sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Hey Mike,
Land covenants are contracts between dead people. That's why the courts are quick to strike them down, so it's a bit of a different situation that you bring up. Second, the Court was alot more active in striking down contracts right after the Civil Rights Act and around that time because they were trying to disassemble the entire Jim Crow/segregated system. They've since said that that was only temporary and have taken a less hands on approach.
To your question, yes, I think that anything that violates the Constitution should be struck down. So if a person signs a contract to a buy another person, that should be struck down on the 13th Amendment. But the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to individuals so the Constitution isn't implicated.
As others have pointed out, contracts that limit people's freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc are all upheld.
Mike wrote:
Consider this though - should the government's court's enforce private contracts or property rules which conflict with federal or state constitution? In contract law, courts sometimes strike down or refuse to enforce contract provisions which conflict with public policy.
In Shelley v. Kraemer the US S. Ct. said "no" to enforcing racial land alienation convenants - extending this case to gun rights would be interesting.
If racially-based restrictive covenants are not legal under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, then why should courts enforce gun bans in the workplace or establishments open to the public via, inter alia, tresspass and contract law?
Just food for thought.
Hey Mike,
Land covenants are contracts between dead people. That's why the courts are quick to strike them down, so it's a bit of a different situation that you bring up. Second, the Court was alot more active in striking down contracts right after the Civil Rights Act and around that time because they were trying to disassemble the entire Jim Crow/segregated system. They've since said that that was only temporary and have taken a less hands on approach.
To your question, yes, I think that anything that violates the Constitution should be struck down. So if a person signs a contract to a buy another person, that should be struck down on the 13th Amendment. But the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to individuals so the Constitution isn't implicated.
As others have pointed out, contracts that limit people's freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc are all upheld.