Everything is contract. That is how I view it. Contracts may concern millions if not billions of people, but that does not make the contract public.

The rules governing contract may be based on on consensus relating to the protection of all the rights a man or woman retains under that contract, or not. In effect, it is still a contract.

The question who the contracting parties are ... is a more difficult question when it comes to more than one individual.

It would also presume a starting and end of a contract when a person is moving from one contract area to the next.

Then it becomes a question as to the nature of the contract, its contents. Can it be renegotiated? Or is it a matter of take it or leave it?

It seems like the Constitution as a contract is a nice piece of work, yet, who are the contracting parties? Especially given the fact that the framework has been altered.

Prudence, indeed, seem to dictate that making further adjustments and refinements to the contract, or pursuant to the contract, should be rare, especially when these have an enormous impact.

And, are then the voting system for representatives and the high burden of reaching a unconstitutional verdict at the supreme court sufficient means to protect the interest of those form whom the contract-scheme was set up to benefit?