becomes one of examining whether Congress has used this power in a manner violating constitutional principles. Three theories of violation are most greatly possible, although no actionable legal or contractual violation is readily apparent. These three areas of concern are the Contract Clause, substantive due process, and procedural due process.
The "Contract Clause" of the Constitution mandates that "No State shall . . . pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" (Art. 1, sec. 10[1]). This language however cannot be construed as a grant of economic rights to individuals. Rather, the Contract Clause merely is a restriction upon the States -- not the federal government -- so that they cannot adopt legislation that would interfere with private contractual relations. The purposes of the clause were to facilitate the establishment of a stable economic environment by imposing restrictions upon state governments, primarily so the states would not upset the financial system supported by the federal government (Nowak, et al., 1978, p. 420), and to eliminate the threat of hostilities arising through interstate rivalries fueled by economic competition and unfair debt relief practices that would otherwise have been supported by various state legislatures (Beard, 1941, p. 187). Thus, the Contract Clause offers no hope of providing a constitutionally based contractual guarantee for American businesspersons to challenge the increasing imports.
The remaining areas of concern are the related issues of substantive and procedural due process. Both issues have constitutional bases that have been further developed by judicial opinions.
...