From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:23:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.034714.10516@midway.uchicago.edu> sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>> >> 	I'm sorry but I couldn't let this one slip by.  Take a look at who
>> >> is forming this contract, the constitution:
>> >> 	
>> >> 		WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in Order to FORM a
>> >> perfect UNION, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,  
>provide  
>> >for
>> >> the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the  
>> >Blessings
>> >> of Liberty to OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish  
>this
>> >> Constitution FOR the United States of America.
>> >> 
>> >> 	At the bottom it signed by the representatives of the people and
>> >> later ratified by the states.  If this were a corporate contract  
>> >wouldn't
>> >> you consider it binding?
>> >No. For starts the representatives were NOT given the power to make the  
>> >constitution by anybody other than themselves. 
>> 
>> 	True, but later the elected state legislatures ratified it.  That
>> sounds like the document has power, even if the convention was somewhat
>> illegitimate.
>For  contract to be binding it must be signed and delivered by EVERYONE  
>upon involved in the contract. The constitution was not signed or agreed  
>to by everyone alive then.

	Not true at all.  If you are a shareholder in GM, then you your
stock is bound by any contract that the board signs either explicitly or
implicitly.  an alternative example is a contract signed between an
employer and a union.  Again a binding contract, even if you don't
personally sign.  

>> 
>> >Additionally as I wrote in  
>> >my post the constitution is not a binding contract because everyone who  
>is  
>> >bound by the constitution consented to it. 
>> 
>> 	This makes no sense, would it be binding if ereryone did not
>> consent to it, or if only someone consented to it?  What are you  
>arguing?	
>> 
>My apologies there was a typo I should have said: the constitution is not  
>a legally binding contract because everyone who the constitution is  
>supposed to bind did NOT consent to it.

	See above.

>> >Many people opposed the  
>> >constitution but had it forced upon them. Incidently the convention did  
>a  
>> >sneaky trick in sending the constitution not to the elected state  
>> >legislatures to be ratified, but to special consititutional  
>conventions.  
>> 
>> 	Who, every state (except Rhode Island) agreed off the cuff, and
>> since then every state has agreed.  Further, every citisen who is
>> naturalized has explicitly agreed to its contents.]
>
>I'm not sure exactly what you're saying but if you're arguing that the  
>consitution was agreed on without much debate then you're wrong. The whole  
>reason the Federalist Papers were written was that the federalists feared  
>that  New York might not ratify. Every state agreeing to the constitution  
>does not matter because the individuals bound by the constitution did not  
>agree to it. And even if naturalized citizens must agree to the  
>constitution all other citizens don't.

	Yes, but they agreed almost immediatly.  Of course there was
debate.  But, legally no state (except RI) took any action but the most
possitive (ratifing the entire document).  Debate doesn't mean anything,
this was ratified by the states.

>> 
>> >And the orginal consitution was not signed, signatures were added by  
>> >publishers of copies later. 
>> 
>> 	Irrelevent ratified by the states; though an interesting fact.
>
>Not irrelevent. For a contract to be legally binding it must be signed and  
>delivered. The fact that no one signed it makes it legally invalid.

	Why must a contract be signed.  Your talking about the document
that lets the rest of legality exist.  It's like talking about the weather
before the big bang.  You can't have contract law before you have law. 
Besides, contracts don'thave to be signed.  
	For example the courts have upheld the legality of electronic
contracts, and have alwyas held that the illiterate can enter into a
contract by signing an "X"....

>> 
>> >Also the US is not a corporation. Even if the  
>> >people alive had consented to it they could not have bound their  
>posterity  
>> >(us) to it. Read my original post carefully and you'll see I addressed  
>> >these arguments.  
>> 
>> 	Finally, the founding fathers agreed that the dead had no right to
>> bind the living. They explicitly addressed this with the Amendments
>> clause, and the right for the states to pull out (later recinded during
>> the civil war).  It still however binds individuals.
>> 
>
> How can the constitution bind if the dead cannot bind the living?

	Read the post.  They allowed the people to go through a similar
process to modify and or all parts of the document.  It is a default
agreement for the living.

--JMB


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism