Q: Do contracts hold up in the court of law in Colorado? Can a person write a contract if it does not obey the law?

A: Contract Law and the constitutional do overlap. It’s a give and take. While most contractual provisions may be valid, the state does have a considerable amount of power under the police power to affect contract law. Each state has the power to write laws to support public wellness. If a law is valid and a contract conflicts with that law, that contractual provision can be precluded.

Further, the state has a large role in which property rights a person can hold.

Further, the federal government can impact federal law for a variety of reasons including if the law touches interstate commerce, international affairs, affects equal protection, and so on.

In short, contracts do govern many situations but they are subject to a complex overlap of state, federal, and local laws. To an extent this makes sense. At the time the constitution was written, the drafters were trying to separate from an all-powerful dictator but they did not contemplate a society with no government oversight. Why draft a constitution then? No, the purpose of the Constitution was to establish clear lines between state and federal powers and personal rights. The initial states each went on to draft their own individual set of laws.

But here is the kicker, behind every federal and state law there needs to be a reason and there needs to be a source of authority to enact the law. It’s all about balance although it does not always seem that way.

If you are interested in that specific clause, pick up a constitutional law book. There have been many interesting supreme court cases on the application of that specific clause. But the Constitution needs to be read as a whole just not in isolation.

This is not legal advice. This is simply meant to be a fun conversation. The topic of constitutional law is highly debated and depends highly on the justices in charge at the time.

Personally, I still land on the side there is no such thing as substantive due process while multiple supreme court cases and thousands of attorneys will tell you that it does exist. But if you look at the dissenting opinions, my view is not crazy either. Should we add a substantive due process clause to the Constitution? I say yes. But that is not the point. Lawyers including supreme court justices vary on the interpretation of the Constitution.

A: Contract Law and the constitutional do overlap. It’s a give and take. While most contractual provisions may be valid, the state does have a considerable amount of power under the police power to affect contract law. Each state has the power to write laws to support public wellness. If a law is valid and a contract conflicts with that law, that contractual provision can be precluded.

Further, the state has a large role in which property rights a person can hold.

Further, the federal government can impact federal law for a variety of reasons including if the law touches interstate commerce, international affairs, affects equal protection, and so on.

In short, contracts do govern many situations but they are subject to a complex overlap of state, federal, and local laws. To an extent this makes sense. At the time the constitution was written, the drafters were trying to separate from an all-powerful dictator but they did not contemplate a society with no government oversight. Why draft a constitution then? No, the purpose of the Constitution was to establish clear lines between state and federal powers and personal rights. The initial states each went on to draft their own individual set of laws.

But here is the kicker, behind every federal and state law there needs to be a reason and there needs to be a source of authority to enact the law. It’s all about balance although it does not always seem that way.

If you are interested in that specific clause, pick up a constitutional law book. There have been many interesting supreme court cases on the application of that specific clause. But the Constitution needs to be read as a whole just not in isolation.

This is not legal advice. This is simply meant to be a fun conversation. The topic of constitutional law is highly debated and depends highly on the justices in charge at the time.

Personally, I still land on the side there is no such thing as substantive due process while multiple supreme court cases and thousands of attorneys will tell you that it does exist. But if you look at the dissenting opinions, my view is not crazy either. Should we add a substantive due process clause to the Constitution? I say yes. Further, it is entirely plausible that substantive due process does exist in the Constitution under the equal protection clause. For some reason, the equal protection clause does not have a ton of teeth. Some of those teeth may have mistakenly been placed in the substantive due process area. But regardless, the point is that Lawyers including supreme court justices vary on the interpretation of the Constitution. I can read the Constitution 5 different times and arrive at 5 different arguments. It is a very complex subject.

A: The general premise applied in drafting or enforcing a contract is that it must be in compliance with the law. In other words, a contract to do something illegal is not enforceable. Good luck