Section 10.  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 it's 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.

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

Obligation of contracts.

  Milk control legislation enacted within the proper exercise of a State's police powers will not be declared unconstitutional even though it may impair the obligation of a pre-existing contract.  Att. Gen. Op. 67-10.

 

Title of nobility.

  Section prohibits the states from granting titles of royalty upon their citizens.  Att. Gen. Op. 68-20.

 

Ex post facto law.

  Law requiring reporting of campaign contributions made before effective date of act was not an ex post facto law.  Att. Gen. Op. 73-17.

 

Import-export.

  Hawaii's general excise and use taxes do not constitute an improper "Impost or Duty" under the import-export clause.  Att. Gen. Op. 94-2.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  For discussion of contracts clause, see Hawaii's Land Reform Act:  Is it Constitutional?  6 HBJ 31.

  The Contract Clause:  The "Regulated Industry" Exception.  8 UH L. Rev. 135.

  Kapiolani Park Preservation Society v. City and County of Honolulu:  The Lease of Public Park Land as a Breach of a Charitable Trust.  11 UH L. Rev. 199.

 

Case Notes

 

Bill of attainder.

  Plaintiffs, owners of leasehold interests in a condominium complex, did not meet the burden of establishing that the savings clause of the ordinance which repealed chapter 38 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu constituted a bill of attainder.  378 F. Supp. 2d 1258.

 

Obligation of contracts.

  District court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, where court granted a preliminary injunction against operation of Act 355, L 1997  (which amended §78-13), State's "pay lag" law, on the ground that it impaired the obligations of the employees' collective bargaining agreement in violation of the contract clause.  183 F.3d 1096.

  Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction granted, where  plaintiffs filed motion seeking to enjoin defendants from delaying payroll under Act 355, L 1997 (which amended §78-13), with respect to University of Hawaii faculty members, arguing that Act 355 violated the contract clause because a five-day delay in pay violated the collective bargaining agreement between the State and the faculty members at the University.  16 F. Supp. 2d 1242.

  Where there was no existing contract that Act 355, L 1997 (amending §78-13), impaired, no contracts clause violation possible and injunction no longer needed; the case was moot.  125 F. Supp. 2d 1237.

  The contracts clause cannot be used under the circumstances to invalidate the repeal of chapter 38 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, because the reserved powers doctrine reserves essential attributes of sovereignty such as the power of eminent domain to the discretion of the states.  378 F. Supp. 2d 1249; 378 F. Supp. 2d 1258.

  Zoning regulations did not impair development contract but only affected property which was subject matter of contract.  649 F. Supp. 926.

  The legislature may alter or abolish public positions.  48 H. 370, 405 P.2d 772.

  State law requiring lessor to purchase leasehold improvements upon termination of lease unconstitutionally impairs obligation of preexisting lease contract.  69 H. 112, 736 P.2d 55.

  Clause does not prohibit execution of state laws on Hawaiian home lands merely because Congress has not expressed its consent to the exercise of such enforcement power.  80 H. 168, 907 P.2d 754.

  No violation by repeal of court reporter temporary certification rule where repeal did not substantially impair plaintiff's contractual relationships, repeal served a significant and legitimate public purpose, and was reasonably and narrowly drawn.  82 H. 329, 922 P.2d 942.

 

Ex post facto law.

  Not violated by rule that, for purposes of criminal history calculation, state conviction for conduct which occurred after defendant's federal offense, but for which defendant was sentenced before defendant's sentencing on the federal offense, is counted as a prior sentence.  44 F.3d 749.

  Inmates' claim that sex offender treatment program violated ex post facto clause was ripe; sex offender treatment program did not violate ex post facto clause.  131 F.3d 818.

  Prison's policy of not placing untreated sex offenders in minimum custody did not violate ex post facto clause.  905 F. Supp. 813.

  General definition of.  50 H. 351, 440 P.2d 528.

  1964 amendments to the negligent homicide statute, as applied to prior wrongdoers, were not ex post facto.  50 H. 351, 440 P.2d 528.

  Law providing for increased punishment for repeat offenders, was not violative of the ex post facto clause.  61 H. 262, 602 P.2d 914.

  Retrospective application of §291-4, as amended by Act 128, L 1993, did not violate ex post facto clause.  76 H. 360, 878 P.2d 699.

  Chapter 846E not violative of this clause as legislature's express purpose was for chapter to be remedial rather than punitive and statutory scheme is not so punitive as to negate the State's remedial purpose.  105 H. 222, 96 P.3d 242.

 

Import-export.

  No violation in exempting certain locally produced products from liquor tax.  65 H. 566, 656 P.2d 724.

 

Duty of tonnage.

  Mooring and anchoring fees imposed by state regulations not a duty of tonnage.  42 F.3d 1185.

  Where plaintiffs argued that mooring and anchoring fees charged by State were duty of tonnage in violation of this section, plaintiffs' Article I challenge denied.  823 F. Supp. 766.

  Division of boating and ocean recreation's assessment of a two per cent ocean recreation management area fee against vessel was an impermissible tax in violation of prohibition against tonnage duties; two per cent use fee assessed other vessel was not a prohibited duty of tonnage.  195 F. Supp. 2d 1157.