 In keeping perspective, Article 4 has to be seen in light of the constituting agreement and its purposes and limits. It is written to ordain and establish the government for the United States, not for the States. In the general logic of this, the States are territorial representatives of we the people rather than sovereign entities that exercise rule over subordinate citizens. The primary purpose of this article is arranging the relationship between the sovereign citizens and their representative governments, both central and territorial. In Section 1, the benefit of having territorial governments is recognized as are the fulfillment of territorial purposes through public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. The representative governments in one state is to recognize the validity and acts of the representative government in all the states. There has been confusion here where laws addressing the citizen privileges are passed on a state level. Consider that one state issues a driver's license to 16-year-olds. That citizen would be able to drive anywhere in the United States on that driver's license. If he moved and became a citizen of another state that only started issuing licenses to 18-year-olds, he would not be allowed to continue driving. The territorial rules of his new state would apply, and they would not have to recognize the license issued by another state. The other state's license would no longer be valid as he was no longer a citizen of that state. This of course has no effect on citizen rights as the U.S. citizen is sovereign everywhere in the United States, giving Congress the power to interfere through setting proof requirements and affects not any absolute right to legislate state-to-state relationships. It is just permitted within the general purposes of the preamble and must be in accord with the ability of one citizen to have such effects on other sovereign citizens. The application of this provision has been politically confused by recognition of legal rights based on marriage relationships. The question is whether a state that forbids gay marriages has to recognize as the marriages of gay people married in other states. The answer is that the laws of the state in which they are citizens determine their legal status, no matter where they reside. So long as they are citizens of the same state that allows gay marriages, they will be treated as married. If they become citizens of a state where this is not allowed, they can no longer be assured of recognition as married by any of the other states. When we speak of entitlements and immunities, we are addressing citizen rights not privileges. The writing of this into the constitution of state-level recognition of the larger sovereignty of U.S. citizens. In this provision, it specifies that government will honor the sovereignty of we the people. It is not that the colonial government was sovereign in their pre-constitutional relationship to the citizens, but that federal government created by this constituting agreement will have authority to act in assurance of citizen sovereignty. The inclusion of a provision for fleeing criminals is in light of the common practice among criminals of crossing borders into territories where their crimes are not legally addressed. It is still common internationally where some countries will not deliver up people to another on demand. This is specifically addressed as to people within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. The demand of one state will be honored by the officers in other states. There is still a question on application. If the crime is not recognized as such by the legal jurisdiction where the fleeing criminal is found, there is a reluctance to seize upon that person. The common technique has become to take an order by the court that has jurisdiction of the criminal action into the court where the person is found and have it declared as a local order that has jurisdiction. The local officers will then act on it. The provision dealing with service or labor was generally a matter of slavery and did not resolve the challenge of slavery itself. It just provided a process that would legally open the matter for determination. In this case, the determination was directed to returning the slave to the original state. There were also other applications, as with a divorced parent owing child support to his ex-wife. It is a civil rather than a criminal act, yet the same process is used to activate the local court. That court can direct local authorities on behalf of an order from a court that has jurisdiction of the cause of action. Section 3 addresses two very different areas of law. The first and most important is the change in citizenship inherent in admitting a new state into existence. It also addresses the people who live in that state, attaching them as citizens to we the people who are the signature authority of this constituting agreement. This can be understood in terms of the posterity of people accepting part of we the people in the preamble. The following generations were not parties to the initial agreement, not by signature or by accepting the ability of people to sign the document on behalf of their future generations. Still, it was effective, and new citizens are attached at birth based on the citizenship of their parents. This provision just widens that attachment to address people and territories that are accepted as states. The second area of law is the right of citizens to be represented by territorial or state governments. This is a right to gather for self-governance based on internal physical boundaries as generally recognized as states. It is the right of citizens to have a representation in Congress as citizens of the United States as residing in official territories within the United States. Again, it is good to remember that the states are not direct parties to this constituting agreement. The consent of any state legislature who resets state boundaries is the consent of representing the people in the territories being reset. The people are the sovereign authority in the constituting agreement. When it comes to owned territories of the United States, we have to start with the understanding that the U.S. government is owned by its sovereign people. It is to exercise authorities over their property in their name and for their purposes. Giving Congress authority over territories of the United States is a major departure from the feudal governments in Europe. It takes such authority out of the hands of the President. There is no executive authority over the territories except that which is set by Congressional past laws. The executive officers in these territories answer to Congress, not to the authority of the President. The Supreme Court is also denied original jurisdiction over territorial matters. It can have appellate jurisdiction based on federal laws. But it is limited to how it deals with territorial matters. The people of these owned territories are not sovereign citizens and they are not entitled to deal with government as owners. The meaning of Section 4 is unclear and seen in isolation. It might address assuring that government has and remains a republic. It might be read as requiring the states to be representative. This is resolved by noting its position in the larger constituting agreement and the purpose for this agreement. The purpose is to ordain and establish a U.S. government. It is written into the article addressing interaction between United States and state governments. The clincher is that the states are not a party to this contract. They are addressed as territorial representatives of we the people. This provision addresses assurance to the people that their state governments are representational. How that result will be accomplished is not addressed. Protection against invasion is another area where there is no specified process. The most basic understanding returns to we the people who retain the right to self-defense. That is a personal right, a right that cannot even be delegated to central government. What this provision does is arrange for central government to assist and support the states as representatives of their citizenry. It authorizes general government action to repel invasion. This does not limit or replace self-defense which belongs to the people. They can also defend themselves as state populations. Citizens can engage in voluntary military efforts through malicious as specifically authorized with the aid and support of government entities. Our most recent challenges to this provision is the US government action to settle non-citizen refugees in states without gaining either their permission or approval. The federal government has been the one performing invasion of the states, serving the interests of non-citizens at the expense of the citizens it was empowered to support. There has been strident complaint as expected when the officers of the state discover that they have been invaded. This article is written as if applied to the states, but the states have their own constituting and authorizing documents. It accordingly addresses the relationships that are to exist between the central government created by the constituting agreement and the territorial government of the states as representing segments of we the people. It arranges for a certain uniformity of the state governments, supporting the ability of citizens to move freely between them. It arranges for the peaceful interaction between the states and citizens of other states. It addresses some of the anomalies that must exist where there are territorial authorities that are not required to be uniform in their dealings. And most of all, it is a central support for we the people as they continue their lives as sovereign, self-governing citizens under this constituting agreement.