Impairing the obligation of contracts

IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 9, cl. 1, declares that no state shall "pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts."
     2. Contracts, when considered in relation to their effects, are executed, that is, by transfer of the possession of the thing contracted for; or they are executory, which gives only a right of action for the subject of the contract. Contracts are also express or implied. The constitution makes no distinction between one class of contracts and the other. 6 Cranch, 135; 7 Cranch, 164.
     3. The obligation of a contract here spoken of is a legal, not a mere moral obligation; it is the law which binds the party to perform his undertaking. The obligation does not inhere or subsist in the contract itself, proprio vigore, but in the law applicable to the contract. 4 Wheat. R. 197; 12 Wheat. R. 318; and. this law is not the universal law of nations, but it is the law of the state where the contract is made. 12 Wheat. R. 213. Any law which enlarges, abridges, or in any manner changes the intention of the parties, resulting from the stipulations in the contract, necessarily impairs it. 12 Wheat. 256; Id. 327; 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 319; 8 Wheat. 84; 4 Wheat. 197.
     4. The constitution forbids the states to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, but there is nothing in that instrument which prohibits Congress from passing such a law. Pet. C. C. R. 322. Vide, generally, Story on the Const. Sec. 1368 to 1891 Serg. Const. Law, 356; Rawle on the Const. h.t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.; 10 Am. Jur. 273-297.

References in classic literature ?
"No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility."
Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
1 of the U.S.Constitution, which bars laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts," a provision that applies explicitlyand directly to the states, unlike many of the other Constitutional provisions and, for that matter, the Bill of Rights, ratified two years after adoption of the Constitution.<br />U.S.
For Peza, it will be a violation of the 1987 Constitution's Bill of Rights, under which no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
But, as John Marshall observed, state legislatures were inclined to "break in upon the ordinary intercourse of society, and destroy all confidence between man and man." In an attempt to stop that, the Constitution's drafters--probably at the urging of Alexander Hamilton, Ely notes--included in Article I, Section 10 the provision, "No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." (In the same section, states were forbidden to issue paper money or enact ex post facto laws.)
Constitution's prohibition on state laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts." In 2014, a trial court agreed that the law violated the property and contractual rights of already tenured teachers but not the rights of those yet to receive tenure.
law impairing the obligation of contracts" (Article I, Section 10), the same doesn't apply to the federal government.
[pass any] Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts....
Constitutional scholars have said the law appears to violate the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause, as well as the clause of Article I, Section 10 that prohibits states from passing laws "impairing the obligation of contracts." Gay rights groups, such as Equality Virginia, have suggested that the law could complicate property bequests and interfere with the ability of gay Virginians to designate partners to make medical decisions for them.
Therefore, it would not violate the constitutional restriction on impairing the obligation of contracts.(7) The language does not appear to modify the contractual terms for payment of benefits, it would simply expand on the list of approved doctors which can change during the term of the policy.