The state of California has declared itself exempt from the Constitution

Ever spectacles of consummate hypocrisy, leftists have no problem with state's rights, specifically nullification, when it's in their interests.

Obama sued the state of Arizona during his administration because it passed a "tough" new immigration law at the state level. The Democrats correctly argued that the Constitution confers to the federal government the power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Now we see the exact converse proving my longstanding contention that Socialists take whatever side of an issue benefits them at the time. The very thing they opposed yesterday, they will support today, if that's what's currently in their interests.

In the above instance the federal government was in breach of contract. The states ceded this power to the federal government in the Constitution contingent upon the latter exercising that power correctly and effectively in the interests of the states. (The federal government was formed by the states for the benefit of the states after all.) The state of Arizona did not cede its right to self-defense or sovereignty. If the federal government will not defend the states from invasion, or worse is actively working against its interests or to destroy it (by deliberately refusing to enforce laws that protect it), then the responsibility and right to regulate immigration, i.e., the natural right to self-defense, is necessarily re-assumed by the state due to federal dereliction. Obviously, if only one party has an obligation to honor a contract, and the other party may disregard it at their leisure, the former is effectively slave to the latter. (And that's what the Democrats wanted at the time as that was in their interests.) In virtually any other instance, however, this would result in the contract being voided. 

As I said when it occurred, this is a reason specifically cited in the Declaration of Independence, as cause for separation from Britain. 

"He (the king) has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us."

In the colonial era, the king was refusing to protect colonists from invasion and attack (at times at his behest), yet still demanded their fealty and taxes; a circumstance the Founders deemed abdication. The latter (fealty and taxation) requires the former (protection) and vice versa.

But as the Democrats are no longer in control of the federal government, you see them obstructing the very Constitutionally mandated power they cited in their defense when they were in control of it. The federal government is attempting to exercise that power voluntarily ceded to it in the Constitution by the states, by enforcing immigration law, but is being obstructed by a state government (again run by Democrats) assuming the power of naturalization (just as Arizona did). Only in this instance the state is in breach of contract. This time, it's not because the federal government is refusing to honor its obligation, but the state of California; because it's doing so (just as before) is not in the interests of the Democrat politicians in control of its government.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by James Madison, provides rather illuminating exposition on this circumstance and how Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution pertains to it.

"Suppose, for instance, a great State, like New York, should adopt a monarchical form of government, it might, under an enterprising and ambitious king, become formidable to, if not destructive of, the Constitution. And the people of each State have a right to protection against the tyranny of a domestic faction, and to have a firm guarantee, that their political liberties shall not be overturned by a successful demagogue, who shall arrive at power by corrupt arts, and then plan a scheme for permanent possession of it." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Guarantee of Republican Government, 1833.

This is no less applicable to "Democratic Socialism" or Communism, which like monarchy, are "other form(s) of Government than a republican form." As Story states, and which I have cited in a previous contribution, "They (the states) shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions." A "great state" like California may not exchange republicanism for Socialism, or use "corrupt arts" (deliberately untrammeled immigration) to establish a tyrannical "domestic faction" within the state that retains "permanent possession" of power, through which it systematically divests dissidents of their political liberties, and subverts the federal government by augmenting representation, and therefore power, in the federal legislature.

It needs to be understood that California and other sanctuary states, with their state policies on immigration, are subverting the government of the United States. By allowing illegals into their states, protecting them, and allowing them to vote, they are influencing not only state but federal elections and laws. Representation in congress is based upon population. By increasing the population of their states, illegitimately, they increase their state's representation, and therefore power, in the federal government illegitimately. By allowing illegals to vote, they are allowing foreign nationals with unknown or dubious loyalties to affect the outcome of federal elections which affects the whole union, and therefore to influence/subvert the government of the United States. Something, as illustrated in Article 1 Section 9:8, the Founders unequivocally opposed.

"No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

The reality is foreign states are significantly influencing our elected officials, and polices, through illegal immigration.

I surmise Democrats will claim they're not in breach by technicality; i.e., they're not actually passing immigration legislation but rather simply refusing to enforce federal immigration law. But California's conduct plainly constitutes what Washington deemed "irregular opposition to (the federal government's) acknowledged authority." 

"Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite [...] that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority." - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

I would normally say you can't have it both ways; you can't have protection and independence. If you reject the conditions of the contract regarding immigration, then you're in breach and have consequently abnegated federal protection and funding. But apparently the Democrats, as usual, can have it both ways. Because if history is any indicator, they'll get away with it, just as they have for years. Who's going to stop them? The nigh completely politically impotent Republicans?

This is troublesome to say the least. CA is violating the Constitution (and purely for its leftist bureaucrats to get votes). This could be the catalyst for multiple other leftist states, e.g., CA, NY, NJ, etc., doing the same, perhaps at some point even culminating in secession and the next civil war. And in that event, God forbid, profoundly unlikely as it is, or better yet to prevent it, I say invade California and crush the commies. Do it quickly and judiciously, because in a protracted conflict, they would undoubtedly appeal to foreign (Socialist) powers for assistance. 

California has for too damn long been allowed to dictate the course of the other 49 states in this country. Let it not be forgotten that the unconstitutional, activist court imposed sodomite marriage ruling, stemmed from one wayward municipality in the state of California. (Spreading to state after state, until half the nation being subverted, the federal court decided to get involved and imposed it upon the other half.) And if this be not addressed now, in its infancy, who knows what will happen. Conflict, violence, or worst of all, its tolerance and consequent proliferation; the common outcome of that pernicious deference endemic to the GoP.