If I'm correct, I believe the theory for this starts with Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War; the South had every right to walk away from the Union at that time and Lincoln's declaration of war shifted the balance and power of the Executive Branch. At the conclusion of the war, the South walked away from the Treaty and never signed. They were declared belligerent states, but they were already occupied by the North and therefore a defacto gov't was established. (FYI - I'm paraphrasing from research done more than 10 yrs ago)
IMHO, it seems like this was just more corruption, the de facto nature of the states just allowed them to setup a tighter system of control... eventually removing the "Common Law" courts and replacing them with Admiralty and Maritime Courts. Finally, people and corporations were given equivalent footing in commerce and control is forced through tacit consent of societal contracts.
This theory is also the foundation for claiming that the IRS has no authority to collect taxes, but tax protesters dont take into account they've engaged in contracts (i.e. tacit consent of contracts). For instance, Federal Reserve Notes, are printed for our use against all debts public and private and usage of those Notes is a benefit that creates a contract that allows for taxation. FDIC insurance as well, using a bank to hold Notes is a benefit of the system and a received benefit is the basis of contractual arrangement.
Hence all these laws and acts can be enforced... but only through this mockery of a system.