Is there a conflict when the state of California exceeded the United States constitutional limitations found in Article 4, clause 10 unnecessarily, when the state was not confronted with an exigent circumstance, nor a state or national emergency that required the state to use its inherent reserved police power to amend a law or make a law that impairs the state's obligation to prior contracts with petitioner and other defendants in similar circumstances?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED @O~x THERE BA CONFLICT 6 Aw" WHE THE STATE. OL CALIFORNIA EXCEEDED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITOTIONAL LIMITATIONS FOUND IN ARTICLE 4, ce4use. 10 UNNECE SSA RILY, WHEN THE STATE, WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH AN EXIGENT CIRCOMSTANCE, NOL. A STATE. OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY THAT — REQUIRED THE. STATE. TO USE. ITS INHERENT RESERVED POLICE. POWER. NEEDED TO AMEALD A law [ca.P.e, LT] OK MAKE A Law [cAa, #6. 1170.1], THar IMPAIRS THE. stetes OBLIGATION TO PRIOR. CONTRACTS WITH PETITIONEK. AND OTHEX. DEFENDANTS IN SUULAR CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE STATE Pp” — @.*rs meee a “CONELICT OF AUTHORITY” WHEA) THE. STATE. O£ CALIFORNIA MADE LAWS THAT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VIOLATED “THE STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS SET=FORTH IN ARTICLE Ly CLADE 10, ANO THEN FROCEEDED TO ENFORCE. THE LAWS ON PETITIDNER ANO OTHER. DELENDANTS JN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES LNW VIOLATION CF THE, LEGAL SUPERIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 'S “SOVEREIGNTY” THAT IS OVER. ANY CONFLICTING LAW OR. STATE. CONSTITUTION AS DECLARED BY THE “SUPREMACY CLAUSE™ FOUND IN ARTICLE. &, CLAUSE Q ?” Ors THERE. A “CONFLICT OF TURISDICTION”™ WHEN THE. » CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE. MATERIAL TERMS CF THE FLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT, CENTRAL TO THIS CASE. ) HAS A CONNECTION TO TWO OR. MORE. JURISDICTION S$” ? @.“Ls THEene.Aa “CONELIT™ BETWEEN STATE. AUTHORITY AND FEDERAL SUPLEMACY. ANDO BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS AND GOVERNMENT POWERS THAT HAS NARI ED PETITIONER AND OTHER. DEFENDANTS IN SUNLAR. CIRCUMSTANCES P of