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.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Notes to Decisions
Generally.
The interstate agreement on detainers, 31-5-12 NMSA 1978, is a congressionally-sanctioned interstate compact; the co-Tact is federal law and, as such, subject to federal construction. State v. Sparks, 1986-NMCA-010, 104 N.M. 62, 716 P.2d 253, 1986 N.M. App. LEXIS 586 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986).
Contracts.
Mining company’s attempt to assert a claim directly under the Contract Clause, U.S. Const. art I § 10, ran up against the Supreme Court’s holdings that federal substantive law did not of its own force override the sovereign immunity of the states and that Congress lacked the authority to subject non-consenting states to private suits for money damages. Manning v. Mining & Minerals Div. of the Energy, Minerals & Natural Res. Dep't, 2004-NMCA-052, 135 N.M. 487, 90 P.3d 506, 2004 N.M. App. LEXIS 27 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 2006-NMSC-027, 140 N.M. 528, 144 P.3d 87, 2006 N.M. LEXIS 280 (N.M. 2006).
Statutory prohibition on prepayment penalties applied whether or not there had been a sale and whether or not the lender had sought to exercise its options under a due-on-sale clause and was constitutional under the contract clause. Los Quatros, Inc. v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 1990-NMSC-082, 110 N.M. 750, 800 P.2d 184, 1990 N.M. LEXIS 317 (N.M. 1990).
Where a lease provided that if the state legislature failed to make sufficient appropriations for the operation of the state agency or if the agency was directed to move by action of the legislature, then the agency would have the right to terminate the lease, an appropriations bill that directed the agency to relocate to a more accessible site did not violate the contracts clause of the state or federal constitution because the lease, by its terms, contemplated exactly what came to pass. National Bldg. v. State Bd. of Educ., 1973-NMSC-053, 85 N.M. 186, 510 P.2d 510, 1973 N.M. LEXIS 1249 (N.M. 1973).
Relief Act (Act), which divided the agricultural lands of a Conservancy District into two classes, and changed the repayment terms of bond obligations for one of the classes violated the due process clause, and also violated the contract clause because it changed the terms of the bonds, a then existing contract. Durand v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1941-NMSC-041, 46 N.M. 138, 123 P.2d 389, 1941 N.M. LEXIS 67 (N.M. 1941).
The appointment of a receiver to operate a city’s waterworks, pursuant to an act of the legislature, did not unconstitutionally impair the obligation of the city’s contracts. Dreyfus v. Socorro, 26 N.M. 127, 189 P. 878, 1920 N.M. LEXIS 16, 1920 N.M. LEXIS 17 (N.M. 1920).
Corporations.
Trial court’s decree declaring a company dissolved as a corporation for failure to file annual reports as required by former 54-236, 1953 Comp. was error because as applied to the company, denied the company equal protection of the law in violation of U.S. Const. amends. XIV and N.M. Const. art II § 18 and impaired the obligation of contracts in violation of U.S. Const. art I § 10 and N.M. Const. art II § 19. State v. Sunset Ditch Co., 1944-NMSC-004, 48 N.M. 17, 145 P.2d 219, 1944 N.M. LEXIS 19 (N.M. 1944).
Ex post facto.
Since the Albuquerque Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is a regulatory scheme that is not punitive in intent or effect, the retroactive application of the ordinance does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, double jeopardy, or cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions. ACLU of N.M. v. City of Albuquerque, 2006-NMCA-078, 139 N.M. 761, 137 P.3d 1215, 2006 N.M. App. LEXIS 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006).
Because an amendment to N.M. Const. art II § 14, which changed the number of grand jury members to 12, at least eight of whom had to concur in the finding, was a procedural matter and did not violate a substantial right of defendant or place him at any disadvantage, it was not an ex post facto law in violation of U.S. Const. art I § 10, even though the date of the commission of the crime for which defendant was indicted and convicted was prior to the effective date of the amendment. State v. Kavanaugh, 1927-NMSC-038, 32 N.M. 404, 258 P. 209, 1927 N.M. LEXIS 45 (N.M. 1927).
Federal law.
Cattle imported from Mexico by petitioner lost such status when co-mingled with other cattle brought from other states, and therefore were subject to federal taxation. Tres Ritos Ranch Co. v. Abbott, 1940-NMSC-065, 44 N.M. 556, 105 P.2d 1070, 1940 N.M. LEXIS 64 (N.M. 1940).
Governmental powers.
Multistate Tax Compact, former 72-15A-37, 1953 Comp. (now 7-5-1 NMSA 1978), did not violate the Compact Clause, U.S. Const. art I § 10, cl. 3, because it granted the states no powers that they did not already have individually, and was entirely voluntary to the states. United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452, 98 S. Ct. 799, 54 L. Ed. 2d 682, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 58 (U.S. 1978).
Retroactivity.
Under U.S. Const. art I § 10, and N.M. Const. art II § 19, it was permissible for the court to apply its decision that civil forfeiture under the New Mexico Controlled Substances Act, 30-31-1 NMSA 1978, constituted punishment for purposes of New Mexico’s protections against double jeopardy to all cases pending as of the date of the court’s decision. State v. Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, 2000-NMSC-013, 129 N.M. 63, 2 P.3d 264, 1999 N.M. LEXIS 388 (N.M. 1999).
Where at the time of the child’s offenses a former section of the Children’s Code, 32A-1-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., was effective, the children’s court was without jurisdiction later to extend the confinement of the child beyond his 18th birthday; unconstitutionality of ex post facto laws under N.M. Const. art II § 19, and U.S. Const. art I § 10, precluded the application of 32A-2-23 NMSA 1978, adopted after the offenses, to confine the child beyond his 18th birthday. State v. Adam M., 1998-NMCA-014, 124 N.M. 505, 953 P.2d 40, 1997 N.M. App. LEXIS 136 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997).
Sovereign immunity.
Mine owners’ Contracts Clause claim against state mining regulatory agencies asserting that their future and current contractual obligations were impaired by mining regulations was barred by sovereign immunity because the Contracts Clause does not provide for money damages. Manning v. Mining & Minerals Div. of the Energy, Minerals & Natural Res. Dep't, 2006-NMSC-027, 140 N.M. 528, 144 P.3d 87, 2006 N.M. LEXIS 280 (N.M.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1051, 127 S. Ct. 663, 166 L. Ed. 2d 513, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 9015 (U.S. 2006).