How do you feel about Contract Law

How do you feel about Contract Law?

When I was a kid, I lost a weeks pay check betting on three card monty. I was really mad that the dealer cheated me (in my view), but was more angry at myself for placing the bet to begin with. But looking back at the bet, it was a contract. If I found the correct card, dealer would pay me. If I picked the wrong card, I would pay him. It was in simple terms, an oral contract.

So now I rent a car and engage in a contract. I agree to pay so much money, they agree to let me use their car. Contract Law.

I rent out a house I own. They pay me rent, I agree to let them live in my house. If they suddenly decide they dont want to pay me what we agreed to, they shouldnt be able to run to a judge and get him to change the price.

What happens if I sign a contract with you, and after signing the contract, I decide I dont like it. So I go to a judge and try to get this judge to redefine the contract. If the judge does redefine the contract, that is not fair to you. If I didnt like the contract, I should of sought to change the contract before I signed it.

I see our Constitution as a contract between the govt and its citizens. If the citizens dont like the contract, their is a built in way to change it. The citizenry gets 2/3s of the congress to agree. Then it goes to the states to ratify it. 3/4s of the states have to ratify it and then the constitution is changed.

Over the last few years, it seems people dont like the contract, and rather than change it, they just want to go the easy route to change it by judicial decree rather than doing the work required to change it.

If you think people should get healthcare as a citizen or even an illegal, than change the contract. Put up a constitutional amendment and let the chips fall where they may.

Instead, there are many people that will just run to the judges. Judges should only rule on what the constitution says, and how a law aligns up with it. It is garbage that the congress would attempt to make a religious order pay for birth control or abortion inducing drugs. That was not part of our contract. If one thinks it should be, change the contract. It is garbage that state governors attempt to prevent the freedom of assembly. That is against the contract. Telling citizens that they have to purchase a product from a company that they do not want to engage with is garbage. That is against the contract.

The losing side in the contract dispute usually gets angry. I really believe Trump was elected because Americans were sick and tired of this type of behavior. It looks to me like he will be re-elected because this same tactic continues to be used rather than be upfront about it and change the contract the way it was designed to be changed.

I’m glad Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed. All 9 justices should look at the law the same way she does. Chief Justice Roberts redefining a penalty as a tax is garbage.

I dont want to see my fellow citizens suffer over pre-existing conditions. The Congress is in position to help them. They should act to help them. They shouldnt attempt to change the constitution by redefining terms, or judge shopping.

Our constitution is a contract between the govt and the citizenry. It should be treated as such, and changed where necessary in accordance with the correct procedures.


Makes sense, and for that reason alone, those advocating for health care being a right will continue to ignore this thread.

ThIs contract is ruled by SCOTUS.

What they issue an opinion of what the contact says, that’s the end of the discussion.


I dont fully understand what you are saying.

The Supreme Court interprets the constitution.

People are attempting to use the courts to add rights for citizens to to the constitution. That is not, and never has been the role of the courts. That is the role of the legislative body.

1 Like

I hate hate hate that terminology. I interpret rights as things inane to humans at creation. It may be “good policy”, but calling it a right is a tough sell since it requires other humans to develop a resource to fulfill it.

I suppose a similar argument could made for other “rights”… due process requires a justice system… but even there it is describing a limit on the state.

What laws have been changed by SCOTUS?

And the answer is: Only ones that violate the constitution.

If state has a law that violates the constitution.

It must be changed or voided by the courts.

Every law must pass constitutional muster.


So we’re getting rid of medicare? Okay.

1 Like

Are people required to purchase medicare? Do they have the right to turn it down? Are they required to purchase the ACA? Do they have the right to turn it down?

Yes. No. No. Yes.

They are not required to Purchase Medicare. As workers, they are required to pay a medicare tax, but they do not have to sign up for it.

They are also required to purchase the ACA. I was one of the few that had to pay a fine for my college aged daughter who was still my dependent.

Now, having said all that, if you feel the courts are functioning as designed, why is the left so upset about Amy Coney Barrett being confirmed? Why all the talk about the ACA or even Roe v Wade? If the legislative branch was doing what they were supposed to, and actually writing the laws of this great nation instead of shirking their responsibilities and letting the Insurance companies write the laws, than the left would not be upset about ACB.

It is the same with voting and illegal immigration. No congress critter wants to make a hard decision that they may have to be accountable for. Instead they try to run to the courts and get court to do it for them.


What advantage is there if one pays for Medicare and does not enroll?


Court stacking from the GOP. No one has said the moves are illegal, but if the Dems expand the court (which i don’t think they will) it will be because the GOP got too greedy in their rush for power. Checks and balances are more than just a check on the branch, they are a check on the people or parties of this nation that think they can game the system to their advantage.

If Trump nominated Garland you would approve?

“Court stacking”. That’s new.

I would prefer to wait until the next administration for a little consistency from our elected officials. A big problem coming up if the Dems were to win the Senate is I can’t complain about them behaving like the GOP because they would just be acting with consistency for how the Senate has been run the last six years.

It’s just sad…

Court packing would not be consistent. You are forgetting who drew first blood. For court stacking.

If Trump wins, Barrett is not an issue for you?

1 Like

President Biden and his commission will straighten SCOTUS out.


Not really. I’m not a fan, but that is how democracy works.


I actually like the term limit plan


One of the reasons how America functions is so dependent on the courts is because the Constitution is barely a cocktail napkin sketch and even what it does contain is oftentimes vague and wholly inadequate for the governance of a diverse country of 330 million people. It’s quite specific on things like a post office and the census. Has almost nothing to say about real world issues Americans face and deal with all the time.

Like any contract; it can be scrapped and renogtiated. Time to bring America back to table and rewrite this baby using it as starting point.