Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bokababe
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it sure seems like California is exceeding its authority. If they are not in violation of the following passages from the U.S. Constitution, they appear to be in violation of its intent.

U.S. Constitution
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States

"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 a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

They may not be passing a "law impairing the Obligation of Contracts," but they are encouraging the willful violation of contracts.

From the site: U.S. Constitution Online

" Reprisal
Archaic. An act taken by a nation, short of war, to gain redress for an action taken against that nation. For example, seizing a ship in retaliation for a seized ship."

"Attainder
In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder."

And how about

Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all Others

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

48 posted on 04/28/2010 3:11:26 AM PDT by Rocky (REPEAL IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Rocky
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it sure seems like California is exceeding its authority. If they are not in violation of the following passages from the U.S. Constitution, they appear to be in violation of its intent."

I am not a Constitutional Lawyer either Rocky, but isn't this situation with Steinberg threatening to "tear up contracts with and boycott Arizona" the real reason that the Insterstate Commerce Clause was written -- to regulate (keep regular) Interstate Commerce?

123 posted on 04/28/2010 10:20:41 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson