Comment: I agree with you, but not for the reasons you state

(See in situ)


I agree with you, but not for the reasons you state

The Constitution is not a valid contract. Not because you and I didn't sign it, however. It's not a contract because there is no transfer of property. A contract is a conditional transfer of property title, and the Constitution does no such thing.

There is another technicality in your argument. You state that only signatories to a contract are bound by the contract. This is incorrect. A contract is a transfer of property title, and that transfer binds everyone. If I allow you to use my car and I sell the car to a new owner that does not allow you to use the car, you are bound by the sale contract, even though you did not sign it. You can no longer use the car. Only the signatories are bound to the conditions of the contract, but everyone is bound to respect the transfer of property that results from the contract.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson