 In keeping perspective, this article has to be seen in light of the Constituting Agreement and its purposes and limitations. 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 for this article is arranging the relationship between sovereign citizens and their representative governments, both central and territorial. In Section 1, the benefit of having territorial governments is recognized as is their fulfillment of territorial purposes through the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. The representative government in one state is to recognize the validity of the acts of representative government in all other states. There has been confusion here where laws addressing citizen privileges are passed on a state level. Consider 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 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 in 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 anywhere in the United States. In Congress, the power to interfere through setting proof requirements and effects is not any absolute right to legislate state-to-state relationships. It is just permitted within the general purposes set in 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 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 that state that allows gay marriages, they will be treated as married. If they become citizens of a state where this is not allowed, they will no longer be treated as married. When we speak of entitlements and immunities, as in section two, we are addressing citizen rights, not privileges. The writing of this into the Constitution is generally repetitious of the larger sovereignty of citizens. In this provision, it specifies that state governments will honor the sovereignty of we the people. It is not that the colonial governments were sovereign over their pre-constitutional relationship with citizens, but that the federal government created by constituting this agreement will have authority to act in assurance of citizen sovereignty. The inclusion of a provision for fleeing criminals in light of the 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's young and raised 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 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 the order of a court that has jurisdiction of the criminal action into a court where a person is found and have it declared a local order that has jurisdiction. Local officers will then act upon it. The provision dealing with service or labor has generally been 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 are 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 court which can direct the person on behalf of an order from the court that has jurisdiction of the cause to take part in that action. Section 3 addresses two very different areas of law. The first and most important is a change in citizenship inherent in admitting 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 the same terms as the posterity of people being accepted as part of we the people in the preamble. The following generations were not parties to the initial agreement, not by signature or by acceptability of people to sign a 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 the attachment to address people in 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 a right of citizens to have representation in Congress as citizens of the United States and 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 their consent as representing the people in those 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 United States 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 these territories except that which is set by congressionally passed laws. The executive officers in these territories answer to Congress, not to the authority of the President. The Supreme Court has also denied original jurisdiction over territorial matters. It could have appellate jurisdiction based on federal laws, but is limited in how it deals with territorial matters. The people in these owned territories are not sovereign citizens. They are not entitled to deal with government as owners. The meaning of Section 4 is unclear when seen in isolation. It might address that the federal government remains a republic. It might be bred as requiring states to be representative. This is resolved by noting its position in the larger constituting agreement and the purpose for the agreement. The purpose is to ordain and establish a United States government. It is written into an article addressing interaction between the U.S. 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. And 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 a central government to assist and support the states as representatives of their citizenry. The government 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 militias as specifically authorized and with the aid and support of government entities. Our most recent challenge to the provision of the U.S. government action is to settle non-citizen refugees in states without gaining state permission or approval. The federal government has been one that is performing the invasion of the states, serving the interest of non-citizens at the expense of citizens that it is empowered to support. There has been strident complaint as expected when officers of the states discover that they have been invaded. This article is written as if it applied to the states, but the states have their own constituting and authorizing documents. It accordingly addresses their relationships as that which exists between the central government created by this constituting agreement and the territorial governments of the states as representing segments of We The People. It arranges for certain uniformity in the state governments supporting the ability of citizens to move between them. It arranges for peaceful interaction between the states and citizens of other states. It arranges some of the anomalies that must exist where there are territorial authorities that are not required to be uniform in all their dealings. And most of all, it is central support for We The People as they continue their lives as sovereign, self-governing citizens under this constituting agreement and in certain territories that are recognized by the United States.