Common Law Contract

#1 03-17-2004, 02:45 PM

hiyas all!

anyone have "stuff" on a common law-based contract?& examples, information, etc.?

thanks!

jon

Rory · #2 03-17-2004, 05:32 PM

I can't remember if these were brought up on the tread "Contractors license" but I'd like some discussion on the items below, or related cases that back these up.

Thanks

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906).

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." The individual's right to contract is unlimited and no State may interfere with that right. Very few Americans know that they have a fundamental choice: To live their lives and conduct their businesses under common-law jurisdiction or under statutory jurisdiction. Common Law is the law of the land, the law of the Constitution. Statutory law is legislated law.

#3 03-17-2004, 06:12 PM

hiyas all!

i found an interesting piece on the State of Maryland's licensing site:

§ 8-101.

& (a)& In this title the following words have the meanings indicated.

& (b)& "Commission" means the Maryland Home Improvement Commission.

& (c)& "Contractor" means a person, other than an employee of an owner, who performs or offers or agrees to perform a home improvement for an owner.

...

(g)& (1)& "Home improvement" means:

& & & (i)& the addition to or alteration, conversion, improvement, modernization, remodeling, repair, or replacement of a building or part of a building that is used or designed to be used as a residence or dwelling place or a structure adjacent to that building; or

& & & (ii)& an improvement to land adjacent to the building.

& & (2)& "Home improvement" includes:

& & & (i)& construction, improvement, or replacement, on land adjacent to the building, of a driveway, fall-out shelter, fence, garage, landscaping, porch, or swimming pool;

& & & (ii)& connection, installation, or replacement, in the building or structure, of a dishwasher, disposal, or refrigerator with an icemaker to existing exposed household plumbing lines;

& & & (iii)& installation, in the building or structure, of an awning, fire alarm, or storm window; and

& & & (iv)& work done on individual condominium units.

what's wrong with this picture?

basically, the State says no-one can contract to do anything to a home (minus ponds/yard maintenance)/land without a license.

is this blatant disregard to the Constitution or am i missing something here?

anyone run up against this and successfully overcome it?

jon

#4 03-18-2004, 11:35 AM

here is the reply from my brother who works for a business law firm, as an attorney, in wash. d.c.:

excellent point, but from a bygone age. historically, the "contracts clause," as it commonly is known, was relied upon by American courts to invalidate legislation that interfered with a person's "right to contract," e.g., homeowners used to be allowed to contract with each other to exclude people different from themselves: blacks, the Irish, gays, etc... Hale v. Henkel follows this line of authority. However, in or about the 1920-1930's period this abolutist interpretation of the "contracts clause" lost favor, as courts instead began to rely upon the "commerce clause" (Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce...etc...) to uphold wide-ranging legislation that previously would have been verboten. the expansive reading of the commerce clause continues to this day (although there have been some minor limits placed on it recently by the Supreme Court). Historically, if you care, the prime impetus for the expansive reading of the commerce clause was the exigence of the Great Depression. In any event, the point is that modern courts will not invalidate legislation simply because it runs afoul of the "contracts clause" Now, as to your question regarding where the State of Maryland gets its authority to enact legislation, you would have to look to the Maryland constitution (which I have not read recently). Beyond this, the other limit on Maryland's power to legislate is that Maryland cannot pass a law that violates the US Constitution, e.g., Maryland cannot infringe on the freedom of speech as defined by the First Amendment.&

As a final point, I also would point out that all legislation is enacted pursuant to a particular constitution (state or federal as the case may be), so it is a bit misleading to say that a person can choose to live under either a "statutory" or "constitutional" scheme. they both stem from the same source. although, of course, the government cannot pass a law that violates the constitution.

I hope this is helpful. You may have an argument that this licensing regime violates the MD Constitution, but again this would depend on the content of the MD Constitution. Off the top of my head, I would have thought that Maryland Constitution granted the state the authority to legislate on such issues.

anyone have any commentary on the above?

jon

#5 03-18-2004, 12:29 PM

i replied to him thusly:

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:

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 document, with one of its principal strengths being that it can adapt to changing social circumstances. 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

#6 03-19-2004, 07:58 PM

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 document, with one of its principal strengths being that it can adapt to changing social circumstances.

constructive opinion: Horse ****!

Jim

James · #7 03-19-2004, 09:45 PM

jmuson<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
I agree with Jim’s constructive opinion.

<o

></o

>
>>It's a living document, with one of its principal strengths being that it can adapt to changing social circumstances.<<<o></o>
What a preposterous statement. Does the Constitution grow, get old and become ill or senile? The Constitution is the law which we the people wrote to govern and control the government and the so-called courts have violated that law and the people have no access to justice. Will justice be disseminated from a court which is itself a criminal and outlaw court?

James · #8 03-19-2004, 11:53 PM

jmunson<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
>>i found an interesting piece on the State of Maryland's licensing site:

§ 8-101. <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
& (a)& In this title the following words have the meanings indicated. 
&<o

></o

>
& (b)& "Commission" means the Maryland Home Improvement Commission. 
&<o

></o

>
& (c)& "Contractor" means a person, other than an employee of an owner, who performs or offers or agrees to perform a home improvement for an owner.
&<o

></o

>
...
&<o

></o

>
(g)& (1)& "Home improvement" means: 
&<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
& & & (i)& the addition to or alteration, conversion, improvement, modernization, remodeling, repair, or replacement of a building or part of a building that is used or designed to be used as a residence or dwelling place or a structure adjacent to that building; or 
&<o

></o

>
& & & (ii)& an improvement to land adjacent to the building. 
&<o

></o

>
& & (2)& "Home improvement" includes: 
&<o

></o

>
& & & (i)& construction, improvement, or replacement, on land adjacent to the building, of a driveway, fall-out shelter, fence, garage, landscaping, porch, or swimming pool; 
&<o

></o

>
& & & (ii)& connection, installation, or replacement, in the building or structure, of a dishwasher, disposal, or refrigerator with an icemaker to existing exposed household plumbing lines; 
&<o

></o

>
& & & (iii)& installation, in the building or structure, of an awning, fire alarm, or storm window; and 
&<o

></o

>
& & & (iv)& work done on individual condominium units.
&<o

></o

>
what's wrong with this picture?<<
&<o

></o

>
Do you see the word “house” mentioned? The words 'home' and 'house' are not synonymous terms. The legal wizards have made "home" into a noun for their deceitful purposes. Legal wizards re-defined the word 'home' to designate it as a specific, physical thing so he may acquire jurisdiction over "the home" and its "residents."<o

></o

>
There is a difference between a home and a house. You will find the word home in The Scripture and The King James Bible, but it is not a noun, it is an adjective. For example: <o

></o

>
2 Shemu’el 17:23, “…and went home to his house, to his city.”(The Scriptures)<o

></o

>
2 Samuel 17:23, "...and gat him home to his house, to his city."(The King James Bible) <o

></o

>
Notice the verses, supra, are describing something in general (home), and then get more specific (which is in a house, which is in a city). A house and a city are not synonymous; a house is in a city. Likewise, a home is not a house; it is something general inside the house. Also, in The Scripture and/or The King James Bible, the word "house" is always preceded by a pronoun, which is possessive (i.e. his house, my house, the house, thine house, father's house, brother's house, etc.), whereas the word 'home' is never preceded by these terms.<o

></o

>
We say, "let's go home" but we don't say "Let's go house." Sounds funny, doesn't it? Likewise, we say "it's in his car," or "it's in the car," but we do not say, "it's in car." Because a car and a house are something specific (physical), which belong to someone, whereas a 'home' is something in general (spiritual), and does not belong to anyone specifically. This is why 'home' is never preceded with a word that designates it as someone's personal property or possession.<o

></o

>
HOME, adj.& Close; severe; poignant; as a home thrust.<o

></o

>
HOME, adv. [This is merely elliptical; to being omitted.]<o

></o

>
1.& To one's own habitation; as in the phrases, go home, come home, bring home, carry home.<o

></o

>
2.& To one's own country.& Home is opposed to abroad, or in a foreign country. My brother will return home in the first ship from India.<o

></o

>
3.& Close; closely; to the point; as, this consideration comes home to our interest, that is, it nearly affects it.& Drive the nail home, that is, drive it close.<o

></o

>
To haul home the top-sail sheets, in seamen's language, is to draw the bottom of the top-sail close to the yard-arm by means of the sheets.<o

></o

>
An anchor is said to come home, when it loosens from the ground by the violence of the wind or current, &c. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)<o

></o

>
home: adjective Date:1552<o

></o

>
1 : of, relating to, or being a home, place of origin, or base of operations <home office> <checkers in position on their home squares><o

></o

>
2 : prepared, done, or designed for use in a home <home remedies> <home cooking> <a home videotape system><o

></o

>
3 : operating or occurring in a home area <the home team> <home games>(Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th Ed.) <o

></o

>
It is imperative to learn and understand words, such as ‘home’ that legal wizards have ‘incorporated’ into their ‘created’ codes, rules, and regulations. <o

></o

>
The term home within the Internal Revenue Code, § 162(a)(2), is defined as "a taxpayers principle place of business." Ellwein v. US, C.A.N.D., 778 F.2d. 506, 509. <o

></o

>
"A person…may have his home in one town for the purpose of taxation…domicile for taxation and home are treated synonymously. Thayer v. City of Boston, 124 Mass. 147, 26 Am.Rep. 650. <o

></o

>
The word 'home' was redefined from as early as 541 A.D.(I prefer C.E.)! <o

></o

>
"It is settled that there is to be considered the home of each one of us where he may have his habitation and account-books, and where he has made an establishment of his business." Maxim of Law, the Code of Justinian, 50, 16, 203 (541 A.D.). <o

></o

>
So if you say, "Yes, I have a home" you become known as a ‘person with a home for taxable purposes’, a ‘resident with a permanent place of business’, a ‘corporate citizen’, etc.<o

></o

>

#9 03-20-2004, 07:19 PM

James,
Your timing could not be better. Not only for this thread but nearly all of them. I am about half way through a document “U.S.A. The Republic Is The House That No One Lives In”.
The part I am in now… A 14th amendment citizen cannot own land.
Sui Juris,
I will upload it. I propose we all take a good look at it, take it apart and ask, “Does it fit?” If so (and I think so) it should be virtually required reading. Might want a new thread just to discus it and put in the cites quoted.
Alright, how do get those smiley faces in your post?
Jim

#10 03-20-2004, 07:32 PM

james/jim, et. al.:

BD

"constructive opinion" on the part of my brother, the lawyer, is quite right.& however, he renders the court's p.o.v. and attitude, not to mention the vocabulary trickery.

ref: home.& so, the trick there is, for them to:

1) define person

2) define landscaping (in my specific case)

3) define home

what thinkest thou if i shouldst query the body politic to get those answers?

jon