Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell
290 U.S. 398 (1934)
U.S. Supreme Court, 14th Amendment - contracts clause
Case brief
In his dissent, Justice Sutherland noted "If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned."
The decision in this case was essentially an assault on Americans freedom to enter contracts with the trust that they would be enforced.
In the case, the court determined that Minnesota had the power to prevent banks from foreclosing on mortgages when the borrower defaulted. It is self-evident that the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision is highly relevant to the present foreclosure situation in the United States. The court allowed clear infringement on the right to contract, a "natural right." The mortgage holder was denied their proper remedy, as specified in the contract. Since when is the comfort of the borrower trump the rights of the employees and investors of in the bank, when there was no deception or coercion involved.
Eighty years ago, this case eroded personal rights and furthered redistribution of wealth and an entitlement attitude. Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell was clear instance of "the government knows best" attitude we see continue to be even more pervasive today. When valid agreements between parties will not be defended, how can commerce in the U.S. survive?
You can read a summary of the case here:
http://orderinthecourt.org/Cases/Home-Building--Loan-Association-v-Blaisdell
No comments:
Post a Comment