Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1

Articles of Confederation, art. 4

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

  • Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

  • The Drafting Table
  • Supreme Court Cases Library
  • Founders' Library
  • Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

National Constitution Center Building

Start your constitutional learning journey

  • News & Debate Overview
  • Constitution Daily Blog
  • America's Town Hall Programs
  • Special Projects
  • Media Library

America’s Town Hall

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

  • Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

  • Classroom Resources by Topic
  • Classroom Resources Library
  • Live Online Events
  • Professional Learning Opportunities
  • Constitution Day Resources

Student Watching Online Class

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

  • Explore the Museum
  • Plan Your Visit
  • Exhibits & Programs
  • Field Trips & Group Visits
  • Host Your Event
  • Buy Tickets

First Amendment Exhibit Historic Graphic

New exhibit

The first amendment, states, citizenship, new states.

Signing Details

Signed in convention September 17, 1787. Ratified June 21, 1788. A portion of Article IV, Section 2, was changed by the 13th Amendment

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Interpretations & Debate

Read interpretations of article iv, section 1.

an article 4 free inhabitant

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Read Interpretations of Article IV, Section 2

an article 4 free inhabitant

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Read Interpretations of Article IV, Section 3

an article 4 free inhabitant

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Read Interpretations of Article IV, Section 4

an article 4 free inhabitant

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

  • Find a Lawyer
  • Ask a Lawyer
  • Research the Law
  • Law Schools
  • Laws & Regs
  • Newsletters
  • Justia Connect
  • Pro Membership
  • Basic Membership
  • Justia Lawyer Directory
  • Platinum Placements
  • Gold Placements
  • Justia Elevate
  • Justia Amplify
  • PPC Management
  • Google Business Profile
  • Social Media
  • Justia Onward Blog

Interstate Comity

SECTION 2. Clause 1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Annotations

“The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located . . . was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent sovereign States.” 152 Precedent for this clause was a much wordier and a somewhat unclear 153 clause of the Articles of Confederation. “The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively . . . .” 154 In the Convention, the present clause was presented, reported by the Committee on Detail, and adopted all in the language ultimately approved. 155 Little commentary was addressed to it, 156 and we may assume with Justice Miller that “[t]here can be but little question that the purpose of both these provisions is the same, and that the privileges and immunities intended are the same in each. In the Articles of Confederation we have some of these specifically mentioned, and enough perhaps to give some general idea of the class of civil rights meant by the phrase.” 157 At least four theories have been proffered regarding the purpose of this clause. First, the clause is a guaranty to the citizens of the different states of equal treatment by Congress; in other words, it is a species of equal protection clause binding on the National Government. Though it received some recognition in the Dred Scott case, 158 particularly in the opinion of Justice Catron, 159 this theory is today obsolete. 160 Second, the clause is a guaranty to the citizens of each state of the natural and fundamental rights inherent in the citizenship of persons in a free society, the privileges and immunities of free citizens, which no state could deny to citizens of other states, without regard to the manner in which it treated its own citizens. This theory found some expression in a few state cases 161 and best accords with the natural law-natural rights language of Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell . 162

If it had been accepted by the Court, this theory might well have endowed the Supreme Court with a reviewing power over restrictive state legislation as broad as that which it later came to exercise under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it was firmly rejected by the Court. 163 Third, the clause guarantees to the citizen of any state the rights which he enjoys as such even when he is sojourning in another state; that is, it enables him to carry with him his rights of state citizenship throughout the Union, unembarrassed by state lines. This theory, too, the Court rejected. 164 Fourth, the clause merely forbids any state to discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own. It is this narrow interpretation that has become the settled one. “It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alien-age in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws.” 165

The recent cases emphasize that interpretation of the clause is tied to maintenance of the Union. “Some distinctions between residents and nonresidents merely reflect the fact that this is a Nation composed of individual States, and are permitted; other distinctions are prohibited because they hinder the formation, the purpose, or the development of a single Union of those States. Only with respect to those ‘privileges’ and ‘immunities’ bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity must the State treat all citizens, resident and nonresident, equally.” 166 Although the clause “was intended to create a national economic union,” it also protects noneconomic interests relating to the Union. 167

Hostile discrimination against all nonresidents infringes the clause, 168 but controversies between a state and its own citizens are not covered by the provision. 169 However, a state discrimination in favor of residents of one of its municipalities implicates the clause, even though the disfavored class consists of in-state as well as outofstate inhabitants. 170 The clause should not be read so literally, the Court held, as to permit states to exclude out-of-state residents from benefits through the simple expediency of delegating authority to political subdivisions. 171 A violation can occur whether or not a statute explicitly discriminates against out-of-state interests. 172

The Privileges and Immunities Clause is self-executory, that is to say, its enforcement is dependent upon the judicial process. It does not authorize penal legislation by Congress. Federal statutes prohibiting conspiracies to deprive any person of rights or privileges secured by state laws, 173 or punishing infractions by individuals of the right of citizens to reside peacefully in the several states and to have free ingress into and egress from such states, 174 have been held void.

A question much mooted before the Civil War was whether the term could be held to include free Negroes. In the Dred Scott case, 175 the Court answered it in the negative. “Citizens of each State,” Chief Justice Taney argued, meant citizens of the United States as understood at the time the Constitution was adopted, and Negroes were not then regarded as capable of citizenship. The only category of national citizenship added under the Constitution comprised aliens, naturalized in accordance with acts of Congress. 176 In dissent, Justice Curtis not only denied the Chief Justice’s assertion that there were no Negro citizens of states in 1789 but further argued that, although Congress alone could determine what classes of aliens should be naturalized, the states retained the right to extend citizenship to classes of persons born within their borders who had not previously enjoyed citizenship and that one upon whom state citizenship was thus conferred became a citizen of the state in the full sense of the Constitution. 177 So far as persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are concerned, the question was put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Corporations. —At a comparatively early date, the claim was made that a corporation chartered by a state and consisting of its citizens was entitled to the benefits of the comity clause in the transaction of business in other states. It was argued that the Court was bound to look beyond the act of incorporation and see who were the incorporators. If it found these to consist solely of citizens of the incorporating state, it was bound to permit them through the agency of the corporation to exercise in other states such privileges and immunities as the citizens thereof enjoyed. In Bank of Augusta v. Earle , 178 this view was rejected. The Court held that the comity clause was never intended “to give to the citizens of each State the privileges of citizens in the several States, and at the same time to exempt them from the liabilities which the exercise of such privileges would bring upon individuals who were citizens of the State. This would be to give the citizens of other States far higher and greater privileges than are enjoyed by the citizens of the State itself.” 179 A similar result was reached in Paul v. Virginia , 180 but by a different course of reasoning. The Court there held that a corporation, in this instance, an insurance company, was “the mere creation of local law” and could “have no legal existence beyond the limits of the sovereignty” 181 which created it; even recognition of its existence by other states rested exclusively in their discretion. Later recent cases held that this discretion is qualified by other provisions of the Constitution notably the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. 182 By reason of its similarity to the corporate form of organization, a Massachusetts trust has been denied the protection of this clause. 183

The classical judicial exposition of the meaning of this phrase is that of Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell , 184 which was decided by him on circuit in 1823. The question at issue was the validity of a New Jersey statute that prohibited “any person who is not, at the time, an actual inhabitant and resident in this State” from raking or gathering “clams, oysters or shells” in any of the waters of the state, on board any vessel “not wholly owned by some person, inhabitant of and actually residing in this State. . . . The inquiry is,” wrote Justice Washington, “what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union . . . .” 185 He specified the following rights as answering this description: “Protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government must justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus ; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State . . . .” 186

After thus defining broadly the private and personal rights which were protected, Justice Washington went on to distinguish them from the right to a share in the public patrimony of the state. “[W]e cannot accede” the opinion proceeds, “to the proposition . . . that, under this provision of the Constitution, the citizens of the several States are permitted to participate in all the rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any particular State, merely upon the ground that they are enjoyed by those citizens; much less, that in regulating the use of the common property of the citizens of such State, the legislature is bound to extend to the citizens of all other States the same advantages as are secured to their own citizens.” 187 The right of a state to the fisheries within its borders he then held to be in the nature of a property right, held by the state “for the use of the citizens thereof;” the state was under no obligation to grant “co-tenancy in the common property of the State, to the citizens of all the other States.” 188 The precise holding of this case was confirmed in McCready v. Virginia ; 189 the logic of Geer v. Connecticut 190 extended the same rule to wild game, and Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter 191 applied it to the running water of a state. In Toomer v. Witsell , 192 however, the Court refused to apply this rule to free-swimming fish caught in the three-mile belt off the coast of South Carolina. It held instead that “commercial shrimping in the marginal sea, like other common callings, is within the purview of the privileges and immunities clause” and that a severely discriminatory license fee exacted from nonresidents was unconstitutional. 193

The virtual demise of the state ownership theory of animals and natural resources 194 compelled the Court to review and revise its mode of analysis of state restrictions that distinguished between residents and nonresidents 195 in respect to hunting and fishing and working with natural resources. A two-pronged test emerged. First, the Court held, it must be determined whether an activity in which a nonresident wishes to engage is within the protection of the clause. Such an activity must be “fundamental,” must, that is, be essential or basic, “interference with which would frustrate the purposes of the formation of the Union, . . .” Justice Washington’s opinion on Circuit in Coryell afforded the Court the standard; while recognizing that the opinion relied on notions of natural rights, the Court thought he used the term “fundamental” in the modern sense as well. Such activities as the pursuit of common callings within the state, the ownership and disposition of privately held property within the state, and the access to the courts of the state, had been recognized in previous cases as fundamental and protected against unreasonable burdening; but sport and recreational hunting, the issue in the particular case, was not a fundamental activity. It had nothing to do with one’s livelihood and implicated no other interest recognized as fundamental. 196 Subsequent cases have recognized that the right to practice law 197 and the right to seek employment on public contracts 198 are to be considered fundamental activity. Contrariwise, accessing public records through a state freedom of information act was held not to be a fundamental activity, and a state may limit such access to its own citizens. 199

Second, finding a fundamental interest protected under the clause, in the particular case the right to pursue an occupation or common calling, the Court used a two-pronged analysis to determine whether the state’s distinction between residents and nonresidents was justified. Thus, the state was compelled to show that nonresidents constituted a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute was aimed and that the discrimination bore a substantial relationship to the particular “evil” they are said to represent, e. g. , that it is “closely tailored” to meet the actual problem. An Alaska statute giving residents preference over nonresidents in hiring for work on the oil and gas pipelines within the state failed both elements of the test. 200 No state justification for exclusion of new residents from the practice of law on grounds not applied to long-term residents has been approved by the Court. 201

Universal practice has also established a political exception to the clause to which the Court has given its approval. “A State may, by rule uniform in its operation as to citizens of the several States, require residence within its limits for a given time before a citizen of another State who becomes a resident thereof shall exercise the right of suffrage or become eligible to office.” 202

Not only has judicial construction of the comity clause excluded certain privileges of a public nature from its protection, but the courts also have established the proposition that the purely private and personal rights to which the clause admittedly extends are not in all cases beyond the reach of state legislation which differentiates citizens and noncitizens. Broadly speaking, these rights are held subject to the reasonable exercise by a state of its police power, and the Court has recognized that there are cases in which discrimination against nonresidents may be reasonably resorted to by a state in aid of its own public health, safety and welfare. To that end a state may reserve the right to sell insurance to persons who have resided within the state for a prescribed period of time. 203 It may require a nonresident who does business within the state 204 or who uses the highways of the state 205 to consent, expressly or by implication, to service of process on an agent within the state. Without violating this section, a state may limit the dower rights of a nonresident to lands of which the husband died seized while giving a resident dower in all lands held during the marriage, 206 or may leave the rights of nonresident married persons in respect of property within the state to be governed by the laws of their domicile, rather than by the laws it promulgates for its own residents. 207 But a state may not give a preference to resident creditors in the administration of the property of an insolvent foreign corporation. 208 An act of the Confederate Government, enforced by a state, to sequester a debt owed by one of its residents to a citizen of another state was held to be a flagrant violation of this clause. 209

The right to sue and defend in the courts is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the same extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. 210 The constitutional requirement is satisfied if the nonresident is given access to the courts of the state upon terms that, in themselves, are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any rights he may have, even though they may not be technically the same as those accorded to resident citizens. 211 The Supreme Court upheld a state statute of limitations that prevented a nonresident from suing in the state’s courts after expiration of the time for suit in the place where the cause of action arose 212 and another such statute which that suspended its operation as to resident plaintiffs, but not as to nonresidents, during the period of the defendant’s absence from the state. 213 A state law making it discretionary with the courts to entertain an action by a nonresident of the state against a foreign corporation doing business in the state was sustained because it was applicable alike to citizens and noncitizens residing out of the state. 214 A statute permitting a suit in the courts of the state for wrongful death occurring outside the state, only if the decedent was a resident of the state, was sustained, because it operated equally upon representatives of the deceased whether citizens or noncitizens. 215 Being patently nondiscriminatory, a Uniform Reciprocal State Law to secure the attendance of witnesses from within or without a state in criminal proceedings, whereunder an Illinois resident, while temporarily in Florida, was summoned to appear at a hearing for determination as to whether he should be surrendered to a New York officer for testimony in the latter state, does not violate this clause. 216

In the exercise of its taxing power, a state may not discriminate substantially between residents and nonresidents. In Ward v. Maryland , 217 the Court set aside a state law that imposed specific taxes upon nonresidents for the privilege of selling within the state goods that were produced in other states. Also found to be incompatible with the comity clause was a Tennessee license tax, the amount of which was dependent upon whether the person taxed had his chief office within or without the state. 218 In Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. , 219 the Court, although sustaining the right of a state to tax income accruing within its borders to nonresidents, 220 held the particular tax void because it denied to nonresidents exemptions which were allowed to residents. The “terms ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’ are not synonymous,” wrote Justice Pitney, “. . . but a general taxing scheme . . . if it discriminates against all non-residents, has the necessary effect of including in the discrimination those who are citizens of other States . . . .” 221 Where there were no discriminations between citizens and noncitizens, a state statute taxing the business of hiring persons within the state for labor outside the state was sustained. 222

The Court returned to the privileges-and-immunities restrictions upon disparate state taxation of residents and nonresidents in Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal . 223 In this case, the state denied nonresidents any deduction from taxable income for alimony payments, although it permitted residents to deduct such payments. Although it observed that approximate equality between residents and nonresidents was required by the clause, the Court acknowledged that precise equality was neither necessary nor in most instances possible. But it was required of the challenged state that it demonstrate a “substantial reason” for the disparity, and the discrimination must bear a “substantial relationship” to that reason. 224 A state, under this analysis, may not deny nonresidents a general tax exemption provided to residents that would reduce their tax burdens, but it could limit specific expense deductions based on some relationship between the expenses and their in-state property or income. Here, the state flatly denied the exemption. Moreover, the Court rejected various arguments that had been presented, finding that most of those arguments, while they might support targeted denials or partial denials, simply reiterated the state’s contention that it need not afford any exemptions at all. This section of the Constitution does not prevent a territorial government, exercising powers delegated by Congress, from imposing a discriminatory license tax on nonresident fishermen operating within its waters. 225

However, what at first glance may appear to be a discrimination may turn out not to be when the entire system of taxation prevailing in the enacting state is considered. On the basis of overall fairness, the Court sustained a Connecticut statute that required nonresident stockholders to pay a state tax measured by the full market value of their stock while resident stockholders were subject to local taxation on the market value of that stock reduced by the value of the real estate owned by the corporation. 226 Occasional or accidental inequality to a nonresident taxpayer is not sufficient to defeat a scheme of taxation whose operation is generally equitable. 227 In an early case the Court brushed aside as frivolous the contention that a state violated this clause by subjecting one of its own citizens to a property tax on a debt due from a nonresident secured by real estate situated where the debtor resided. 228

152 Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 395 (1948).

153 The Federalist, No. 42 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 285–286 (Madison).

154 1 F. Thorpe ed., The Federal and State Constitutions , H. Doc. No. 357, 59th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909), 10.

155 2 M. Farrand, The Records Of The Federal Convention Of 1787 173, 187, 443 (rev. ed. 1937).

156 “It may be esteemed the basis of the Union, that ‘the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.’ And if it be a just principle that every government ought to possess the means of executing its own provisions by its own authority, it will follow, that in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the national judiciary ought to preside in all cases in which one State or its citizens are opposed to another State or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary that its construction should be committed to that tribunal which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles on which its is founded.” The Federalist, No. 80 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 537–538 (Hamilton).

157 Slaughter-House Cases , 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 75 (1873).

158 Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).

159 60 U.S. at 518, 527–29.

160 Today, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment imposes equal protection standards on the Federal Government. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954); Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 168 (1964); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 641–42 (1969).

161 Campbell v. Morris, 3 H. & McH. 288 (Md. 1797); Murray v. McCarty, 2 Munf. 373 (Va. 1811); Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. Case. 507 (N.Y. 1812); Douglas v. Stephens, 1 Del. Ch. 465 (1821); Smith v. Moody, 26 Ind. 299 (1866).

162 6 Fed. Cas. 546, 550 (No. 3230) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823). (Justice Washington on circuit), quoted infra, “All Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States.” “At one time it was thought that this section recognized a group of rights which, according to the jurisprudence of the day, were classed as ‘natural rights’; and that the purpose of the section was to create rights of citizens of the United States by guaranteeing the citizens of every State the recognition of this group of rights by every other State. Such was the view of Justice Washington.” Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 511 (1939) (Justice Roberts for the Court). This view of the clause was asserted by Justices Field and Bradley, Slaughter House Cases , 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 97, 117–18 (1873) (dissenting opinions); Butchers’ Union Slaughter-House and Live-Stock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Co., 111 U.S. 746, 760 (1884) (Justice Field concurring), but see infra , and was possibly understood so by Chief Justice Taney. Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 423 (1857). See also id. at 580 (Justice Curtis dissenting). The natural rights concept of privileges and immunities was strongly held by abolitionists and their congressional allies who drafted the similar clause into 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Graham, Our ‘Declaratory’ Fourteenth Amendment , reprinted in H. Graham, Everyman’sconstitution : Historical Essays On The Fourteenth Amendment,the Conspiracy Theory,and American Constitutionalism 295 (1968).

163 McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 687 (1894); see also cases cited infra.

164 City of Detroit v. Osborne, 135 U.S. 492 (1890).

165 Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, 180 (1869) (Justice Field for the Court; but see supra); see also Slaughter House Cases , 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 77 (1873); Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142 (1907); Whitfield v. Ohio, 297 U.S. 431 (1936).

166 Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, 436 U.S. 371, 383 (1978). See also Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 660–65 (1975) (clause “implicates not only the individual’s right to nondiscriminatory treatment but also, perhaps more so, the structural balance essential to the concept of federalism.” Id. at 662); Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 523–24 (1978).

167 Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 281–82 (1985). See also Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 200 (1973) (discrimination against out-of-state residents seeking medical care violates clause).

168 Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 246 (1898); Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60 (1920).

169 Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130, 138 (1873); Cove v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107 (1890). But see Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 71 (1982) (Justice O’Connor concurring).

170 United Building & Constr. Trades Council v. Mayor of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984).

171 465 U.S. at 217. The holding illustrates what the Court has referred to as the “mutually reinforcing relationship” between the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 280 n.8 (1985) (quoting Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 531 (1978)). See , e.g. , Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 424 U.S. 366 (1976) (city protectionist ordinance that disadvantages both out-of-state producers and some in-state producers violates the Commerce Clause).

172 “[A]bsence of an express statement . . . identifying out-of-state citizenship as a basis for disparate treatment is not a sufficient basis for rejecting [a] claim.” Hillside Dairy, Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59, 67 (2003).

173 United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 643 (1883). See also Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (1887).

174 United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920).

175 Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).

176 60 U.S. at 403–11.

177 60 U.S. at 572–90.

178 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519 (1839).

179 38 U.S. at 586.

180 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869).

181 75 U.S. at 181.

182 Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47 (1891).

183 Hemphill v. Orloff, 277 U.S. 537 (1928).

184 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (No. 3,230) (C.C.E.D. Pa., 1823).

185 6 Fed. Cas. at 551–52.

186 6 Fed. Cas. at 552.

187 6 Fed. Cas. at 552.

188 6 Fed. Cas. at 552.

189 94 U.S. 391 (1877).

190 161 U.S. 519 (1896).

191 209 U.S. 349 (1908).

192 334 U.S. 385 (1948).

193 334 U.S. at 403. In Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415 (1952), an Alaska statute providing for the licensing of commercial fishermen in territorial waters and levying a license fee of $50.00 on nonresident and only $5.00 on resident fishermen was held void under Art. IV, § 2 on the authority of Toomer v. Witsell.

194 The cases arose in the Commerce Clause context. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265, 284 (1977) (dictum). Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896), was overruled in Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979); Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908), was overruled in Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982).

195 Although the clause specifically refers to “citizens,” the Court treats the terms “citizens” and “residents” as “essentially interchangeable.” Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 662 n.8 (1975); Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 524 n.8 (1978).

196 Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, 436 U.S. 371, 387 (1978).

197 Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985).

198 United Building & Constr. Trades Council v. Mayor of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984).

199 McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. ___, No. 12–17, slip op. at 4 (2013). The Court further found that any incidental burden on a nonresident’s ability to earn a living, own property, or exercise another “fundamental” activity could largely be ameliorated by using other available authorities. The Court emphasized that the primary purpose of the state freedom of information act was to provide state citizens with a means to obtain an accounting of their public officials.

200 Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978). Activity relating to pursuit of an occupation or common calling the Court recognized had long been held to be protected by the clause. The burden of showing constitutional justification was clearly placed on the state, id. at 526–28, rather than giving the statute the ordinary presumption of constitutionality. See Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415, 418 (1952).

201 Barnard v. Thorstenn, 489 U.S. 546 (1989); Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988); Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985). For the application of this test, see Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 296–99 (1998).

202 Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 256 (1898). Of course as to suffrage, see Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972), but not as to candidacy, the principle is now qualified under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, 436 U.S. 371, 383 (1978) (citing Kanapaux v. Ellisor, 419 U.S. 891 (1974); Chimento v. Stark, 353 F. Supp. 1211 (D.N.H.), aff’d , 414 U.S. 802 (1973)).

203 La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465 (1919).

204 Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U.S. 623 (1935).

205 Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 356 (1927).

206 Ferry v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry., 258 U.S. 314 (1922), followed in Ferry v. Corbett, 258 U.S. 609 (1922).

207 Conner v. Elliott, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 591, 593 (1856).

208 Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 248 (1898).

209 Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 184 (1878).

210 Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907); McKnett v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry., 292 U.S. 230, 233 (1934).

211 Canadian Northern Ry. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553 (1920).

212 252 U.S. at 563.

213 Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U.S. 72, 76 (1876).

214 Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R., 279 U.S. 377 (1929).

215 Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142 (1907).

216 New York v. O’Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959). Justices Douglas and Black dissented.

217 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 418, 424 (1871). See also Downham v. Alexandria Council, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 173, 175 (1870).

218 Chalker v. Birmingham & N.W. Ry., 249 U.S. 522 (1919).

219 252 U.S. 60 (1920).

220 252 U.S. at 62–64. See also Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920). In Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656 (1975), the Court held void a state commuter income tax, inasmuch as the State imposed no income tax on its own residents and thus the tax fell exclusively on nonresidents’ income and was not offset even approximately by other taxes imposed upon residents alone.

221 252 U.S. 60, 78–79 (1920).

222 Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 (1900).

223 522 U.S. 287 (1998).

224 522 U.S. at 298.

225 Haavik v. Alaska Packers Ass’n, 263 U.S. 510 (1924).

226 Travellers’ Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U.S. 364, 371 (1902).

227 Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U.S. 525 (1919).

228 Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 499 (1879). Cf. Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935), in which discriminatory taxation of bank deposits outside the state owned by a citizen of the state was held to infringe a privilege of national citizenship, in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. Colgate v. Harvey was overruled by Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 93 (1940).

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

  • Bankruptcy Lawyers
  • Business Lawyers
  • Criminal Lawyers
  • Employment Lawyers
  • Estate Planning Lawyers
  • Family Lawyers
  • Personal Injury Lawyers
  • Estate Planning
  • Personal Injury
  • Business Formation
  • Business Operations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Trade
  • Real Estate
  • Financial Aid
  • Course Outlines
  • Law Journals
  • US Constitution
  • Regulations
  • Supreme Court
  • Circuit Courts
  • District Courts
  • Dockets & Filings
  • State Constitutions
  • State Codes
  • State Case Law
  • Legal Dictionary
  • Legal Blogs
  • Business Forms
  • Product Recalls
  • Justia Connect Membership
  • Justia Premium Placements
  • Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
  • Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
  • Testimonials

What Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution Means

How States Get Along With Each Other and the Federal Government's Role

  • U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
  • History & Major Milestones
  • U.S. Legal System
  • U.S. Political System
  • Defense & Security
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Business & Finance
  • U.S. Foreign Policy
  • U.S. Liberal Politics
  • U.S. Conservative Politics
  • Women's Issues
  • Civil Liberties
  • The Middle East
  • Race Relations
  • Immigration
  • Crime & Punishment
  • Canadian Government
  • Understanding Types of Government

an article 4 free inhabitant

Article IV of the U.S. Constitution is a relatively uncontroversial section that establishes the relationship between states and their disparate laws. It also details the mechanism by which new states are permitted to enter the nation and the federal government's obligation to maintain law and order in the event of an "invasion" or other breakdown of a peaceful union.

There are four subsections to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which was signed in convention on Sept. 17, 1787, and ratified by the states on June 21, 1788. 

Subsection I: Full Faith and Credit

Summary: This subsection establishes that states are required to recognize the laws passed by other states and accept certain records such as drivers' licenses. It also requires states to enforce the rights of citizens from other states. 

"In early America — a time before copy machines, when nothing moved faster than a horse — courts rarely knew which handwritten document was actually another state’s statute, or which half-illegible wax seal actually belonged to some county court many weeks’ travel away. To avoid conflict, Article IV of the Articles of Confederation said that each state’s documents should get 'Full Faith and Credit' elsewhere," wrote Stephen E. Sachs, a Duke University Law School professor.

The section states:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Subsection II: Privileges and Immunities

This subsection requires that each state must treat citizens of any state equally. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel F. Miller in 1873 wrote that the sole purpose of this subsection was to "declare to the several States that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither more nor less, shall be the measure of the rights of citizens of other States within your jurisdiction."

The second statement requires states to which fugitives flee to return them to the state demanding custody.

The subsection states:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."

A portion of this section was made obsolete by the 13th Amendment, which abolished enslavement in the U.S.  The provision stricken from Section II prohibited free states from protecting enslaved people, described as persons "held to Service or Labour," who freed themselves from their enslavers. The obsolete provision directed those enslaved people to "be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Subsection III: New States

This subsection allows Congress to admit new states into the union . It also allows for the creation of a new state from parts of an existing state. "New states may be formed out of an existing state provided all parties consent: the new state, the existing state, and the Congress," wrote Cleveland-Marshall College of Law professor David F. Forte. "In that way, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maine, West Virginia, and arguably Vermont came into the Union."

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Subsection IV: Republican Form of Government

Summary: This subsection allows presidents to send federal law enforcement officials into states to maintain law and order. It also promises a republican form of government.

"The Founders believed that for government to be republican, political decisions had to be made by a majority (or in some cases, a plurality) of voting citizens. The citizenry might act either directly or through elected representatives. Either way, republican government was government accountable to the citizenry," wrote Robert G. Natelson, a senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence for the Independence Institute.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
  • The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics Guide to the U.S. Constitution
  • National Constitution Center
  • The Heritage Foundation Guide to the Constitution
  • U.S. Government Publishing Office
  • Women's Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment
  • 14th Amendment Summary
  • Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
  • What Is Federalism? Definition and How It Works in the US
  • What Does the Constitution Say About Enslavement?
  • Who Were the Anti-Federalists?
  • What Is the "Necessary and Proper" Clause in the US Constitution?
  • Federalism and the United States Constitution
  • The Reconstruction Era (1865–1877)
  • The Original Bill of Rights Had 12 Amendments
  • National Supremacy and the Constitution as Law of the Land
  • The 10th Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
  • What Rights and Liberties Are Guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?
  • President James Buchanan and the Secession Crisis
  • Equal Rights Amendment
  • How to Amend the Constitution

Woman Argues Laws Don't Apply to Her Because She's a 'Free Inhabitant' — Watch How Well That Goes Over With Officer

Woman Argues Laws Don't Apply to Her Because She's a 'Free Inhabitant' — Watch How Well That Goes Over With Officer

"article 4, free inhabitant, pursuant to the articles in confederation, you can look it up. it’s in the united states book of codes.".

When a police officer ordered a female passenger to exit a vehicle following an arrest, she tried to to inform a police officer of her status as a “free inhabitant.” The woman apparently believed that she was not required to follow U.S. laws because she doesn’t identify as an American citizen — and it didn’t go over well.

A YouTube video, which was seemingly first uploaded in 2013 but was going viral on Wednesday, claims to shows how the defiant woman ended up in handcuffs and alleging “rape” after she refused to comply with the officer’s orders.

“Article 4, free inhabitant, pursuant to the Articles in Confederation, you can look it up. It’s in the United States book of codes,” the woman is heard on video lecturing the cop. “It’s your laws, you have to follow.”

The officer is seen on video calmly asking the woman to exit the vehicle so it can be towed following the arrest of the driver. He even told her she hadn't done anything wrong -- yet. She initially refused, but finally got out of the car and tried to leave.

“You’re not free to leave,” the officer is heard saying.

When the officer stopped her, the woman started screaming “rape.”

“This is rape!” she is heard shouting. The video shows the woman only getting more profane and indignant as the video goes on.

It’s unclear exactly where the video was recorded, but it’s unlikely her “free inhabitant” argument got her out of the arrest.

You can watch the video below (Warning: Very strong language):

We are trying to get more information on the altercation. This story may be updated with additional information.

(H/T: IJReview )

Want to leave a tip?

Jason Howerton

Jason Howerton

more stories

Man charged after using hidden cameras to watch dogsitter, other women: report, indiana school teacher found dead in school stairwell after he failed to show after relative came to pick him up, a dispute over trash between roommates led to threats before shooting in a colorado university dorm room, sign up for the blaze newsletter, get the stories that matter most delivered directly to your inbox..

an article 4 free inhabitant

Articles of Confederation

an article 4 free inhabitant

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union , created in 1777, was the first governing document of the United States of America . It established a perpetual " Union ", with rules on how to govern it. The Articles of Confederation were replaced in the late 1780s by the United States Constitution , which is still in use today.

  • 1.1 Article III
  • 1.2 Article IV
  • 1.3 Article V
  • 1.4 Article XI
  • 4 External links

Quotes from the Articles [ edit ]

Article iii [ edit ].

  • Article III .

Article IV [ edit ]

  • Article IV .

Article V [ edit ]

  • Article V .

Article XI [ edit ]

  • Article XI .

Quotes about the Articles [ edit ]

B – G – L – S – U – W

  • Randolph Bourne , ¶13 of §II of " The State " (1918).  Published under "The Development of the American State," The State (Tucson, Arizona: See Sharp Press, 1998), pp. 33–34
  • James A. Garfield , oration delivered at Ravenna (4 July 1865), Ohio
  • Abraham Lincoln , first inaugural address (4 March 1861)
  • Christopher Shelley, "Chat-Room" (7 April 2014), Crossroads
  • United States Supreme Court, Texas v. White (1869), 74 U.S. 700
  • Thomas West , Vindicating the Founders (2001), p. 27

See also [ edit ]

  • Constitution of the United States of America

External links [ edit ]

  • Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union

an article 4 free inhabitant

  • Historical documents
  • United States law

Navigation menu

  • ABOUT ME, Contact
  • INDEX, WORD SEARCH TOOL
  • Services/Products/PayPal
  • Testimonials

Why a “Free Inhabitant” License Meets State Standards.

California  VEHICLE CODE   SECTION 12500-12527

[[ All comments in [[ brackets ]] are comments made by Paul John Hansen.  ]]

12505.  (a) (1) For purposes of this division only and

notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a

person’s state of domicile. “State of domicile” means the state where

a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and

principal residence and to which he or she has manifested the

intention of returning whenever he or she is absent.

Prima facie evidence of residency for driver’s licensing purposes

includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(A) Address where registered to vote .  [[ I am not a registered voter.]]

(B) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher

(C) Filing a homeowner’s property tax exemption .

(D) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in

the state is more than temporary or transient.  [[ I do not remain on US property but only to pass. ]]

(2) California residency is required of a person in order to be

issued a commercial driver’s license under this code.

(b) The presumption of residency in this state may be rebutted by

satisfactory evidence that the licensee’s primary residence is in

another state .  [[ My Kingdom of Heaven license is that evidence they chose to see . ]]

(c) Any person entitled to an exemption under Section 12502,

12503, or 12504 may operate a motor vehicle in this state for not to

exceed 10 days from the date he or she establishes residence in this

state, except that he or she shall obtain a license from the

department upon becoming a resident before being employed for

compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on

the highways.

(d) If the State ofCaliforniais decertified by the federal

government and prohibited from issuing an initial, renewal, or

upgraded commercial driver’s license pursuant to Section 384.405 of

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the following applies:

(1) An existing commercial driver’s license issued pursuant to

this code prior to the date that the state is notified of its

decertification shall remain valid until its expiration date.

(2) A person who is a resident of this state may obtain a

nonresident commercial driver’s license from any state that elects to

issue a nonresident commercial driver’s license and that complies

with the testing and licensing standards contained in subparts F, G,

and H of Part 383 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(3) For the purposes of this subdivision, a nonresident commercial

driver’s license is a commercial driver’s license issued by a state

to an individual domiciled in a foreign country or in another state .

(e) Subject to Section 12504, a person over the age of 16 years

who is a resident of a foreign jurisdiction other than a state,

territory, or possession of theUnited States, the District of

Columbia, theCommonwealthofPuerto Rico, orCanada, having a valid

driver’s license issued to him or her by any other foreign

jurisdiction having licensing standards deemed by the Department of

Motor Vehicles equivalent to those of this state, may operate a motor

vehicle in this state without obtaining a license from the

department, except that he or she shall obtain a license before being

employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a

motor vehicle on the highways.

[[ I being an Article 4 “free inhabitant pursuant to the Articles of Confederation am “foreign”, or of a “different” state (jurisdiction) than that of the United States .  My jurisdiction is of Church of Jesus Christ , which the US fully acknowledges. ]]

(f) Any person from a foreign country , except a territory or

possession of theUnited States, theCommonwealthofPuerto Rico, or

Canada, shall obtain a class A or a class B license from the

department before operating on the highways a motor vehicle for which

a class A or class B [[ see below * ]] license is required, as described in Section

12804.9. The medical examination form required for issuance of a

class A or class B driver’s license shall be completed by a health

care professional, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of

Section 12804.9, who is licensed, certified, or registered to perform

physical examinations in theUnited States of America. This

subdivision does not apply to (1) drivers of schoolbuses operated in

Californiaon a trip for educational purposes or (2) drivers of

vehicles used to provide the services of a local public agency.

(g) This section does not authorize the employment of a person in

violation of Section 12515.

(h) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.

[[ Class A or B is not an issue for me because I do not operate in any location commercially, or as a resident. ]]

>>>

(1) Class A includes the following:

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (H) of paragraph (3), a combination of vehicles, if a vehicle being towed has a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds.

(B) A vehicle towing more than one vehicle.

(C) A trailer bus.

(D) The operation of all vehicles under class B and class C.

(2) Class B includes the following:

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (H) of paragraph (3), a single vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds.

(B) A single vehicle with three or more axles, except any three-axle vehicle weighing less than 6,000 pounds.

(C) A bus except a trailer bus.

(D) A farm labor vehicle.

(E) A single vehicle with three or more axles or a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds towing another vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

(F) A house car over 40 feet in length, excluding safety devices and safety bumpers.

(G) The operation of all vehicles covered under class C.

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System. Done in free inhabitant.info, need done in pauljjhansen.com.

About Paul John Hansen

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

  • Search for:

Recent Posts

  • Counsel Time Appointments, Step by Step After Payment
  • Trial by Jury, Fed Rule 38
  • 4340 IRS Assessment
  • Robert Fox makes his own passport / I.D., and wins his Federal Case.
  • Verification, Wet-Ink Notes

Recent Comments

  • Perry Lindsey on Chad Peterson, Chad Michaels, aka, Excommunication, Christ Community Church, http://gameomaha.com, Omaha, Nebraska
  • Craig David on Jurybegone Formula, + Free Inhabitant Court
  • julio suriel on Common Law, How to Implement this Court of Record.
  • Rajah Davis on Bank must lend deposits, not credit.
  • Perry Lindsey on Chad Peterson, Great Adventure Ministries, Omaha, Diagnosed?? gameomaha.com Great Adventures Ministries
  • December 2023
  • November 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • August 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • August 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • -The REST of the Story
  • 13th Amendment USA Const.
  • 4th Amendment
  • 6th Amendment Counsel
  • Abortion Issues
  • Address / Residence
  • Administrators v. Judges
  • Allegiance / Pledge
  • Appeal Briefs / Criminal
  • Arbitration
  • Arbitration Service
  • Archived talk-shows
  • Arraignments / Jurisdiction
  • Arrested Again
  • Article 3 Court
  • Assessor Property Tax
  • Attorney / Deception
  • Audio Archives
  • Auto Registration
  • Bank / Credit Cards
  • Bank / Promissory Note
  • Banking/Money Issues
  • Bar Association
  • Big Brother
  • Birth Certificate
  • Business Counseling
  • CASE LAW / PLUS
  • Cell Phone Service for only $3.00.
  • Charter/County
  • Child Support
  • Christ Community Church
  • Christ Community Church / Omaha
  • Christian Terrorist
  • Citizen Natural Born
  • Common Law Jury
  • Commonwealth
  • CONSTITUTIONAL
  • Constitutions
  • Corporation or Confederacy
  • Corrupt Judges
  • Counsel / Right to
  • Counseling Fees
  • County / Jurisdiction
  • Court of Claims
  • Court of Record
  • Credit Card
  • Definitions Used
  • Demolitions to Hansen's Property
  • Domistic Violence
  • Doug Sanford
  • Doug Sanford / Jim Sanford
  • Dr. ED RIVERA
  • DRAFT / MILITARY
  • Due Process
  • email proof
  • Eminent Domain
  • Evictions / Made Easy / $35.00
  • Excommunication
  • False Arrest
  • Federal Reserve #1
  • Filing without cost / Pauper
  • Firearms Defined
  • Foreclosure
  • Foreign Agent
  • Foreign judgment
  • Funny Clips
  • Glenn Stoll
  • Grand Jury Confirmation / Proof
  • Gun / Rights / Law
  • Hansen / Debates / Interviews
  • Hansen Arrested Again
  • Hansen's
  • Health / Foods
  • History / Time-Line
  • History / USA Constitution
  • Homeland Security
  • Identification / Private
  • Illuminati / CFR
  • Immigration
  • Indictment Dismissal
  • Information Services Briefs Available
  • Interstate Commerce
  • INTRODUCTION PAGE / INDEX
  • IRS / Assessment / 6203
  • IRS / TAX COURT / NO
  • IRS 6203 Demand
  • Islamization
  • Jail Times Hansen's
  • Judges Disqualification
  • Judgment Collection
  • Judicial / Tyranny
  • Judicial Activism
  • Judicial Notice
  • Jurisdiction
  • Jurisdiction / Arraignments
  • Jurisdiction / General / Travel Right
  • Jurisdiction / Personal / Subject Matter
  • Jurisdiction / Territorial
  • Jurisdiction Consent by Service
  • Jury duty Objection
  • Jury Nullification
  • Kent CSE Misistry
  • Land Patent
  • Law / Legislator
  • Lawyer v. Attorney
  • Lectures / Hansen's
  • Liberties / Rights / Freedom / Law
  • License / Kingdom of Heaven
  • License Drivers
  • License Practice Law
  • License v. Right
  • Lien / Common Law
  • Map / Federal / USA / OWNED
  • Marriage / License
  • Marriage Counseling
  • Motor Vehicle Defined
  • Municipalities
  • Naturalization
  • Negative Averements
  • Non-Commercial
  • OMB numbers IRS
  • Parental Rights
  • Password protected
  • Password Storage
  • Paul Severe
  • pharmaceuticals
  • Possessions
  • practicing law without a license
  • Prison Updates
  • Probable Cause
  • Procedure / Rules of Court
  • Questions and Answers
  • Recording Publicly
  • Recreational
  • Red Light Cameras
  • Registration
  • Relational Counseling
  • Republic / True / Dejur
  • REST OF THE STORY
  • Restraining Orders
  • Right To Travel, Automobil v. Motor-Vehicle
  • RV Travel Plate
  • S.S. Number Disclosure Law
  • Self Representation
  • self-assessment
  • Social Security / Disclosure Law Limited
  • SODOMITE / HOMO / GAY / SIN
  • Solicitors Scam
  • Sovereign Authority
  • sovereignty
  • Special Appearance
  • SSN / Social Security Number / Stop
  • Stat at Large
  • State / "in this state" / "this state"
  • State Defined
  • State Income Tax
  • Statutory Construction / PERSON
  • Talk Show Paul Severe
  • Tax / Income / State
  • Taxes / Property
  • Taxes / Sales / State
  • Territorial
  • Time-Line / History
  • Travel / A Right / MSO
  • TRESORIT DROPBOX
  • Trespass v. Trespassing
  • Trial by Jury v. Jury Trial
  • Trust / Church
  • UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF L AW
  • Uncategorized
  • United States
  • United States is Legaly Bankrupt
  • United States notes
  • USA the Tyrant?
  • Vacate Court Orders
  • Verification
  • Voting / Registered
  • Welfare Scams
  • Who's Who in the Freedom Movement
  • Wisdom / Old Sayings / Quotes
  • Witness Coaching
  • www. Activity on my Site.
  • Zip Code / Good or Bad?
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

an article 4 free inhabitant

  • Privacy Policy
  • Entertainment

What are Free Inhabitants in the United States? Do they have any legitimate claims?

'  data-srcset=

Article 4 free inhabitants is a reference to the articles of confederation, which is an agreement between the states that predates the constitution. The articles of confederation are fairly brief and it starts with a preamble that states that the states are agreeing to a set of rules to govern the union of those states.

Free Inhabitants

This means that only people from the 13 original colonies would get to call themselves article 4 free inhabitants. However, most people feel that the current constitution overrides the articles of confederation and should therefore not apply.

Articles on Free Inhabitants in the United States

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America.”

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States, and the people of each State shall have free ingress and egress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

Since the article says fee inhabitants shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states, it means you cannot put restrictions on citizens of other states. Also, a state cannot write rules to favor its citizens to the exclusion of citizens in other states of the USA.

Article 4 of the articles of confederation sees an agreement on some rules for dealing with people from other states but no definitive class of people as being free inhabitants with all the rights and protections of a citizen but no obligations. Nothing is establishing the right to travel and you cannot be restrictive of people from other states. So if one requires a driver’s license in that particular state, then everyone driving in that state will need one. The articles of confederation are fairly brief and it starts with a preamble that states that the states are agreeing to a set of rules to govern the union of those states.  

In conclusion, article 4 free inhabitant does not hold any particular meaning and just happens to be a term used in Article 4.

Also, Read- HOME DEPOT TRUCK RENTAL: IS THIS THE BEST IN THE MARKET?

Recommended For You

McNair legal consequences

Who is Richard Lee McNair? The Elusive Escapist and Convicted Murderer

Joseph Nocito legal case

Everything You Need to Know About Joseph Nocito

Celebrity divorces

Ariana Grande and Dalton Gomez File for Divorce After 2 Years of Marriage

Wearable technology

Exploring the E-textiles Market Landscape from 2023 to 2029

'  data-srcset=

About the Author: Andrew

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Answer to all Questions

What Is An Article 4 Free Inhabitant

' src=

Most people have never heard of an “article 4 free inhabitant” and if they have they probably don’t know what it means. An article 4 free inhabitant is someone who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government. These people are not citizens of the United States and they are not subject to its laws.

The term “article 4 free inhabitant” comes from the text of the Constitution itself. Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 states:“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States or of any particular State.”This clause gives Congress the power to make rules and regulations about federally owned property but it also says that nothing in the Constitution can be used to prejudice the claims of the United States or any state.

So if the Constitution doesn’t say anything about free inhabitants then they must not be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.There are a few Supreme Court cases that have addressed the issue of free inhabitants but the most famous is probably Dred Scott v. Sandford.

In that case the Supreme Court held that African Americans were not free inhabitants because they were not citizens of the United States.Interestingly the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of whether or not white people can be free inhabitants. However in 1873 the Court did say that Native Americans were not free inhabitants.

In the case of United States v. Kagama the Court held that the federal government had the power to regulate Native Americans because they were not free inhabitants.So what does it mean to be a free inhabitant? It means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.

You are not a citizen of the United States and you are not subject to its laws.

What is an article 4 free inhabitant?

A free inhabitant is someone who is not a slave is not indentured and is not under the jurisdiction of a foreign power.

Related posts:

  • How To Get Flies Out Of Your Car
  • How To Keep A Dog From Smelling Weed
  • What Is The Difference Between Callaway Mavrik And Mavrik Max Driver
  • How Many Horsepowers Are In A 150Cc Bike Engine

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter an answer in digits: five × 4 =

Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible

Privileges and immunity clause: historical background.

  • U.S. Constitution Annotated

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

“The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located . . . was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent sovereign States.” 1 Footnote Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 395 (1948) . Precedent for this clause was a much wordier and a somewhat unclear 2 Footnote The Federalist No. 42 , at 285–86 (James Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961) . clause of the Articles of Confederation. “The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively . . . .” 3 Footnote 1 F. Thorpe ed., The Federal and State Constitutions , H. Doc. No. 357 , 59th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909), 10 . In the Convention, the present clause was presented, reported by the Committee on Detail, and adopted all in the language ultimately approved. 4 Footnote 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 , at 173, 187, 443 (Max Farrand ed., 1937) . Little commentary was addressed to it, 5 Footnote “It may be esteemed the basis of the Union, that ‘the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.’ And if it be a just principle that every government ought to possess the means of executing its own provisions by its own authority, it will follow, that in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the national judiciary ought to preside in all cases in which one State or its citizens are opposed to another State or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary that its construction should be committed to that tribunal which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles on which its is founded.” The Federalist No. 80 , at 537–38 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961) . and we may assume with Justice Miller that “[t]here can be but little question that the purpose of both these provisions is the same, and that the privileges and immunities intended are the same in each. In the Articles of Confederation we have some of these specifically mentioned, and enough perhaps to give some general idea of the class of civil rights meant by the phrase.” 6 Footnote Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 75 (1873) .

back

The following state regulations pages link to this page.

Israel mulls hostage deal as Netanyahu plans ‘action’ in Rafah

Israel’s war cabinet met late Saturday to discuss the framework of a potential new deal to free hostages still held in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, as protesters eager for an agreement ramped up pressure on their leaders, rallying in Jerusalem and clashing with police in central Tel Aviv.

The meeting comes as officials reported some progress in hostage talks held Friday in Paris, where Egypt, Israel, the United States and Qatar, which serves as a Hamas intermediary, met to lay the groundwork for a possible deal.

Depending on the details, the agreement could bring some respite for Gaza, where Israel’s punishing campaign has killed tens of thousands and brought much of the population to the brink of famine. As part of the broader negotiations, Hamas has proposed freeing some hostages in exchange for an extended pause in the fighting and large-scale aid deliveries to civilians.

Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups took more than 250 people hostage when they attacked southern Israel on Oct. 7. Israel says 134 hostages are still being held, including at least 30 who were either killed on the day of the attack or later died in captivity.

But even as Netanyahu signaled that the talks might move forward, he also doubled down on the military operation to eliminate Hamas, saying in a statement that “only a combination of military pressure and firm negotiations will lead to the release of our hostages.”

He said he would convene the war cabinet again early next week to seek approval for “operational plans for action” in Rafah, the city in southern Gaza that is now hosting the majority of the population, many of them in tent camps.

Netanyahu said that the plans would include the “evacuation of the civilian population” from Rafah, but the United Nations and international aid agencies have warned that there is nowhere for them to go.

The Biden administration has also discouraged Israel from targeting Rafah without first taking measures to protect civilians. Rafah sits on the border with Egypt, but Cairo has said it will not allow Israel to push the Palestinian population into Egyptian territory.

Israel’s military has already launched some military operations in Rafah, including deadly airstrikes and a raid earlier this month to free two hostages who were held there.

A group of four Democratic senators cited the pending operation in Rafah, as well as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza more generally, in a letter Friday urging the administration to ensure that future U.S. military aid to Israel would not “make an already catastrophic situation even worse.”

The letter came as more than two dozen U.N. rights experts urged countries to halt the export to Israel of arms that would be used in Gaza, saying such transfers of weapons and ammunition could violate international humanitarian law.

In a statement, the experts — who are part of the “special procedures,” a body of independent experts in the U.N. Human Rights Council — said the need for an “arms embargo on Israel is heightened by the International Court of Justice’s [preliminary] ruling on 26 January 2024 that there is a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and the continuing serious harm to civilians since then.”

Francesca Albanese, U.N. special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory and one of the signatories to the statement, said on social media that sending weapons to Israel that may be used in Gaza “may amount to complicity in atrocity crimes.”

Israel has rejected the allegations of genocide brought by South Africa at the ICJ, the U.N.’s top court, while the Biden administration dismissed the filing as “meritless.”

The ICJ on Jan. 26 ordered Israel to prevent the possibility of genocide, allow more aid into Gaza and penalize officials and soldiers for comments that amount to incitement — and gave the country a month to submit a report outlining how it is implementing these orders.

Here’s what else to know

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a postwar plan that pushes for the country’s indefinite military control over Gaza. Under the proposal , Israel would maintain a security zone in northern Gaza and have a presence on the enclave’s southern border with Egypt. It also calls for Gaza’s “complete demilitarization.” The Palestinian Authority said Netanyahu’s plan was a bid to obstruct the creation of a Palestinian state.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken reversed the Trump administration’s position on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, saying they are “inconsistent with international law.” He said the Biden administration “maintains firm opposition to settlement expansion.” Netanyahu’s government this week announced plans to build thousands more settlement homes after a shooting attack in the West Bank.

Ambulance teams from the Palestine Red Crescent Society carried out a fourth mission to evacuate patients from Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis following an Israeli raid. Eighteen wounded patients were transferred to other medical facilities in Gaza, according to the Red Crescent . The World Health Organization said Friday that the “dismantling and degradation of the Nasser Medical Complex is a massive blow to Gaza’s health system.”

At least 29,606 people have been killed in Gaza and 69,737 injured since the war began, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry , which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Israel estimates that about 1,200 people were killed in Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack and says 237 soldiers have been killed since the start of its military operation in Gaza.

Niha Masih contributed to this report.

Israel-Gaza war

Israel-Gaza war: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a postwar plan for Gaza that pushes for indefinite military control over the Palestinian enclave. The U.S. opposition to an immediate cease-fire in Gaza came under repeated criticism during a two-day meeting of the chief diplomats of the world’s 20 largest economies.

Middle East conflict: Tensions in the region continue to rise. As Israeli troops aim to take control of the Gaza-Egypt border crossing, officials in Cairo warn that the move would undermine the 1979 peace treaty. Meanwhile, there’s a diplomatic scramble to avert full-scale war between Israel and Lebanon .

U.S. involvement: U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria killed dozens of Iranian-linked militants , according to Iraqi officials. The strikes were the first round of retaliatory action by the Biden administration for an attack in Jordan that killed three U.S. service members .

  • Netanyahu presents post-war Gaza security plan as Israel joins Paris talks February 23, 2024 Netanyahu presents post-war Gaza security plan as Israel joins Paris talks February 23, 2024
  • Netanyahu presents hard-line ‘day after’ vision for Gaza for the first time February 23, 2024 Netanyahu presents hard-line ‘day after’ vision for Gaza for the first time February 23, 2024
  • The American citizens fighting and dying for Israel in the Gaza war February 22, 2024 The American citizens fighting and dying for Israel in the Gaza war February 22, 2024

an article 4 free inhabitant

  • Election 2024
  • Entertainment
  • Newsletters
  • Photography
  • Press Releases
  • Israel-Hamas War
  • Russia-Ukraine War
  • Latin America
  • Middle East
  • Asia Pacific
  • AP Top 25 College Football Poll
  • Movie reviews
  • Book reviews
  • Financial Markets
  • Business Highlights
  • Financial wellness
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Social Media

Senators urge Biden to end duty-free treatment for packages valued at less than $800

FILE - A page from the Temu website is seen, June 23, 2023, in New York. Temu, the China-founded online retailer surging in popularity in the United States, is opening its platform to U.S. and European sellers, a Temu spokesperson confirmed Thursday, Jan. 25, 2024. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)

FILE - A page from the Temu website is seen, June 23, 2023, in New York. Temu, the China-founded online retailer surging in popularity in the United States, is opening its platform to U.S. and European sellers, a Temu spokesperson confirmed Thursday, Jan. 25, 2024. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)

  • Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two U.S. senators looking to crack down on the number of packages from China that enter the country duty-free are calling on President Joe Biden to take executive action, saying U.S. manufacturers can’t compete with low-cost competitors they say rely on forced labor and state subsidies in key sectors.

U.S. trade law allows packages bound for American consumers and valued below a certain threshold to enter tariff-free. That threshold, under a category known as “de minimis,” stands at $800 per person, per day. The majority of the imports are retail products purchased online.

Alarmed by the large increase in such shipments from China, lawmakers in both chambers have filed legislation to alter how the U.S. treats imports valued at less than $800. Now, Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rick Scott, R-Fla., have sent a letter to Biden calling on him to end the duty-free treatment altogether for those products.

“The situation has reached a tipping point where vast sections of American manufacturing and retail are at stake if de minimis is not immediately addressed,” the senators wrote.

This photo shows a sign of a newly built plant to be run by Japan Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (JASM), a subsidiary of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), in Kikuyo town, a suburb of Kumamoto, southwestern Japan, Saturday, Feb. 24, 2024. TSMC opened Saturday in an official ceremony its first semiconductor plant in Japan as part of its ongoing global expansion. JASM is set to be up and running later this year (Kyodo News via AP)

Brown and Scott singled out Temu, Shein and AliExpress in their letter as companies that “unfairly” benefit from the duty-free treatment of their goods. The surge in shipments, they said, hurts big box stores and other retailers in the U.S.

“This out-of-control problem impacts the safety and livelihoods of Americans, outsourcing not only our manufacturing, but also our retail sectors to China, which — as you know — systematically utilizes slave labor among other unconscionable practices to undermine our economy,” the senators said.

The White House referred questions to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter provided to The Associated Press.

Congress raised the threshold for expedited and duty-fee imports into the U.S. from $200 back in 2016. The argument for doing so is that it speeds up the pace of commerce and lowers costs for consumers. It also allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection to focus its resources on the bigger-ticket items that generate more tariff revenue for the federal government.

The change in duty-free treatment has led to a significant increase in “de minimis” shipments, from about 220 million packages that year to 685 million in fiscal year 2022.

The higher $800 threshold for duty-free treatment has strong backing from many in the business community. John Pickel, a senior director at the National Foreign Trade Council, a trade association that represents a broad range of companies, said that doing as the senators are urging would increase the amount of time it takes for shipments to arrive as they go through a more cumbersome inspection process at the border. And those products would cost more.

“The increase from $200 to $800 has not really been a significant driver in terms of volume,” Pickel said. “What’s really driving interest in the use of de minimis is the desire for consumers to access their products quickly and at a lower transaction cost.”

He said the average shipment that comes into the U.S. through the de minimis category is $55. But that cost would roughly double for the consumer if de minimis treatment no longer applied because importers would have to hire a customs broker and pay additional processing fees and the import duty.

A trade group representing the textile industry said it agreed with the need for the Biden administration to take executive action on duty-free packages.

“The impact on the U.S. textile industry has been devastating. The industry has closed 10 plants in the past four months, in part due to the unfettered flow of imports coming in through the de minimis loophole, which is undermining our industry and workforce,” said Kim Glas, president and CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations.

an article 4 free inhabitant

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba - To the Hashira Training Review

Demon slayer’s day in the sun.

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba - To the Hashira Training Review - IGN Image

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba - To the Hashira Training marks the wildly popular anime series ’ third cinematic outing. But while ufotable’s gorgeously animated interpretation of Koyoharu Gotouge’s manga deserves to be seen on the largest screen possible, To the Hashira Training continues an unfortunate trend started by its immediate predecessor, 2023’s To the Swordsmith Village: Unlike the first Demon Slayer movie, Mugen Train , this isn’t a standalone story but rather a compilation of two episodes from the TV show. It takes for granted that the audience is fully caught up on the high-octane adventures of Tanjiro Kamado, and despite all the visual splendor on display, this patchwork format makes for unfulfilling storytelling divorced from its larger context.

Pairing the finale of Demon Slayer’s third season with the premiere of its upcoming fourth, To the Hashira Training is just the very end of one story followed by the very beginning of another, related one. In many ways, it’s good, because it’s two episodes of Demon Slayer, and Demon Slayer is a good show. But being dropped into a climax, seeing its big emotional payoff unfold, and then watching 30 minutes of setup for the next chapter make for a bizarre filmgoing experience.

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba - To the Hashira Training Gallery

an article 4 free inhabitant

While we receive a very brief introduction to the other times Tanjiro has bested a demon, To the Hashira Training is decidedly not for newcomers to Demon Slayer. You won’t get an explanation of who the main characters are, what relationship they have to one another, what they’re doing, or why they’re doing it. While many movies based on anime series go far too hard in the opposite direction – wasting precious time to over-explain their basic tenets – To the Hashira Training assumes you’re here to watch the new episode early and on the big screen. Honestly, that’s a fair assumption, especially in Japan, where the film topped the box office during its opening weekend.

It’s also an assumption that’s immediately clear. After its brief intro, To the Hashira Training opens on a chase scene already in progress, because that’s where the season 3 finale begins, too. It doesn’t explain what happened in the story to get us here or remind us who’s involved. Even if it’s only been a few months since you watched the Swordsmith Village arc , it’s a good idea to brush up on what was happening before its conclusion. Fortunately, the episode’s Big Moment still hits hard – assuming you know the characters, of course.

Dozens of “yokatta!”s later, episode one of the Hashira Training arc arrives, exposition- and lore-heavy – though the adaptation smartly adds an incredible fight sequence with the Wind and Snake Hashiras. The scene is brilliantly choreographed and successfully endears us to two characters who, before now, have had very little screen time. It’s the obvious highlight of the episode, which contains plenty of delightful moments and intriguing revelations, but no more big showstoppers. It works excellently as a season premiere, but not quite as naturally as the second half of a movie. All of the action sequences in To the Hashira Training take place during the first 60% of the film.

Which Hashira are you most excited to see in the upcoming arc?

It’s tempting to recommend just waiting to watch the Hashira Training arc at home. But if you’re a big Demon Slayer fan or a lover of animation generally, the chance to catch ufotable’s stunning work on the big screen – or in IMAX, if you get so lucky – makes To the Hashira Training worth heading to the theater. Demon Slayer’s animation is often compared favorably to that of big-budget studio movies, so to watch a pair of episodes presented exactly like a big-budget studio movie feels not only natural, but like a genuine treat. The detail of the backgrounds, the dynamic ways in which the characters interact with their environment, and ufotable’s virtuosic blending of traditional and computer animation all feel extra potent when you’re able to take in every mossy, rusty shingle of a rooftop.

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba - To the Hashira Training works awkwardly as a movie, and it’s definitely not a good starting point for newcomers to the series. But for fans caught up on the anime, it’s worth a watch to see such stunning animation on the big screen. The first episode of the upcoming Hashira Training arc is solid, but works better as a season premiere than the second half of a movie.

Kirsten Carey Avatar Avatar

IGN Recommends

Final Fantasy VII Rebirth – PS5 Performance Review

IMAGES

  1. Uncut Free Inhabitant Article 4

    an article 4 free inhabitant

  2. Woman Claims Article 4 Free Inhabitant When She Was Pulled Over

    an article 4 free inhabitant

  3. Insane Sovereign Citizen "Article 4 Free Inhabitant" Loses It When Arrested

    an article 4 free inhabitant

  4. Sovereign Citizen in Court on Trial for No Valid Registration -- GUILTY

    an article 4 free inhabitant

  5. Is this the "Article 4 free Inhabitant" girl? Sounds just like her

    an article 4 free inhabitant

  6. Your Unalienable Right To Be A Free Inhabitant!

    an article 4 free inhabitant

VIDEO

  1. Galatic Grubs: E1_V5 (2024)

  2. (Pt.1) Enter The Matrix

  3. Akihabara in Tokyo Japan OtakuTown3 non-stop walking

  4. 【IoC】Bad End Chuckya World (C15) : 5 stars (Savestateless)

  5. Botany Manor Access-Ability Trailer

  6. Zac SB 10 2 23 adjZ

COMMENTS

  1. Follow up to free inhabitant girl? : r/amibeingdetained

    She gets arrested by only 1 cop. In this court video this person resists arrest from 4 cops. Xylie Eshleman knows full well her name has been attached to Article 4 Free Inhabitant girl. Xylie What a FUCKING LOSER going to my page to spread defamatory lies. That actually is NOT me.

  2. Privileges and Immunities Clause

    The clause is similar to a provision in the Articles of Confederation: "The free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States."

  3. Privileges and Immunities Clause

    Madison 's Federalist No. 42. Madison stated: " Those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State . . . ."

  4. Article IV, Section 2: Movement Of Persons Throughout the Union

    Our Constitution's Fourth Article is devoted to the relations between the states and the Union. Section 2 of that Article sets forth three Clauses, each of which concerns the movement of persons throughout the Union.

  5. U.S. Constitution

    Constitution of the United States Article IV Article IV Explained Section 1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

  6. Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1

    The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state...

  7. Article IV

    Read Interpretations of Article IV, Section 1. Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of ...

  8. Historical Background on Privileges and Immunities Clause

    The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State...

  9. Historical Background on Privileges and Immunities Clause

    "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each ...

  10. Interstate Comity :: Article IV. States' Relations :: US Constitution

    "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each Stat...

  11. Rights Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause

    The question at issue was the validity of a New Jersey statute that prohibited "any person who is not, at the time, an actual inhabitant and resident in this State" from raking or gathering "clams, oysters or shells" in any of the waters of the state, on board any vessel "not wholly owned by some person, inhabitant of and actually residing in ...

  12. Article 4 Free Inhabitant

    So, what is an article 4 free inhabitant? It's a reference to the articles of confederation, which is an agreement between the states that predates the constitution. There's a lot of things...

  13. Free Inhabitant v. State Citizen / US Citizen

    -I am a 'free inhabitant' pursuant to Article 4 of The Articles of Confederation. (Not a US citizen.) -I am subject to the Church jurisdiction, and a strong advocate of full ecclesiastical independence from the United States jurisdiction. -I believe in full support of the perpetual Union as found in the Articles of Confederation.

  14. Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution Text and Meaning

    Article IV of the U.S. Constitution is a relatively uncontroversial section that establishes the relationship between states and their disparate laws. It also details the mechanism by which new states are permitted to enter the nation and the federal government's obligation to maintain law and order in the event of an "invasion" or other breakdown of a peaceful union.

  15. Woman Argues Laws Don't Apply to Her Because She's a 'Free Inhabitant

    "Article 4, free inhabitant, pursuant to the Articles in Confederation, you can look it up. It's in the United States book of codes," the woman is heard on video lecturing the cop. "It's your laws, you have to follow." The officer is seen on video calmly asking the woman to exit the vehicle so it can be towed following the arrest of the driver.

  16. Articles of Confederation

    Articles of Confederation. The free inhabitants of each of these States... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

  17. ELI5: What exactly is a Free Inhabitant? : r/explainlikeimfive

    There's a modern movement of people called "sovereign citizens" who believe that they don't have to follow the laws of the United States because they never agreed to them and thus, can't be forced to follow them. It's a fringe movement that is in no way accepted by any reputable legal expert or scholar. 17njl01 • 8 yr. ago

  18. Why a "Free Inhabitant" License Meets State Standards

    SECTION 12500-12527. [ [ All comments in [ [ brackets ]] are comments made by Paul John Hansen. ]] 12505. (a) (1) For purposes of this division only and. notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a. person's state of domicile. "State of domicile" means the state where. a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent ...

  19. What are Free Inhabitants in the United States?

    Article 4 of the articles of confederation sees an agreement on some rules for dealing with people from other states but no definitive class of people as being free inhabitants with all the rights and protections of a citizen but no obligations. Nothing is establishing the right to travel and you cannot be restrictive of people from other states.

  20. You can't arrest me. I am an article 4 free inhabitant

    Yes the left wingers like to use Moorish American instead of an article 4 free inhabitant. If you go to r/Amibeingdetained you get both flavors of idiots. Reply reply ... A popular version says that the Articles of Confederation, the provisional government first set up after our revolution (that failed utterly and was replaced by the ...

  21. What Is An Article 4 Free Inhabitant

    An article 4 free inhabitant is someone who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government. These people are not citizens of the United States and they are not subject to its laws. The term "article 4 free inhabitant" comes from the text of the Constitution itself.

  22. Privileges and Immunity Clause: Historical Background

    Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. "The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located . . . was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent sovereign States." 1 Footnote Toomer v.

  23. Latest Israel-Hamas war news and Gaza conflict updates

    More than two dozen U.N. rights experts on Friday urged countries to halt the export to Israel of arms that would be used in Gaza, saying such transfers of weapons and ammunition could violate ...

  24. Senators urge Biden to end duty-free treatment for packages valued at

    The change in duty-free treatment has led to a significant increase in "de minimis" shipments, from about 220 million packages that year to 685 million in fiscal year 2022. The higher $800 threshold for duty-free treatment has strong backing from many in the business community. John Pickel, a senior director at the National Foreign Trade ...

  25. Insane Sovereign Citizen "Article 4 Free Inhabitant" Loses It When

    jub-jub-bird • 6 yr. ago. And even if it were used article 4 just says that if you're a free citizen of one state (not a slave or convict) you can travel to other states. And, that while you're in another state you have the same rights, and are subject to the same laws, as the native citizens of that state.

  26. Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba

    It's tempting to recommend just waiting to watch the Hashira Training arc at home. But if you're a big Demon Slayer fan or a lover of animation generally, the chance to catch ufotable's ...

  27. What Tee Higgins' Franchise Tag Means for Bengals' NFL Draft Plans

    The Bengals are currently slotted to pick 18th in the first round of the 2024 NFL Draft, and prior to Higgins' getting the tag, wide receiver has been a popular pick for Cincy in many early mock ...