Welcome to Unalienable Rights Foundation!

· Home
· AvantGo
· Content
· Downloads
· Members_List
· Stories_Archive
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web_Links

     What Are/Is

The Unalienable Rights Foundation

Inalienable Rights

Dillon Rule

Citizens Guide - Impeachment

     Random Headlines

Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
[ Virginia Regulatory Town Hall ]

·Virginia Marine Resources Commission April 24 / 2017 Meeting
·The GOP Virginia Assembly screwed you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
·Reasonable Accommodation Requests for Assistance Animals
·Virginia State Board of Education School & Division Accountability
·General Notice - Hollyfield II Solar LLC - Notice of Intent - Small Renewable En
·Commonwealth Transportation Board
·Department of Environmental Quality Small Renewable Energy Project Henrico Count
· Water Quality Certification of Norfolk District Army Corps of Engineers 2017 Na


What is a UARF Fellow 

     CNN LAW
·Court upholds limits on Navy sonar training
·Slain wife accuses husband from the grave
·Prosecutors drop parent-killing case
·Priest accused of lying in mob investigation
·Inmate shot dead after brazen escape
·Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict
·Man convicted for Internet hoax death
·Zoloft killer's 30-year sentence appealed
·Girl who shielded mom is a hero at school
·Holloway disappearance hits cold case file


     Instructions For Replying to Our FOIA


Instructions for Responding to
Our FOIA Request to You Click Below

 Is Buyer’s Remorse Reason for C.U.S. Article 4 §4 Claim

Letters and Request

Is Buyer’s Remorse Reason for C.U.S. Article 4 §4 Claim

Editor's note: On Saturday, April 30, 2005, The President and the Executive Secretary of the Unalienable Rights Foundation [URF] were the guest of Shu Barthomew's radio program On The Commons. URF received via Shu an inquiry from one of Shu's listeners. That inquiry and our response is found below.

You have called upon the kind offices of Shu Barthomew, host and producer of radio program On The Commons to forward to us your e-mail in which you wrote:

I've read that no challenge to Article 4 Section 4 (US - the republican form of government clause) has ever been successful in the history of the US constitution. But never before in our history has our right to a "republican form of government" been trampled as with these adhesion contracts created by merchants of mass-produced housing.

The largest housing mills in history - in collusion with the CAI's army of management contract creators - conscript each new "neighborhood" into a widely promulgated adhesion contract that deliberately circumvents our "inalienable rights". The allegation that we surrendered our Constitution in exchange for simple housing may as well be an accusation of treason against WE THE PEOPLE. The accusers should be shot for such stupidity, IMO!!!

I'll gladly take the stand as a witness in any Federal court case - as long as I'm not paying for the legal fees. To that end I intend to fight this Domestic Enemy until one of us is DEAD.


Before addressing your concerns and comments it is important for us to read Art. 4, and §4 of the Unites States Constitution [C.U.S.] in their entirety, unabridged and without editorial comments.

C.U.S. Article 4 §4 reads as follows:

 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.

One could argue that this provision of the C.U.S. can be read in several different ways and accordingly the interspersions of this provision would vary according to those readings. However, the language is clear as to the meaning of this provision of the C.U.S..

The guarantee the US is making when it guaranteeing "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" in this provision of the C.U.S. is that of suffrage in the Congress.

We are indeed fortunate that we can avail ourselves of the considerable records that the men who laboured in the creation of the Constitution kept of the circumstances of their pursuit. One of the most revered records of this legislation is in the hand of James Madison. We find in Madison’s Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 on Wednesday, August 8, the approval of the amended version of Article 4 §4 C.U.S.. along with his clear narrative leading to the approval of Article 4 §4 C.U.S..


6. The United States shall guarantee to every state in the 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. C. U. S. Art. 4. Sec. 4.

It is an observation of the enlightened Montesquieu, that mankind would have been at length obliged to submit to the government of a single person, if they had not contrived a kind of constitution, by which the internal advantages of a republic might be united with the external force of a monarchy; and this constitution is that of a confederacy of smaller states, to form one large one for their common defense. But these associations ought only to be formed, he tells us, between states whose form of government is not only similar, but also republican. The spirit of monarchy is war, and the enlargement of dominion; peace and moderation is the spirit of a republic. These two kinds of government cannot naturally subsist together in a confederate republic. Greece, he adds, was undone, as soon as the kings of Macedon obtained a seat among the Amphictions [329]. If the United States wish to preserve themselves from a similar fate, they will consider the guarantee contained in this clause as a corner stone of their liberties [330].

The possibility of an undue partiality in the federal government in affording it's protection to one part of the union in preference to another, which may be invaded at the same time, seems to be provided against, by that part of this clause which guarantees such protection to each of them. So that every state which may be invaded must be protected by the united force of the confederacy. It may not he amiss further to observe, that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence is taken away, by that part of the provision which renders an application from the legislative, or executive authority of the state endangered, necessary to be made to the federal government, before it's interference can be at all proper. On the other hand, this article secures an immense acquisition of strength; and additional force to the aid of any of the state governments, in case of an internal rebellion or insurrection against authority... The southern states being more peculiarly open to danger from this quarter, ought to be particularly tenacious of a constitution from which they may derive such assistance in the most critical periods.

322. C. U. S. Art. 1, Sec. 9.

323. L. V. Edi. 1794, c. 85.

324. It hath been said on the floor of the house of representatives of the United States, "that it had been repeatedly decided, that the United States would not permit themselves to be brought into their own courts." The editor had supposed that that clause of the constitution, which declares that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution.," had prescribed a different rule of decision. Nor can he, even now, form a different opinion upon the subject; believing that there is as much reason that a legal or equitable claim against the United States, should receive a judicial discussion, and decision, as any similar claim which might be made on their behalf. And though he doubts, as to the mode in which a judicial enquiry into the justice of a pecuniary claim against them may be instituted, yet he cannot doubt that the constitution meant to afford the right to every citizen of the United States.

325. C. U. S. Art. 4.

326. C. U. S. Art. 4.

327. Ibid.

328. C. U. S. Art. 4.

329. Spirit of Laws, B. 9. c. l and 2.

330. On this subject, see Federalist, vol. 2. p. 60 to 64.


My reading of C. U. S. Art. 4, Madison’s treatise on the Federal Convention of 1778, and Tucker’s treatise appear to be not in agreement with your position on the meaning and intent of C. U. S. Art. 4. It appears to me that what you are addressing as a C. U. S. Art. 4 issue is in fact no more than an end run around the benefit of a bargain issue that is tied to private contract issues and not a C. U. S. Art. 4 issue.


I see the issue being that after the purchase of a property subject to an association’s [1] regulations and [2] ability to enact private legislation not to the liking of the buyer, the buyer is not happy with the benefits of his bargain contract terms. I further see a buyer who wants to change the benefits of his bargain as a result of the buyer’s initial failure to recognize the consequences of the association’s [1] regulations and [2] ability to enact private legislation would bear on the buyer’s enjoyment of his home - limiting the buyer’s ability and rights to be lord of the manor. The buyer has to answer to another lord of the manor, the association.


I do not see what you have described as a C. U. S. Art. 4 issue - as what you have described is no more than a matter of state suffrage - read Madison’s notes on the federal Convention of 1778. Again what you have described is a property subject to an association’s [1] regulations and [2] ability to enact private legislation not to the liking of the buyer, the buyer is not happy with the benefits of his bargain contract terms. The buyer was free to either accept or reject the association’s [1] regulations and [2] ability to enact private legislation by not buying into the association.



Baron de Montesquieu

Spirit of Laws



Of Laws in the Relation They Bear to a Defensive Force


1. In what Manner Republics provide for their Safety. If a republic be small, it is destroyed by a foreign force; if it be large, it is ruined by an internal imperfection.

To this twofold inconvenience democracies and aristocracies are equally liable, whether they be good or bad. The evil is in the very thing itself, and no form can redress it.

It is, therefore, very probable that mankind would have been, at length, obliged to live constantly under the government of a single person, had they not contrived a kind of constitution that has all the internal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical, government. I mean a confederate republic.

This form of government is a convention by which several petty states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to establish. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of further associations, till they arrive at such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the whole body.

It was these associations that so long contributed to the prosperity of Greece. By these the Romans attacked the whole globe, and by these alone the whole globe withstood them; for when Rome had arrived at her highest pitch of grandeur, it was the associations beyond the Danube and the Rhine -- associations formed by the terror of her arms -- that enabled the barbarians to resist her.

Hence it proceeds that Holland,

Germany, and the Swiss cantons are considered in Europe as perpetual republics.

The associations of cities were formerly more necessary than in our times. A weak, defenceless town was exposed to greater danger. By conquest it was deprived not only of the executive and legislative power, as at present, but moreover of all human property.


A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruption; the form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.

If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme power, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great an influence over one, this would alarm the rest; were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped, and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.

Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states, the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.

As this government is composed of petty republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with regard to its external situation, by means of the association, it possesses all the advantages of large monarchies.

2. That a confederate Government ought to be composed of States of the same Nature, especially of the republican Kind. The Canaanites were destroyed by reason that they were petty monarchies, that had no union or confederacy for their common defence; and, indeed, a confederacy is not agreeable to the nature of petty monarchies.

As the confederate republic of Germany consists of free cities, and of petty states subject to different princes, experience shows us that it is much more imperfect than that of Holland and Switzerland.

The spirit of monarchy is war and enlargement of dominion: peace and moderation are the spirit of a republic. These two kinds of government cannot naturally subsist in a confederate republic.

Thus we observe, in the Roman history, that when the Veientes had chosen a king, they were immediately abandoned by all the other petty republics of Tuscany. Greece was undone as soon as the kings of Macedon obtained a seat among the Amphyktyons.

The confederate republic of Germany, composed of princes and free towns, subsists by means of a chief, who is, in some respects, the magistrate of the union, in others, the monarch.


     Related Links
· More about Letters and Request
· News by MultumInParvo

Most read story about Letters and Request:
Abington Tea Party - Success Story of the Unalienable Rights Foundation

     Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 2

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

 Send to a Friend Send to a Friend

Re: Is Buyer’s Remorse Reason for C.U.S. Article 4 §4 Claim (Score: 1)
by stretch on Sunday, May 22 @ 20:56:25 MST
(User Info | Send a Message)
"The buyer was free to either accept or reject the association’s [1] regulations and [2] ability to enact private legislation by not buying into the association."

I see a common Misconception about "CHOICE" - my point is that there is no longer a choice to not buy into an association any longer - a consiracy to conscript all new housing into the management by draconian covenant has occured and is continuing to imprison millions of Americans into this illusory "vonuntarily surrendered our rights" to be free from overzealous authoritarians who assume control of a regime that wields "The color of Authority" - AKA a government.
All new home buyers are falling into this trap - there is no choice in affordable housing products - I'd gladly move to another house in a neighborhood that does not have a Mandatory HOA and contaminated Deeds that deliberately cir*****vent the Homestead act of the constitution!!! BUT THERE ARE NO CHOICES IN BASIC DETATCHED HOUSING.

I shout, but nobody seems to hear.


Web site powered by Web Hosting USA

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © MM - MMXIII by the UnAlienable Rights Foundatation.

WWW http://www.uarf.us

You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt
Copyright, MMVIII, Unalienabe Rights Foundation (UARF), All Rigths Reserved
Page Generation: 0.48 Seconds