U.S. CONST. ART. 1, SECT 10.
In Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat, 25 U.S. 213 (1827), Chief Justice John Marshal wrote in dissent on what drove the framers to write the contracts clause into the Constitution:
The power of changing the relative situation of debtor and creditor, of interfering with contracts, a power which comes home to every man, touches the interest of all, and controls the conduct of every individual in those things which he supposes to be proper for his own exclusive management, had been used to such an excess by the state legislatures, as to break in upon the ordinary intercourse of society, and destroy all confidence between man and man. This mischief had become so great, so alarming, as not only to impair commercial intercourse and threaten the existence of credit, but to sap the morals of the people and destroy the sanctity of private faith. To guard against the continuance of the evil was an object of deep interest with all the truly wise, as well as the virtuous, of this great community, and was one of the important benefits expected from a reform of the government.
That the public bloodlust to terminate the contracts between individuals and AIG has reached into the upper most echelon of the White House is not surprising.
And unfortunately, as altrutist- statists are wont to do, anything and everything is up for grabs when THERE IS AN EMERGENCY.
The clearest indication of this is the Supreme Court's holding in Home Building and Loan Assoc. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) in which the Supreme Court held that:
The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.
Let us interpret that for you: Contracts are contracts, and the Constitution is the Constitution, and the Constitution forbids state interference with contracts, unless the interests of the state are overriding.
In other words, the Constitution of the United States is not worth the paper it is written on when powerful economic interests or emergencies arise.
Thus in Blaisdell, the court found that 1) "an emergency" existed in Minnesota. 2) The laws enacted (the suspension of the right of a creditor to foreclose on a mortgage) addressed "a legitimate interest of society" (Altruistic collectivism). 3) The relief afforded by the law was justified by the emergency and thus the state acted properly. (Statism).
Blaisdell has been roundly and justifiably criticized, but it is still good law.
So is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) holding a farmer could not eat the wheat he grew, and that the Federal Government had the right to say so under the commerce clause, especially when there is an ....(everybody now) EMERGENCY!!!
And that is very bad news for those people who are legitimately owed money during this emergency. That means AIG employees, real estate investors, and anyone else Obama and the Congress decide this emergency covers. And that may mean you someday.
Let's say Florida decided there was "an emergency" and suspended payments on pensions. For all of you who just spent the last 30 years in the REGJB and were expecting a decent retirement- ouch!
But Florida could do it. The Blaisdell opinion says so.
So sit back and hold on to your wallets because the altruist-collectivist-statists are out in force and everything is up for grabs.
See You in court reading old Supreme Court decisions.