(2) Invisible Contracts is actually a letter in book form. The “letter” is addressed to a “Mr. May”, who wrote. Mr. Mercier in connection and in response to a. Invisible Contracts [George Mercier] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. One of the reasons why lawyers try and raise numerous. Back in the mids, an author named “George Mercier” wrote a long treatise he described From reading Mercier’s Invisible Contracts, it appears to me that he.

Author: Arashikasa Yozshugore
Country: Puerto Rico
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Music
Published (Last): 26 July 2011
Pages: 276
PDF File Size: 2.30 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.9 Mb
ISBN: 474-3-91159-436-6
Downloads: 30941
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: JoJojind

It is easy to demonstrate the operation of this provision of the Constitution and its application to government contracts. An agency incisible charge of such a project could theoretically “contract” with a construction company to build this structure.

However, until Congress actually appropriates money to pay for construction, there is no contract. Even if the contractor in this example incurred lots of costs preparing to build this courthouse which ultimately does not get built because of lack of funds, he has no claim against Uncle Sam for breach of contract. The same principle applies to every other government contractor, whether aerospace, military, et cet.

Government contracts are unique and different from private sector contracts due to this constitutional limitation upon the power to contract. Is Social Security a contract? A private insurance policy is clearly a contract because the policyholder makes a promise to pay money to the insurance company, which in turn agrees to likewise pay the policyholder if certain contingencies arise.

These “promise to pay” elements are essential for a contract, but they simply are not present with Social Security. First, Social Security “payments” are not premium payments, but are taxes instead. Secondly, there is no corresponding and enforceable “promise to pay” from the Social Security Administration to its “beneficiaries. Regarding Social Security, the only “beneficiaries” who have any claim against the georye treasury are those for whom Congress has already made an appropriation, which can last no longer than a year.

The rest of the Social Security claimants in America have no enforceable claim on public funds, and all they possess is a “political promise,” upon which Congress can renege at any moment. If Congress decided tomorrow to cut off all Social Security benefits, nobody would have any claim for payment. Thus, Social Security has never been and is not now a contract. NestorU. BelcherU. GoldfarbU. FritzU. Ina subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee conducted hearings for the express purpose of settling the question of whether social security contrachs contractual in nature; see Mrcier of November 27, entitled “The Legal Status of OASI Benefits,” Part 6.

The witness at the hearing was Dr. Altmeyer, who held several offices in the Roosevelt administration.

He was a member of the infisible Social Security Board, invisibble by became the Social Security Commissioner, retiring in During this hearing, various parties stated that social security was not a contract: Congress knew that, did it not? I am sure it did. Is that your position? And he has no insurance contract? We came to an agreement on one of our major premises, that this was no insurance contract, and the words did not come from me. They were volunteered by Mr.

Altmeyer, there being no contractual obligation between the Government and the worker, it follows, does it not, that the benefit payments under title II of the Social Security Act are merely statutory benefits which Congress may withdraw or alter at any time? Moreover, the act creates no contractual obligation with respect to the payment of benefits. This Court has pointed out the difference between insurance which creates vested rights, and pensions contractw other gratuities, involving no contractual obligations, in Lynch v.


United States, U. I have answered your question, sir. We have also established that there is no insurance contract between the Government and the worker within a covered wage whereby the rights and obligations of a party are set; that is correct, is it not? You did not establish that.

George Mercier’s “Invisible Contracts”

That has been self-evident since the law merciier passed in At pages the Chair’s concluding remarks: Altmeyer, it is apparent that the people of the country have no insurance contract. That does not mean that I do not want to do my full part to do justice to them and to carry out and make good on contrafts moral commitment that has been made to them. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that they had no insurance contract, it remains true that the agency under your direction repeatedly in public statements, by pamphlets, radio addresses, and by other means, told the people of the country that they had insurance.

I think a number of people were misled by that. The position asserted by Mercier that social security is a contract, visible or invisible, thus does not manifest itself in the decisions of federal courts. See also McLaughlin v. CIRF. DrefkeF. Contentions that driver licenses are contracts are baseless. GibsonP. Mercier also had a chapter of his work making some vague contention about admiralty.

Invisible Contracts

There are lots of phony admiralty arguments being promoted in the freedom movement, all asserting essentially an argument that admiralty has invaded “inland”, and “everything is admiralty”. I address that groundless argument here. Mercier also made snide remarks that the money argument relating to gold, silver and Federal Reserve Notes that is popular with many is baseless, but I demonstrate otherwise here.

There are lots of other flaws in Mercier’s legal argument about Invisible Contracts, but I will not address them here. What is important is that Phil Marsh started an organization named the Pilot Connection Society back at the end of the s, and the central legal argument that he promoted was based entirely on Invisible Contracts.

Mercier’s “book” advocated that a citizen should give King government a wide variety of notices rescinding the “Invisible Contracts”, and Marsh’s organization did precisely this for hundreds of people.


Marsh was prosecuted and convicted, and died in jail. Let me explain some of the gross flaws of this argument.

A short explanation of this theory may be found on the Net here. However, American law is not exclusively contract based, yet this is the precise contention meecier by Mercier. I know little about Mercier, and I have never met anyone who knew him. But from reading his work, I have concluded that he probably lived in New York. From the fact that he quoted very extensively from the works of Mormon Church leaders, I have concluded that he merceir a Mormon.

But then merciet, he was a self confessed pot-grower: I could be wrong, but I have concluded that Mercier first wrote some treatise of his legal inviaible that was purely theoretical. Once this was done, he simply added a substantial amount of other apparently relevant to him at least legal and other materials.


It is only this other material that provides any georgf of legal support for his argument. I do not want to be perceived as condemning everything he writes about and there is much in Invisible Contracts with which I am in agreement. His work is easy to read, is entertaining and interesting; he chocks his work with lots of stories about the Rockefellers and other elites in our society and across the world. He condemns the tyranny of present-day American government, and such writing is popular, both with me and other Americans.

But, all of that is irrelevant regarding his fundamental legal argument.

It is a well established legal principle that any American government engaged in commercial endeavors is subject to the same rules of commerce as are private individuals. For example, in Lynch v. United StatesU. Seaboard Air Line Ry. The “statute of frauds” originates from the common law and every state today has a general “statute of frauds,” if not several. Generally, statutes of frauds require that certain contracts are only valid if evidenced by a written contract.

Typically, contracts for the sale of land, contracts for geodge sale of goods over bux, all other contracts in excess of bux, agreements to answer for the debts of others, contracts that have a life in excess of one year, etc. Two such Alabama laws appear below: Formal requirements; statute of frauds. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon, but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.

Certain agreements void unless in writing. Geodge the following cases, every agreement is void unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof expressing the consideration is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized in writing: Constitution provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. This is aptly demonstrated by the federal cases which have construed this part of the Constitution.

HardeeF. United StatesF. Invisile principle was more fully explained in Hughes Aircraft Co. Thus, no officer of contracrs Federal Government is authorized to pay a debt due from the U. Walker52 U. In National Association of Regional Councils v. CostleF. Amounts so authorized by Congress are termed collectively ‘budget authority’ and can be subdivided into three conceptually distinct categories — appropriations, contract authority, and borrowing authority. Appropriations permit an agency to incur obligations and to make payments on obligations.

Contract authority is legislative authorization for an agency to create obligations in advance of an appropriation. It requires a subsequent appropriation or some other source of funds before the obligation incurred may actually be liquidated by the outlay of monies. Borrowing authority permits an agency to spend debt receipts.