Talk:Contract Clause

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :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.
Grover cleveland 07:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV moved from article

message: 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)
thread_title: Questionable Legal Analysis of United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, and of "rational basis" connection

message: 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)
thread_title: Contract'''s''' clause

message: 75Janice (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Interested in Reasons for Poor Quality

message: 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)
thread_title: Extremely difficult to read

message: Might be appropriate to discuss this case here.
108.192.6.73 (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton