this implies the foolish notion that once someone enters into contract, they can't remove themselves from said contract. It also means that we can bind future generations to contracts, which is also ridiculous.
Even more than that. Contract-law can bind parties against their will, they are completely subject to their own discretion under international law.
Contract law enjoins two parties to an agreement under the law as adjudicated by the sovereign; meanwhile international law, in this instance, pertains to federal republics among sovereign nations, as defined under the Law of Nations and the Constitution: in such an arrangement, each nation retains its sovereignty, and therefore all agreements are strictly voluntary.
The main difference between a federal republic and a treaty, is that a treaty is nullified if either side breaches one of its terms. Meanwhile a federal republic remains unbroken by one side breaching one of the terms; rather, this simply abrogates the particular term for both sides.
You can read more about this
here.
The particular section is as follows:
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
This was the form of government created under the Articles of Confederation, as well as the Constitution. Each state retained its respective sovereignty, and hence is a separate nation unto itself: meanwhile their joint deliberations did not impair the sovereignty of each member, though it might, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of
voluntary engagements
only.
As such, no state had any right to use military force against any other state to coerce compliance with the law or deliberations.
The Republican Party abrogated this international arrangement in 1833 through misinformation, claiming that the relationship was not international, but strictly
national in the sense that the states formed one single nation among themselves via the Declaration of Independence.
While official experts have corrected this notion, they continue to claim that the Constitution formed such a nation out of the states; however this is entirely false, as even a cursory examination of the founding history reveals.
The Philadelphia convention was delegated no authority whatsoever either to relinquish any state's sovereignty, or consolidate the states into a single sovereignty. Rather, the extent of their delegated authority was solely to revise the Articles of Confederation-- and therefore the Constitution necessarily retained state sovereignty by implication, if not expressedly.
For the Articles of Confederation retained state sovereignty expressedly due to the international dispute of such which existed by Great Britain at the time of their writing and inception (1778-1781), and therefore such express retention was required in order to avoid further dispute among the states themselves; however this dispute by Great Britain ended in 1783 by the Paris Peace Treaty of that same year, wherein Great Britain and France both recognized the sovereignty, freedom and independence of each state as an individual separate and sovereign nation unto itself-- each having the power to declare wars, make treaties, and do all the other things which sovereign nations may do by right. This international recognition by other globally-recognized sovereign nations, made each state a sovereign nation under international law.
After this, it was no longer necessary to expressly reserve each state's national sovereignty under the Constitution; the main purpose of the Constitution was to
delegate the federal government additional powers -- never to surrender any state's national sovereignty.
Therefore, the people of any state could still vote to overrule federal laws, or withdraw from the union entirely, or anything else that a nation can do.
The claim that the states formed a single sovereign union, is utterly false-- in fact Federalist 39 expressly assures the people of the states, that the Constitution forms "so many independent states, not a single nation," as a specific condition of their ratifying the Constitution in the first place.
Therefore the act of betraying this trust, is nothing less than barbarous treachery and ruthless betrayal through bad faith by the Republican Party, breaching both ethics and morality.
