Untitled[edit]

Removed portion of New Deal discussion that claims that Marshall supports the idea of a living constitution in McCullough. This is wrong. The "expounding" Marshall is clearly talking about, if you refer to the case, is of interpreting the Constitution, and based on the intent of the framers. Reading the case, the quote is in the context of what the framers intended based on the construction of the Constitution.

At the very least, the statements were without support. --64.203.165.241 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The neutrality of this article is questionable. There is a large debate in the legal world regarding whether to interpret the U.S. Constitution as a "living document" or to look to the "framer's intent," or something in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.203.131 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page is (1) way POV and (2) incorrect, as the contracts clause applies to private contracts and not contracts with the states or their creations.

I don't feel competent to weigh in myself, but if you have a problem with it, take the second paragraph out. Johndodd 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't feel competent actually to rewrite the article, but I like Wikipedia articles to be excellent general introductions to a particular subject. This article is not sufficiently encyclopædic, and in particular, the article does not give much guidance as to the specific elements that should be considered when deciding whether a statute violates or does not violate this provision of the Constitution. For this reason, I have tagged it as in need of attention by an expert. 69.140.173.15 01:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bit about the FSAs IS a little quetsionable. If noone says anything within a reasonable amount of time, I think I'll take it out... 68.39.174.238 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV moved from article[edit]

Though the language of this clause indicates a blanket prohibition against states' interference in contracts, in practice this is no longer the case. New York State government has with New York City, Yonkers, Nassau County, and most recently Buffalo, impaired the obligation of collective bargaining agreements. With the blessing of the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court), the state legislature has been able to pass special legislation establishing Fiscal Stability Authorities that have the power to freeze union contract obligations. In the case of Buffalo, the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority has frozen pay raises, step increases, and other monetary benefits required by the affected unions' contracts. These wage freezes have also been applied to those contracts negotiated prior to the establishment of the Fiscal Stability Authority.[citation needed]

Grover cleveland 07:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questionable Legal Analysis of United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, and of "rational basis" connection[edit]

As a UConn law student, having reviewed United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey on Lexis, I'm not sure one can say that the court imposes a stricter standard on the impairment of contracts held by the state as opposed to private contracts. There is no talk of the majority opinion about a higher level of scrutiny and there is also reference to "reasonable and necessary" analysis as found in private contract cases. Also, the rational basis analogy is simply wrong. Deference is given to legislatures under the rational basis test in regards to the reasonable and necessary nature of a law, however, an important public interest may not even be enough to overcome the contract clause limitation. See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 11 (1977). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacket Joe (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contracts clause[edit]

Like all names for clauses in the constitution, this one takes its name from the language of the constitution. Thus, this clause is properly referred to as the "Contracts Clause," not the "Contract Clause." I could edit the text of the article, but I don't know how to change the article name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.250.194 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interested in Reasons for Poor Quality[edit]

75Janice (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am studying for the bar exam. When something is unclear, I am turning to wikipedia for a general outline. All the articles on constitutional law were very good until I searched this one. My expetise has been in civil rights and civil liberties so I do not have the necessary expertise. It appears so muddled it might be better to have a lawyer or law student just rewrite most of it. Law must be precise. Nuances do matter. This area of law is so widely debated. With the exception of Gitmo detainees rights, this is the major crucible of our time. There is a wealth of good material. Scalia and Tribe wrote an excellent book on this very topic. The ideas in it can't be copyrighted. 75Janice (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)75JaniceReply[reply]

I am apologize for the mess I created. Presently, I am reviewing constitutional law for the bar exam for the seoond time in my life. I am using wikipedia as a good general outline to familiarize with a clause, without getting bogged down with trivia. Most constitutional law articles are very good, Establish Clause could be better, too. This is such a hot topic for this generation of legal scholars. The idea of a living constitution vs. an eduring one are clearly argued by Justice Scalia and Prof. Larry Tribe of Harvard. Indeed, they wrote an excellent book together. Of course, the book is copyrighted but the ideas are not.

What I find particularly disturbing is that legal cases and concepts are evidently not reported accurately. Precision is crucial. I would rather not have the article than rely on it to my detriment. So I am curious as to why other topics are so well done and this one appears to be an orphan.

19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)75Janice (talk)75Janice

Yeah. Keep in mind, wikipedia is written by people like us. There's no 'editorial staff', just people like us who wander by occasionally. Some pages are better than others. If you know something is wrong, and you know how to say it correctly, please click Edit. And if you know how to translate them into English for those without law degrees, your contributions would be greatly appreciated. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extremely difficult to read[edit]

I have to wonder who writes these articles, as it seems they have some high-level law degree but absolutely no schooling in journalism or communication. The sentences are loaded down with so much unnecessary jargon (you have to know not only legalese, but banking and financial terminology as well), sub-clauses within clauses, and awkward sentence structure ("backward run sentences until reels the mind") and what appears to be passive voice on top of it, that you have to go through many statements 7 or 8 times before you start to get some meaning out of them. And even then, the Sphinx-like statements seem to reference non-existent information (the inability to issue Bills of Credit "was extended to Congress" with no mention whatsoever of who did this, how they did it, or when it was done) and then apparently contradict each other (they later say that the Federal Government CAN issue Bills of Credit. I thought "Congress" in the previous statement meant the Federal Government, but of course the article makes no effort whatsoever to clear up the distinction between the two statements).

Once you do figure some parts of it out, it's clear that the same things can be said EASILY in simple language. The U.S. Constitution might be the most important document in human history, why make it so ridiculously difficult for normal people to learn about it? I really think this is another example of the inefficiency of government. Interfaces and manuals for private sector products don't look like this. 24.46.144.72 (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


OK, so I'm not the only one. Yeah, some pages are better than others. This one's pretty bad. Don't be fooled into thinking stuff you don't understand is written by someone smarter - if they can't communicate an idea, they don't really understand the idea.

I'm trying to read the section 'Legal Tender'. First of all, there's no phrase 'legal tender' in the clause itself, but there is the word 'tender'. My dictionary says it means, to offer, as in 'tender your resignation' or 'tender bus fare'. So the first sentence in the section goes: 

1 Relying on this clause, which applies both to the States and to the Federal Government,
2 the Supreme Court has held that where the marshal of a state court 
3 received state bank notes 
4 in payment and discharge of an execution, 
5 the creditor was entitled to demand payment in gold or silver.

line 2: "marshall of a state court" - i'm thinking Field Marshall, with a helmet with a spike so when he sticks his head out of the tank it'll lift up the top door. That's probably not right. Seems to be saying, "where the state received money"

line 3: "state bank notes", could they be paper currency printed by the state? paper currency printed by banks in the state? Printed by federal mints in the state? Could "state" refer to the federal government instead? Maybe it's not currency, but some sort of bond or IOU? Fairly confident that whatever it is, it's on paper.

line 4: "discharge of an execution" sounds like it's about a firing squad - the guns discharge and the prisoner is executed.

line 5: is this what the whole sentence means? we can get rid of the other stuff? but in this case the creditor is the state, because it's receiving the payment?

Or is the creditor someone else, who brings in his paper 'notes', to the state, some desk somewhere with tellers or 'marshalls', behind bars the way they do, and he gives over his notes, and expects payment back in "gold or silver". If the 'marshall' office is out of gold that day, the creditor might get silver, or vice versa... or maybe the 'creditor' can demand one or the other as redemption. But the creditor can't demand, say, bushels of potatoes as payment; potatoes aren't legal tender, just gold and silver.

Whew. That's just the first sentence. Ironically, it's easier to understand the original phrase as written in the clause. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article is certainly not among the best. Particularly notable are the single paragraph sections with no introduction and minimal, if any, connecting sentences. However, it is far from unintelligible. I found it quite understandable, even to a layman such as myself. (I have no experience or education in law.)

For instance, the legal tender section was not particularly difficult (for a legal explanation). It would certainly benefit from a less dense style of prose, the author apparently attempting to cram an entire case into a single sentence. However, if one remembers to use the legal definitions provided by a standard dictionary when reading a legal explanation it is entirely manageable.

In the context of the clause tender is a legal term meaning "a plea or evidence, or money to discharge a debt". Since the clause states "Tender in Payment of Debts" we may ascertain that it refers to the latter portion of the definition. Furthermore, as this pertains to the states ability to "make" something a tender it is synonymous with the concept of legal tender, "coins or banknotes that must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt."

Discharge merely means "carry out (a task)". In this case, an execution. Execution is, in this context, "Seizure of the property or person of a debtor in default of payment." Thus the sentence merely states that when a marshal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal#State_and_local_marshals) seizes the property (bank notes) of a debtor the creditor is entitled to demand payment in legal tender (gold and silver). Similarly, a creditor would be entitled to demand payment in legal tender if presented with potatoes. However, the case cited (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/43/29/) does not involve any such circumstance. 132.170.60.160 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton[edit]

Might be appropriate to discuss this case here.

108.192.6.73 (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories