by KrisAnne Hall, JD

The Constitution is a legal contract between the States, specifically called a compact. This legal fact has been ignored for decades and has been subverted by deception and denial of testimony given by the drafters of the Constitution.

The federal government is the product of that compact, not a party to it. When a party of a contract is violating the terms of that contract it is not the responsibility of the product to seek remedy — it is the duty the parties to the contract to remedy.

California is a party to the Constitution with 49 other States. When California is creating laws establishing terms by which immigrants can obtain the benefits of citizenship, it is violating the terms of that agreement. In this situation, the injured parties are the other States, not the federal government.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon those injured States to seek proper remedy and correction of California’s breach of contract.

The States, individually and collectively, should submit to California a petition demanding that California end their illegal practice and comply with the contract they agreed to when they joined the Union. If California refuses to become compliant with the compact, the States should then issue sanctions, both political and financial against California. If California still defies the terms of the compact, the States, individually and as a whole, should sue California for breach of contract and seek remedy.

The proper remedy could be nationally imposed sanctions and ultimate separation from the Union through denial of contractual benefits as a punishment for continued breach of contract.

Lawlessness between States cannot stand. It is the duty of the States to bring suit. It is the duty of the States to seek remedy. It is the duty of the federal government to employ enforcement of the contract as the contract demands.

California is acting illegally. In that, there can be no dispute.

As parties to this agreement, if California is displeased with the terms of the contract, it is not proper for California to simply ignore and defy those terms. That is a form of lawlessness. There are two remedies available for California.

First, they can seek to renegotiate the contract, renegotiation is achieved through Article V of the Constitution.

The second remedy is for California to voluntarily leave the Union, agreeing they can no longer submit to the terms of contract. Under no terms of law or Constitution is California allowed to continue to be in breach of the National Compact among the States without consequence.

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.


Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


 

It’s States’ Responsibility To Remedy California’s Lawlessness, Not Feds
Liked it? Take a second to support Rod Thomson on Patreon!

Get more stuff like this

Don’t miss a single act of Revolutionary Truth... delivered to your inbox!

4 thoughts on “It’s States’ Responsibility To Remedy California’s Lawlessness, Not Feds

  • March 8, 2018 at 11:25 am
    Permalink

    “The Constitution is a legal contract between the States, specifically called a compact.”

    This dream died with the Civil War, aka the War Between the States. And if California gets a judgement against them and they ignore it, who enforces the judgement..oh, yeah, The Feds. Let’s just skip to the end and avoid wasting time.

    Reply
    • March 8, 2018 at 12:20 pm
      Permalink

      There is extensive precedent for the Federal government to manage the borders.
      The Supreme Court struck down a law by Arizona in which Arizona was going to enforce border security since the Federal government failed to do so during the last administration.
      Likely, there will be a day in court for California, and there may be a day in court for the officials in California who are preventing the Federal Government from enforcing the law.
      Certainly, the states could also petition California to cease a no borders policy as well.
      The acts of California are very serious and should not be disregarded. If allowed to persist, very likely it would result in the breakup of the US and dissolution of the US constitution. This may be the intent of the California officials, perhaps even a number of citizens of California, however it’s unlikely there would be protection of civil rights in in the Bill of Rights of the US constitution and very likely California would soon lapse into the same state as Mexico, in which much of the country is under the rule of drug cartels. Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and very likely the corruption would soon spread to California if California separated from the rest of the country and adopted a no borders status.
      Very likely, it would soon come under the sway of drug cartels in Mexico and China, which is setting out on a program to rule the Pacific would also likely soon have economic dominance over an independent California.

      Reply
  • Pingback: California Naturalization: Appoints Ungrateful Illegal To Government, Illegally -

  • Pingback: California's Existential Threat: Ballot Harvesting Compounded By Illegals And Sanctuaries -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson