> If this were 100 years ago, you could make the argument that by enforcing this contract, Congress made a law abridging the freedom of the press.
That's crazy. The point of the right is that you have choice where a law takes away that choice. You can choose to sell your actions to other people for a limited set of legal actions. Why shouldn't Congress enforce contracts when BOTH parties are willing to sign?
I hate the idea of this particular clause and find it very distasteful, but I don't think it should be illegal.
That's crazy. The point of the right is that you have choice where a law takes away that choice. You can choose to sell your actions to other people for a limited set of legal actions. Why shouldn't Congress enforce contracts when BOTH parties are willing to sign?
I hate the idea of this particular clause and find it very distasteful, but I don't think it should be illegal.