So in regard to all other contracts. The constitution presupposes, implies, assumes, and asserts the natural truth, that certain contracts have, _and always necessarily will have_, a _natural_ "obligation." And this _natural_ "obligation"--which is the only real obligation that any contract can have--is the very one that the constitution forbids any State law to impair, in the case of any contract whatever that has such obligation. And yet all the courts hold the direct opposite of this. They hold that, if a State law forbids any contract to be made, such a contract can then have no obligation; and that, consequently, no State law can impair an obligation that never existed. But if, by forbidding a contract to be made, a State law can prevent the contract's having any obligation, State laws, by forbidding any contracts at all to be made, can prevent all contracts, thereafter made, from having any obligation; and thus utterly destroy all men's natural rights to make any obligatory contracts at all. 2. A second pretence, by which the courts attempt to evade that provision of the constitution, which forbids any State to "pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts," is this: They say that the State law, that requires, or obliges, a man to fulfil his contracts, _is itself_ "_the obligation_," which the constitution forbids to be impaired; and that therefore the constitution only prohibits the impairing of any law for enforcing such contracts as shall be made under it. But this pretence, it will be seen, utterly discards the idea that contracts have any _natural_ obligation. It implies that contracts have no obligation, except the laws that are made for enforcing them. But if contracts have no _natural_ obligation, they have no obligation at all, _that ought to be enforced_; and the State is a mere usurper, tyrant, and robber, in passing any law to enforce them. Plainly a State cannot rightfully enforce any contracts at all, unless they have a _natural_ obligation. 3. A third pretence, by which the courts attempt to evade this provision of the constitution, is this: They say that "the law is a part of the contract" itself; and therefore cannot impair its obligation. By this they mean that, if a law is standing upon the statute book, prescribing what obligation certain contracts shall, or shall not, have, it must then be presumed that, whenever such a contract is made, the parties intended to make it according to that law; and really to make the law a part of their contract; _although they themselves say nothing of the kind_. This pretence, that the law is a part of the contract, is a mere trick to cheat people out of their natural right to make their own contracts; and to compel them to make only such contracts as the lawmakers choose to permit them to make.