Any Constitutional Law experts here?

[GoUSC]

How does this:

http://kanjorski.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1061

Not fly completely in the face of Article I, section 10, clause 1 which reads:

“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, expost facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Bold on “OR LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS”.

[equalizer]

Don’t worry about the laws, govt’s pass illegal laws and it takes several years, if ever, for some do-gooder to overthrow the law. For example the illegal san diego county tax from the 90’s.
However, the ramifications of the bill will be swift and just. The MBS investors will demand higher rates and most loans will pass through Fannie/Freddie or other nationalized lenders. Barrons stated that Fannie/Freddie bonds have to stay solvent because China, Japan are major holders, but the stocks may go to BK.

[equalizer]

Don’t worry about the laws, govt’s pass illegal laws and it takes several years, if ever, for some do-gooder to overthrow the law. For example the illegal san diego county tax from the 90’s.
However, the ramifications of the bill will be swift and just. The MBS investors will demand higher rates and most loans will pass through Fannie/Freddie or other nationalized lenders. Barrons stated that Fannie/Freddie bonds have to stay solvent because China, Japan are major holders, but the stocks may go to BK.

[equalizer]

Don’t worry about the laws, govt’s pass illegal laws and it takes several years, if ever, for some do-gooder to overthrow the law. For example the illegal san diego county tax from the 90’s.
However, the ramifications of the bill will be swift and just. The MBS investors will demand higher rates and most loans will pass through Fannie/Freddie or other nationalized lenders. Barrons stated that Fannie/Freddie bonds have to stay solvent because China, Japan are major holders, but the stocks may go to BK.

[equalizer]

Don’t worry about the laws, govt’s pass illegal laws and it takes several years, if ever, for some do-gooder to overthrow the law. For example the illegal san diego county tax from the 90’s.
However, the ramifications of the bill will be swift and just. The MBS investors will demand higher rates and most loans will pass through Fannie/Freddie or other nationalized lenders. Barrons stated that Fannie/Freddie bonds have to stay solvent because China, Japan are major holders, but the stocks may go to BK.

[equalizer]

Don’t worry about the laws, govt’s pass illegal laws and it takes several years, if ever, for some do-gooder to overthrow the law. For example the illegal san diego county tax from the 90’s.
However, the ramifications of the bill will be swift and just. The MBS investors will demand higher rates and most loans will pass through Fannie/Freddie or other nationalized lenders. Barrons stated that Fannie/Freddie bonds have to stay solvent because China, Japan are major holders, but the stocks may go to BK.

[Anonymous]

Probably because it doesn’t impair the contract. There seem to be 2 options; stick to the original contract and have the homeowner and the investors get nothing, or rework it so that both parties get a little something.

How does this impair the obligations of a contract?

[Anonymous]

Probably because it doesn’t impair the contract. There seem to be 2 options; stick to the original contract and have the homeowner and the investors get nothing, or rework it so that both parties get a little something.

How does this impair the obligations of a contract?

[Anonymous]

Probably because it doesn’t impair the contract. There seem to be 2 options; stick to the original contract and have the homeowner and the investors get nothing, or rework it so that both parties get a little something.

How does this impair the obligations of a contract?

[Anonymous]

Probably because it doesn’t impair the contract. There seem to be 2 options; stick to the original contract and have the homeowner and the investors get nothing, or rework it so that both parties get a little something.

How does this impair the obligations of a contract?

[Anonymous]

Probably because it doesn’t impair the contract. There seem to be 2 options; stick to the original contract and have the homeowner and the investors get nothing, or rework it so that both parties get a little something.

How does this impair the obligations of a contract?

[Jay-man]

Wellllll…the Constitution only counts to the extent that people think it counts. It can say one thing and if public opinion believes the opposite – and the courts support the public opinion – then that’s what counts.

Opinion = reality in other words

[Jay-man]

Wellllll…the Constitution only counts to the extent that people think it counts. It can say one thing and if public opinion believes the opposite – and the courts support the public opinion – then that’s what counts.

Opinion = reality in other words

[Jay-man]

Wellllll…the Constitution only counts to the extent that people think it counts. It can say one thing and if public opinion believes the opposite – and the courts support the public opinion – then that’s what counts.

Opinion = reality in other words

[Jay-man]

Wellllll…the Constitution only counts to the extent that people think it counts. It can say one thing and if public opinion believes the opposite – and the courts support the public opinion – then that’s what counts.

Opinion = reality in other words

[Author]

Posts