Thanks for being logical printsmith and thinking beyond the love of locking people up for their group or what you think they may do in the future.
Without enforceable contracts and property rights....there really is no society to speak of. This is what makes us civil.
Even as recently as a month ago we messed with contract law big time by allowing contracts that people are forced to enter into to be legal, before the health cost risk insurance mandate/tax ruling, I do not believe you could be forced into a contracts and have it be legal. This concept alone makes the health insurance law not worth it. Contracts are worth way more to society than risk insurance.
But, I still say there are non-government and legal ways to enforce such a contract. By spreading the word about the bad deal that the person made, you can prevent them from doing effective business in the future unless they make good on the deal, it may take some work on your part.
A state/gov that will not enforce contracts or property rights really has no purpose. By the way, your person, you, are your own property.
The Constitution clearly mandates that federal law preempts state law when those laws come into conflict.
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That is why we are the United States, not the Sovereign States.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
The Constitution also limits the reach of the federal government to the regulation of interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. If the Constitution were being followed, instead of "interpreted" to allow the federal government to exercise more power than it was actually delegated, there would be no conflict. The federal government would still be able to say that interstate transportation of marijuana is prohibited, that importation of it into one of the States from outside the borders of the union is prohibited, that exportation of it from a State is prohibited, but their regulatory powers would not extend so far as to govern what occurs inside the borders of each of the free, independent and sovereign States that belonged to the union.
