i replied to him thusly:<FONT size=2>


ok, so let me see if i get this right.


once upon a time gov't believed in the individual's right to contract without limitation.


the "law" (e.g., Constitution) hasn't changed.


now, the courts believe individual's right to contract can be abridged.


something's rotten in denmark...


IF the correct intrepretation of the "contract clause" is as you said at first, and the Constitution hasn't been amended otherwise, and SINCE no State can make a law that is un-Constitutional, wouldn't the State's licensing scheme be un-Constitutional?


'twould be interesting to posit this in front of a supreme court judge to get an informal opinion. know one who'd take their non-existant time to say?


jon


and his reply:<FONT size=2>


No judge comes to mind...


The key is that the Constitution always is being "interpreted," and it has competing clauses, so saying one interpretation is "true" and the other "false" doesn't hold water. It's a living do***ent, with one of its principal strengths being that it can adapt to changing social cir***stances. As an example, the "first" interpreation of the constitution didnt even allow for courts to invalidate laws that "violated" the constitution, so if u stick with that your whole argument goes out the window


come on people, somebody out there should have a constructive opinion...


jon</FONT></FONT>