Are judges above the Constitution?

M

Magic Jack

New member
Judges are prohibitedfrom changing the terms or impairing the obligations of contracts because our Constitution basically states "no state shall pass any law iimpairing the obligation of a contract".
Our Supreme Court has ruled that this provision applies to acts of the legislature, governor, and courts. None can impair the oobligationof a legal contract under our Constitution - - and if they should, their act is void.
Yet when judges were sued for impairing a contract and denying that party of his rights under that contract, they claimed "judicial immunity"

Thus placing judges above the Constitution! Think of it. If judges can do things they are prohibited from doing, and then cliam they are immune from the law and not responsible for their acts, illegal as they may be, then they are above the Constitution.

The Constitution then become worthless as the party was denied his right to enforce his contract and couldnt sue for damages by the impairment, then he cant sue the judge who violated the
Constitution because he claims he is immune. Thus the party has no recourse to anyone for his contract being breached!
 
The constitution says that "that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of a contract" specifically in reference to interstate commerce.

The supreme court can of course dissolve a contract if the contract itself was not legal.
 
Yes, they act as though they are especailly the new supreme court candidate sotomayor. She clearly doesn't velieve in the 14 admendment when it applies to white men. Plus she is known to legislate from the bench. Most people are historically unawawre of the dangers of having a judicial branch seep over into the legislative branch. The current system is not at all what Adams, Jefferson Marshall had in mind.
 
Umm, a contract has to be interpreted and has to legally qualify as a contract. Even at the time of the Framing, there were certain things that could not be covered by a contract and certain formalities for a valid contract. The impairment of contract clause was not intended to prevent courts from considering disputes of this type.

If someone sues over the enforcement or breach of a contract, somebody has to decide what it means. Ultimately, that means that some judge or judges --whether at the trial level or the U.S. Supreme Court or someplace between the two -- has to make that decision. Apparently, the judge in your case decided in favor of your opponent on the validity or meaning of the contract. If you didn't like the decision, you should have appealed.

Judicial immunity is a common sense rule that says that you can't sue a judge merely because you think they got it wrong. If we didn't have judicial immunity, every losing party in a case could sue the judges and judges would spend all their time as defendants in lawsuits.
 
Back
Top