 Article 2 addresses the Executive Office of the President of the United States. To be fully understood, this must be seen in light of the sovereignty of we the people in their capacity to delegate authority to this national officer. The President can only have such powers as the people are able to provide to the office. Where the people do not have powers and authorities, they cannot delegate these to any officer through agreement among themselves. This is specifically limited where some citizens might want to govern over other citizens. Also, authority that is delegated is for a purpose. It is to provide government to perfect the union and to satisfy the purposes set in the preamble of this larger agreement. These are stated purposes, and they are to be applied to the government through this agreement. To this, we also add the limits placed on the larger government, and that is not to honor the office holder above the people. And this is a government of law rather than sovereign authority exercised through public office holders. And yet, we the people recognize the need for a central figure to represent the United States to other nations and peoples. We recognize it, even as we recognize the consistent abuse of people under such leaders in the past. By Article 2, the executive power of the United States rests on the person elected as president. We have a history of confusion as to the extent and limits of the authorities and powers of the president, even though they are effectively set within this constitutional agreement. The first power is granted to execute the laws of the nation. A specific note is that sovereign citizens have no power to avoid or refuse properly enacted law. They cannot delegate any right or privilege to deny the law to any president. The president is personally responsible for executing all the laws passed by Congress, where he has ability and opportunity to execute these within the authority otherwise granted to the president. As will be discussed later, the function of the judicial branch of government includes review of laws. This is not a function of the president. His function is execution of law. There is no presidential determination of what elements of law are to be executed and what are to be ignored or opposed. The method for election of a president is set in the writing, and it addresses how to establish the president as the people's representative. The method of election is not as important as assurance that the people are given sufficient voice in the election, that the representation of we the people is assured. As it was for members of Congress, this presidential election includes electors, representatives who are expected to carry the representation of we the people into a central election process. In today's environment, this stated method is awkward at best and contains risks of non-representation that are unnecessary. Its inclusion in the main document is not to be received as some sort of statement of what will be right for all time, but serves the purpose of assuring representation in the time and situation of the early decades of the United States. It was probably meant to continue until changed. We will address changes in discussion of articles of amendment. We also have specific personal qualifications set on those who might be allowed to be president. There are birth requirements assuring that the president is a person born into the society of people of this nation. The apparent purpose is to assure that the president has family ties. There are two citizens of the United States superior to potential ties in other lands. There is an age requirement indicating a minimum level of maturity. There is a residency requirement assuring a common knowledge of the people that the president is to serve. In terms of this constitutional agreement, any person who fails to fulfill these requirements is ineligible to be president no matter what other qualifications they may have. Gathering sufficient votes to be elected does not overcome these requirements. As with members of Congress, the president is to be paid from the treasury for his services as president. Election is to be a hiring process and the president is to serve his or her employer. This employer is not just the United States as a corporate entity. For the funds that pay his or her salary are also the property of we the people, those under whose authority the president has been elected, and in whose delegated authority he or she will be required to act and from whom the treasury contents were largely collected for the purpose of operating the people's government. This article addresses some of the powers of the president. It opens with remarkable statement that the president shall be a commander-in-chief of the United States military forces. What is startling is that ruling over the military is not considered to be a general function of the nation's chief executive. It is something to which the U.S. president must be appointed. The relation between the president and the military is not defined as a sovereign rule, but as agreed by we the people. Commander-in-chief is not directly defined, but obviously includes the duties and responsibilities associated with being a commander within a military organization. It includes responsibility for the people who are military commanders. It includes the ability to issue orders that must be obeyed and authority to enforce orders by whatever means are appropriate to the environment in which the military effort is required. The big difference from prior military government relations is that the commander-in-chief is not a sovereign ruler who personally directs the military where he feels it should go. A commander is also an officer who accepts orders from higher officers. In this case, the constituting agreement is the higher authority and it is able to set alternative authority upon others so that they can issue effective orders to the commander-in-chief. The ability to require written opinions from other senior officers is again new. It provides that the officers be willing to support their commander with written records. They can be required to put their opinions in writing wherever they may be held accountable in a later time. It strengthens the president's orders and directives to the military without granting office additional legal powers. The final statement in this paragraph speaks to an ability to issue pardons for federal offenses. By placement in this article, it might read as applying only to the military. It has, in accord with other writing, been taken to address a general right to pardon for both military and civilian offenses. It is hereby placement, specific to the appointments of the commander-in-chief. We next have a list of specific powers with limitations. The limitation, in accord with the rebellious history of the colonies, deals with avoiding an imperial presidency. It denies ultimate authority in the president to take special actions on behalf of the United States without the application of regulations through law. The power to make enforceable treaties was limited by requiring the overwhelming support of the Senate. Agreements with foreign powers were not to be made as a sovereign leader, but as a representative's executive acting with the concurrence of the territorial representatives of the United States. This puts much of the same restraints on benefiting some of the states as the expense of others as has been placed on Congress from passing of laws. The apparent purpose was to perfect the union, to bring people together in support of the acts by government leaders. It is also indicative that two-thirds of the Senate must concur before the president can act. Dealing with foreign interests as a sovereign entity is a power denied to both the president and to the Congress. They have to come together before the United States government is authorized to act on behalf of we the people. You will note a like requirement for even empowering ambassadors. The president is not able to simply direct senior officers who deal with other nations. They are only empowered after the Senate puts in support to their employment. It is possible as an oversight that the representatives of the whole United States do not have to answer to the Senate after appointment, but are supervised directly out of the office of the president. There is no established means for the Senate to withdraw support for an ambassador who misrepresents the United States, nor is their reporting requirement back to Congress for their actions and representations to other nations. Where answering only to the authority the president might assure consistency, it does permit a certain level of imperial authority in presenting the United States to foreign nations. The limits of senatorial approval are only for written instruments to which the United States will be legally bound. Other significant officers of the United States are likewise to be supported by a similar requirement for senatorial approval, including members of the Supreme Court. Appointments are subject to exceptional agreement in the Senate. The final paragraph addresses administrative necessity and convenience, allowing the president to temporarily fill vacancies without the blessing of Congress when they are not readily available to perform their process of approval. In short, the business of government is to continue through times of congressional recess. The third section in requiring congressional communication of the State of the Union has been interpreted as a duty for an annual event, which does not appear to be either within the purpose or character of the constitutional agreement. It is more properly addressed as an ongoing communication duty, one to keep the Congress informed of the needs for legislation and potential misbehavior in office situations that come to the notice of the president as a chief executive officer. There is no intent in the wording to limit communications to an annual event. It is consistent with the rest of the constitutional agreement in that the president is to work with the Congress to see to the purpose of governance as set forth in the preamble. We also have specific powers granted to the executive in calling Congress into session to meet the needs of the chief executive in operating the government and enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. It is worthy to mention that the purpose is not separation of powers so much as coordination of powers. Also, it is the president's duty to deal with other nations as representative leader of the United States and the office has given powers to suggest the use of subordinate offices to further this purpose. Again, the president cannot just choose his own subordinates, but must have them approved by the Senate. There is language in this article to specifically limit the president's running of the presidency as some sovereign leader. This is emphasized in section 4. It provides specific instructions for and limits upon a process for removing a president who abuses the office. This is specifically addressed as a matter of impeachment and trial. It is not a summary process. It is also not to be for minor matters, but only for trees and bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. These are not subject to definition in the common law in place at the time of the signing of the constitutional agreement. They were matters of feudal rulers with these rulers no longer an authority in the United States. For example, trees and no longer was an offense against the crown, nor was the U.S. government a sovereign authority that could take offense as a government. It was created by sovereign people. Bribery was well defied, but had been a necessary part of feudal government. The very existence of the feud required supporting the privilege of a ruler with unearned payments. That was very key to the nature of privilege. The application of this in the new environment of a sovereign citizen agreement was probably like to payments that interfere with the representation of citizens, or that gave reason to avoid duties and responsibilities set on government leaders by this constituting agreement. It is here where a modern political government is put to the test. Does this work challenge the election of any candidate who accepts funds from a political party? The president is not a separate but equal part of government. He is his chief officer in operations with a purpose set upon implementing what Congress directs, working with Congress to establish needs for legislation, and acting as the chief representative of the authority of the United States with other nations. Presidents do not have the option of refusing to implement laws. That is an impeachable offense. Once the people representative has set their course of direction through law, the president is bound to pursue it. The president does not have power to reprogram public funds, taking them from the purpose set by law in Congress to redirect them to meet presidential priorities. The technical term appropriate to such an action is embezzlement. The very purpose written into the articles of the Constitution is a government in three parts, each doing its part of the larger governance effort in coordination and harmony with the other two.