(Thanks, T. :)
In response to this post:
Anna Von Reitz: "117 Illegible Pages of Legalistic Gunk"
hobie -- Friday, 26-Nov-2021 23:59:04
...Reader T. writes (and I'll respond following):
***************************************************************************
Re: Anna Von Reitz: '117 Illegible Pages of Le....
Stipulate California a mess, her leaders unworthy. Those facts do not make Anna right.
California and Texas existed as independent sovereignties long after the Colonial Era. Alaska and Hawaii have unique histories. Each state had her own treaty of admission to the USA.
Anna offers not one example from American history of a State Assembly being either "dissolved" or "summoned." She needs to document precedence or at least a law. The pertinent epoch is post-Independence. Obviously Britain ran the Colonies.
Article IV, Section 3 is in the Constitution. Action under this clause, however misguided or ill-timed, is no grounds for dissolution. Anna owes everyone a statement on how she imagines Article IV, Section 3 functions. She avoids discussing it to cast aspersions.
Anna compares her act on California to royalty dissolving parliament. Does anyone else find that admission scary? How can Anna topple governments with royal dismissal, "talk to the hand," not law? The bad guys at least wrote something down.
***************************************************************************
(hobie here.) I'm not sure I understand the subject matter comprehensively enough to be seeking to help clarify things, but let me blither about it for a bit and see if it helps at all. :)
Individual sovereign states got together to issue the Declaration. Some few months later the sovereign states saw that they needed a united front, a union if you will, to represent their combined interests internationally. Together they formed the Federation of States - they might have less precisely called it the Union of States - thus, any State OF THE UNION is a member of the Federation of States (the Union).
Being a State of the Union means agreeing to relinquish some amount of sovereignty in certain ways and areas of function, so that the Federation is free and empowered to do the job the sovereign states created it to do.
The Constitution (created by the States "to form a more perfect UNION") is essentially the terms of contract for the federal government employees, not a set of rules for the States that created that government and that the federal government is there to represent and to serve. Congress as defined by the Constitution then lawfully created two more "subcontractor government" entities (Municipal and Territorial) to handle some of Congress's affairs.
The so-called Civil War was waged by those two subcontractor entities; the true American government had no part in that conflict. But in the devastation at the end of that conflict, there was no true American federal government in operation. It was necessary to rebuild it from the ground up.
But "reconstruction" never actually happened, till now. The subcontractor entities simply continued to pretend they were that government, and the people were not informed what the shape of things really was.
Reconstruction of the true American government is the effort Anna talks about and that's underway today. As Anna wrote:
"We are here for the clearly stated and defined purpose of assembling the States of the Union and restoring the lawful American Government. All States of the Union are Members of the Federation and failing that, they are not States of the Union.
"The failed leaders of The California Assembly would have everyone living as stateless, brainless Insurrectionists, which is why we dissolved the organization effective November first and started over."
That's about as far as my current understanding goes. Perhaps one or more others will join in and help by correcting, clarifying and/or amplifying what I've said.
Blessings.
--hobie
********************************************************
