's what the Court wrote (whole paragraph included for context):
"'The maxim that fraud vitiates every proceeding must be taken, like other general maxims, to apply to cases where proof of fraud is admissible (emphasis added). But where the same matter has been actually tried, or so in issue that it might have been tried, it is not again admissible; the party is estopped to set up such fraud, because the judgment is the highest evidence, and cannot be contradicted.' It is otherwise, he says, with a stranger to the judgment. This is said in a case where the bill was brought for the purpose of impeaching the decree directly, and not where it was offered in evidence collaterally. We think these decisions establish the doctrine on which we decide the present case; namely, that the acts for which a court of equity will on account of fraud set aside or annul a judgment or decree, between the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to frauds, extrinsic or collateral, to the matter tried by the first court, and not to a fraud in the matter on which the decree was rendered."
If people are going to hang their hat on United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) as a justification to act in an extra-constitutional manner - good luck.