Supreme Court Violates Constitution Right Of Contract Stripped

Our founding fathers, fearing giving too much power to a “Federal” state they created to coordinate the other sovereign states and remembering the illegal and arrogant actions of the British Crown and its British East India Company in arbitrarily canceling agreements and contracts made by and with the colonists, inserted into the new constitution they established in 1789 the following clause:

ARTICLE I, SECTION 10.    No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . .

Likewise, in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America ratified in 1861, the clause:

ARTICLE I, SECTION 10.    No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . .

The basis for these prohibitions is codified in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 which states:

… For taking away our Charters [abrogating the right and validity of Contracts]*, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Government: . . .* [clarified by writer]

… That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levee War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

The MAGNA CARTA

The Great Charter of English liberty granted (under considerable duress) by King John at Runnymede on June 15, 1215 and which was confirmed on November 5, 1297 by a Statute Confirmatio Cartarum under King Edward. A partial legal interpretation of this confirming Statute of 1297 was offered by www.Britannia.com (Of Scotland) as follows:

Confirmatio Cartarum
ARTICLE of November 5, 1297

EDWARD, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guian[27], to all those that these present letters shall hear or see, greeting. Know ye that we, to the honour of God and of Holy Church, and to the profit of our realm, have granted for us and our heirs, that the Charter of liberties, and the Charter of the forest[28], which were made by common assent of all the realm, in the time of King HENRY our father, shall be kept in every point without breach. (2) And we will that the same charters shall be sent under our seal, as well to our justices of the forest, as to others, and to all sheriffs of shires, and to all our other officers, and to all our cities throughout the realm, together with our writs, in the which it shall be contained, that they cause the foresaid charters to be published, and to declare to the people that we have confirmed them in all points; (3) and that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law[*] and the Charter of the forest, for the wealth of our realm.

ARTICLE MEANING
  1  The Magna Carta must be accepted as the common law by government.
  2  The Magna Carta is the supreme law. All other contrary law and
judgments are void.
  3  Voluntary taxes cannot be made permanent.

And according to www.Encyclopedia.com:

. . . that Common law, equity, and statutes in effect in England in 1603, the first year of the reign of James I, shall be deemed part of the law of the jurisdiction.

The Right of Contract is basic in Common Law and Common law was basic to our Founding Fathers. But, certain men in the United States made a concerted effort to circumvent and override Common Law with tort and statutory law. Laborers have not been allowed to contract to work below minimum wage, patients have not been allowed to contract with doctors for a more limited service in exchange for less cost to patients. The FBI has, on occasion, ignored the Right of accused to contract for the Counsel of their Choice.

And now, Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Scouter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer have agreed to go along with Justice John Paul Stevens attempt of finding a side issue that an employees contract to settle employment disputes by arbitration “does not materially change the EEOC’s statutory function or remedies otherwise available” in order to uphold the EEOC’s supposed right and jurisdiction to ignore the employees contract. The real issue here is the right of contract and the validity and superiority of common law contracts when conflicting with statutory law.

The Confederate viewpoint pointed out by the Federation of States (a confederate restoration organization) is that statutory law of Congress may not abrogate the right of contract. Therefore, although the EEOC has a statutory mission with certain authority, it was never given the right by Congress to overturn the Right of Contract between individuals and thus countermand the Constitution.

If a man wishes to contract to work as a contractor for some business as some unprofitable rate which might work out to be less than the minimum wage for laborers, then such contractor has a right to abide by that contract regardless of Federal (Congressional) statutes giving some Federal Agency certain authority over ordinary employees.

The real impact of this decision was to once again attack the Right of Contract as alluded to by Justice Clarence Thomas a former chief of the EEOC when he dissented by stating: “I cannot agree that the EEOC may do on behalf of an employee that which an employee has agreed not to do for himself.” Thomas was joined in his dissent by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia.

Apparently, Congress needs to pass a Statute similar to the above shown Statute Confirmatio Cartarum under King Edward confirming the superiority of the Right of Contracts and against laws that would impair the obligation of Contracts. Perhaps a suit needs to be filed against this Supreme Court decision as being unconstitutional itself in their EEOC decision.

The Federation of States advises that this is a typical example of the overstepping of authority (usurpation of jurisdiction) by the Supreme Court and the reason why constitutional issues should be taken away from the Supreme Court and be decided instead by a new Constitutional Court whose only jurisdiction would be deciding Constitutional issues for the Supreme Court who is otherwise the court of last resort except in Constitutional matters where then the Supreme Court would be stripped of jurisdiction. Such matters are under consideration for a Restored Confederate States of America.

It is not convenient for the Federal Empire of the United States to have to deal with and/or be curtailed by the Constitution. Major events leading up to the War of Northern Aggression involved attempts by men in power in Washington to circumvent difficult restrictions within the Constitution causing men in the South to suffer economic plundering by Northern Industrial, Mercantile and shipping interests and thus leading up to their secession and formation of a Confederacy in 1861 whereby they planned to restore the Republic as envisioned and established by their founding fathers between 1779 and 1789.

~