Court Opinion

ID: 9416457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:45:35.521781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:27.442452
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McLEAN.
I assent to the affirmation of the judgment of the Circuit Court. How an.act which impairs the obligations of- contracts can be considered constitutional as regards subsequent contracts, and not prior Qnes, is not within my comprehension. The notion, that such a law becomes a part of the contract, is in my judgment fallacious. Whatever constitutes a part.of the contract is inseparably connected *312with and governs it, wherever it may be enforced. All other forms and modes of proceeding, which affect the contract, belong to the remedy.
.An unconstitutional law “has the same and no greater effect on subsequent than on prior contracts. If a State can, in the mode supposed, disregard the-inhibitions of-the federal constitution, there is no limit to the exercise of its powers. It has only to pass an act, howéver. repugnant to the constitution, and, according to the doctrine advanced, it operates as a law upon all subsequent transactions- by a presumed assent to its validity. This principle, if carried out, would effectually subvert all restriction on the exercise of State powers in the federal constitution.