"the legal rules for construction of written instruments requires that the UEA [Utah Enabling Act] is read and interpreted as a whole document to give effect to the full bargain struck in the agreement.  Longstanding precedents support the theory that the UEA is a bilateral compact that should be treated like it is, and interpreted as, a binding contractual agreement.  For one thing, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that federal commitments made to the sovereign states at the time of their entry into the Union are serious and enforceable.

"Furthermore, as the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Andrus v. Utah, promises in Enabling Acts are "'solemn agreement[s]' which in some ways may be analogized to a contract between private parties." ... the agreements within Utah's Enabling Act and others like it "were solemn bilateral compacts between each State and the Federal Government." Powell later in his opinion further describes the "bilateral" nature of the compact.  ...  Both parties had corresponding rights and duties.

"Moreover, in Andrus, the U.S. Supreme Court also recognized that these compacts anticipate remedies for breach - even against the federal government if it fails to perform duties arising under the compact."

In short, Congress cannot simply choose not to abide by the solemn contracts entered into upon a state's admission into the Union.  

Please take the time to study the following links, and share them with your elected leaders, your friends, and other community leaders.  Please request an analysis of this important legal study from your city, county, state or other attorneys or legal advisors. Please let us know if they come up with any valid arguments that may refute any portion of the White Paper.  We haven't heard any yet ...

Federalist Society White Paper

Executive Summary of Federalist Society White Paper

Sincerely, 

Ken Ivory

ALC President