UGLY

Article 1 section 10 of the constitution

"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."

After reading this do you believe it is legal for the government to step in and re-negotiate or even relieve people of their bad debts in the housing markets. I have read that this was added to the Constitution to eliminate private relief of debt by the government for people who couldn't pay thus leaving the lenders hanging or vise versa lenders reneging on there end.

ODH

Isn't this limiting the powers of the states and letting only the Federal government to have th epower to do things such ratifying treaties and printing money?

skipster

I agree that the passage in question relates to states' rights. But, I believe that the current renogiation has the potential to rob people of the moneys to which they are entitled. A lot of people get tied up in the emotio nof the whole situation. But, think of it like this:

If you lent money to someone to buy something, would you accept any repayment that is less than what you lent out? If so, then you are OK with forgiving loan debt. If not -- if you want all them oney back that you lent out, then you side with republicans and libertarians on the issue.

RYou

If you are talking about the federal bailout of Bear Sterns, it is being structured as a saleable investment. The feds will actual own a piece of Bears Sterns, 39% I believe. In fact the value may be higher in two years in which case the feds can sell out to an investment bank at a profit.

All of the others are being structures as loans. It's the same approach the feds took to bail out Chrysler back in the 80's. Chrysler in fact repaid the loan with interest within a few years. At the time, no investment bank would lend them a dime the financial condition was so bad.

matclone

Good question. However, before going down the path of charging "the government" (which you evidently don't trust) of doing something unconstitutional, it may be helpful to have some actual govt action rather than hypotheticals about the entity you distrust doing wrong.

I've not heard of any states proposing action (although I may not have noticed). The proposals I've heard about all seem to be from the federal level, in which case this particular constitutional article would not apply (although others might).

But let's say Colorado decides to do something about the foreclosure problem. I assume your concern is with the contract clause "No state shall pass a law...impairing the obligation of contracts".

Having consulted with Prof. Chemerinsky, I can tell you there is constitutional law on this matter and it actually is close to the very issue of current concern. During the U.S. depression in the 1930s, the state of Minnesota passed a law placing two year moratorium on mortgage foreclosures. The U.S. Supreme Ct upheld this law in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934)--basically arguing that there was a legitimate public need and the constitution is not set in stone.

It is no answer to say that this public need [i.e., a housing crisis] was not apprehended a century ago, or to insist that what the provision of the Constitution means to the vision of that day, it must mean to the vision of our time...It is to guard against such a narrow conception that Chief Justice Marshall uttered the memorable warning--We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding--a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.

So, as to the contract clause in this article of the constitution, states can enter into the realm, but their action must have a significant and legitimate government purpose. So, your or the framers concern that the state would repudiate debts because of influence or just for the heck of it, is not a legitimate government purpose, and it would be unconstitutional.

UGLY

That answers the question pretty well Clone.

ban basketball

It does seem odd to me that we "nitpick" over instances like this, yet defend the government's right to suspend Habeus Corpus, and call those of us who oppose this traitors, perfectly willingly.

It's like we've lost the concept of what being American is.

__________________
UNI Panthers...23 Consecutive West Regional Titles!!

UNI Panthers...Back On The All-American Podium Again!!

My ignore list: Cyclone85; skipster; tight-waist; Ignatius J. Reilly.

UGLY

example please

ban basketball

An example of what? That Habeus Corpus was suspended? That people who oppose suspension of it and other liberties have been called traitors and un-American?

If that's what you mean, I'm confused. Aren't these things givens?

__________________
UNI Panthers...23 Consecutive West Regional Titles!!

UNI Panthers...Back On The All-American Podium Again!!

My ignore list: Cyclone85; skipster; tight-waist; Ignatius J. Reilly.

UGLY

yes that is what I mean.