Comment: I agree that a judge would

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I am not de facto changing (see in situ)

Robin Koerner's picture

I agree that a judge would

I agree that a judge would not accept your de facto changes to the terms of a loan payment if you were to miss a payment.

But I think you are making the same distinction I am trying to make, although for different purposes: what you do and what you declare are not the same thing.

I am saying that if "validity" or (any other word) in the Constitution affected only what you declared to be the case, but not what you did, then it would be essentially meaningless: I.e. if you willingly do something, it is not changed by a declaration that one cannot have done it.

Put another way, when one violates a contract, the matter of substance is the violation - which is not changed by the fact that you then go to court acknowledging that there is a contract that you SHOULD be keeping to.

Imagine you are contractually obliged to do something. Sure, you can say "this contract is valid" while violating it... but I am saying that if you are showing (through action) and declaring (through statute in this case) that you may violate such a contract unilaterally when you don't have to violate for reasons of impossibility of fulfillment, then of course you are questioning the validity of the contract: you're questioning the validity of the very idea of contract, in fact. And that would be the case even if you *say* that the contract is legally binding. In summary, to say "this contract is legally binding but I choose not to be bound by it" is to question validity. That is my approach in this article.

Sure, this is not an argument for a courtroom - and I understand your point (and we can also argue about the meaning of the word "questioned") ... but if the 14th amendment was to restrict only what we "believe" or said about our debt, and not our actions with respect to our debt, then I fail to see what purpose it serves... I don't think any Constitutional amendments are themselves just declarative, after all!