From: sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:45:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.022327.14373@samba.oit.unc.edu>  
bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
> 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.
When you bought your stock in GM you explicitly agreeded to the by-laws of  
GM. With the case of the constitution that didn't occur.  
> 
> 	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. 

The consitution does not define law. Common law existed before the  
constitution and can exist without a constitution. Contract law was well  
defined before the constitution and has continued to exist despite the  
consitution with the same basic principles. You can look at the principles  
of contract Hobbes lists in the Leviathan and they are the same as today  
except Hobbes believed that contracts obtained under duress should be  
enforceable. (That, however, I believe is a notion of Hobbes alone and not  
the rest of english lawyers)

> >> 	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.
Allowing the people to modify the constitution still binds them to the  
constitution. On what legal basis  can there be a default contract for the  
living when the living haven't consented to the contract.

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