"No state shall ... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."
by:
Source:
art. I, § 10, cl. 1.
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
concerning title of nobility, looks like they forgot obammy, their God..a worthless neophite
 -- anon, anon     
  •  
    Within the body of the Constitution, lies a limited spectrum of unique duties (inherent in each and every; any and all individual noble sovereigns) given to the sovereign's representatives. The statist theocracy infesting this land has not recognized this clause (in general or any part thereof) for a long time.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    This is a perfect example of how the Constitution, while an important starting point for constructing the laws of our country, is often representative of archaic views and perspectives that are no longer relevent in the modern world of today. It is my strong opinion that if the Founding Fathers could have seen this Country and the world today, the world today, the wording of this sacred document would be Vastly different.
     -- Alex     
  •  
    "No state shall ..." , but what about the federal government? We have, here in the U.S., at present, 50 "states". Poli Sci 101 student
     -- anon, anon     
  •  
    Alex, WHAT ? ? ? He who forgets history is doomed to relive it ! Human nature is the same today as it was then; the criminals are committing the same crimes, they're just using different tools. If that clause was just a starting point, what in your strong opinion would you change? Are you aware of the legal meaning of the phases at the time of the Constitution or is your strong opinion based on statist theocracy imposed ignorance and propaganda? By way of example: 'title of nobility' To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted ⋯ It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order. (Horst v. Moses 48 Ala. 129, 142 (1872); Corpus Juris, 46, 598, Nobility note 4; Bouvier's Law Dictionary, (1884) Nobility) A forbiden title of nobility then makes all state licensing (like marriage, etc.) and titles (like doctor or attorney) unlawful under the constitution. If the Constitution were followed today as written then, there would be at least one free nation with individual sovereigns expressing their inalienable rights (personal responsibility would govern).
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    anon, if the individual can not do it himself, the State or Federal government can not do it either. The Federal government was limited further by the Constitution (for starters read the 9th and 10th Amendments) If the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize it, the Federal government can't legally do it.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Alex WHAT ? ? ? Maybe you are talking about the 'ex post facto law'? Do you think that if you are living the rules as the legislature has set forth, the government then in a few years should be able to pass an ex post facto law and criminally convict you for your then legal actions? What wording in your strong opinion of any or all of the archaic views and perspectives that are no longer relevent in the modern world of today should be changed?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Alex What ? ? ? Maybe you are talking about the Bill of Attainder? "The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965). "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary ... to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788. Alex, are you of the opinion that the current and in force 'Bill of Attainder', that is, if a government officer thinks you have too much cash on you, he can take it with out trial because in his arbitrary assessment, you could have only come by such money by criminal activities? What wording in your strong opinion of any or all of the archaic views and perspectives that are no longer relevent in the modern world of today should be changed?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Most Americans know the separation of powers but democrats choose not to. Nothing we tell them they will accept, so as we vote in the next election we need to watch and probe backgrounds and find the basis of their character, We tried with Obama but the media beat us this time we well win because we do not listen to their facts because we shall find the real facts and get it out over the internet. Our media is owned by Soros, a communist who is helping Obama destroy us so he can take it away from Obama and have the One World Order he is so proud of. I read his remarks and watched him get kicked out of France.
     -- Howard, Chino Hills California     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2018 Liberty-Tree.ca