 The American common law, like the common law of England, had the purpose of supporting the common citizens in their business interactions. It promoted a level of trust between the people in their day-to-day commercial dealings, assuring that reasonable promises were kept and that transactions were intentional and reasonably honest. It was under the principles of the common law that our Constitution was prepared as an agreement by and among we the people of the United States. This set in writing the business relationship between a sovereign people. It was formed with signatories serving as agents of we the people, and by agreement they created our corporate national government. The new federal government was not a party to this agreement. It did not even exist until the document was perfected. The states were not a party to this agreement because they are not listed in the preamble that sets forth we the people as the one in whose name this document was signed. The mention of the states in the signing just indicates that this was the part of we the people that were represented by each signature being affixed. Under the law of agency, those who signed the agreements as agents of we the people could not authorize this government to do illegal acts. They could only take actions on behalf of citizens that citizens were legally authorized to take. It could not establish a government to exercise sovereignty over citizens, as the now freed colonial people did not have authority over one another. As to officers of this new government, the Constitution provided terms of the contract under which they were employed. They could only have the powers and authorities that we the people could grant to them. This Constitution did not grant authority to public leaders over the operation of the U.S. economy. The common law recognized economic management as a sovereign purpose, and there was no grant of sovereignty. The grant was specifically limited as to contractual relations, that there was to be no interference or limitation set on the obligations of contract. While not specifically stated, our U.S. government was to be a representative republic, and there was no authority to deny or limit the representation of public officers serving we the people. Those who accepted authority under this agreement did not accept the limitations of authority but chose to act as a corporate sovereign above the people under whose authority they were put in office. They accepted the Constitution as their source of authority, even though this required violating the common law principles governing signed agreements. They denied that their powers should be limited to agency, to representing we the people. They ignored the restrictions and limitations that Constitution would place on those who were authorized under its provisions. There are few places where the violation is more public than the interference in the obligations of contract, yet the heart and soul of traditional business law was to honor commercial agreements made by U.S. citizens. Interference in contract relations has been massive, adding to agreements those things on which the parties never agreed. This includes setting requirements upon contracts that are not even written into them, and violating the very principle upon which contract law was founded. They enacted laws to forbid otherwise legal agreements. This illegal use of public authority was banned in the Constitution, and many violations were not even related to justice, domestic tranquility, or promoting the common good. These were simple violations. They were criminal misuse of public authority, and they were open violations of constitutional limitations. In order to justify these illegal acts, leadership relied upon serving public purposes. Our Constitution defines public purposes in terms of what was written into our Constitution's preamble, written into our founding document. These written purposes are the public purposes to be served by our constitutional government. It was to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. There is no valid public purpose for legislating provisions into our employment contracts, on which sovereign agreements who sign those agreements have not agreed. This scope of the violations of both purpose and law is so massive that it leaves the one who newly discovers it aghast. It leaves today's citizens wondering what could possibly have been so important that our elected leaders would have engaged in openly criminal violation of their offices. The answer is partly found in development of employment law, especially in the novelty of establishment of corporate America as the predominant mode of commerce. In short, this change in commerce established a new business aristocracy, those who ran large corporations as barons of industry, were, by laws of incorporation, given effective sovereignty and authority over vast sums of business resources. They were able to direct these wherever they could justify it as serving the business. It was serving the business, not the owners, investors, employees, or customers. It was establishment of miniature business feuds. The corruption of representative government accelerated when commercial corporate authority became an effective source of government resources. Accepting those resources came with representing non-citizen corporations who were not even entitled to representation in a Republican form of government. This was open and blatant corruption, the violation of trust with the people through representing business interests instead of sovereign people. It was a major source of illegal tampering with the common law purpose of supporting business agreements. The sovereignty-based acts of interference first favored corporate leadership, not the citizens who worked in those corporate commercial businesses, corruption spreads. The people who worked, who also signed employment agreements, were the real source of government authority and also could, as a corporate body, control vast resources. Leadership in non-citizen corporate businesses who had gained influence with government leaders soon found themselves opposed by non-citizen corporate labor unions. Organized labor had like access to massive resources. There were union barons who were granted like influence on government leaders and who could then counter the business barons. So where were the people in this? Where is justice for we the people when the conflict was a quarrel between those in the new business aristocracy where neither set of leaders really spoke for the people? Corruption only breeds greater corruption. The damage done by business aristocracy was not reversed, but matched by additional corruption by union aristocracy. These were additional laws that added provisions and conditions on employment contracts as favored by union leadership. If there is any good news in this, it is that the corruption and illegality of government action seems limited to employment contracts in corporate agency. That corruption has not yet spread to other areas of business law. There is also natural legal difference between employment contracts with non-citizen corporations and employment with privately run businesses. The corporate entity is a creation of law and the government can write almost anything it desires into what the corporate entity has to do. This would include adding provisions to the employment contracts that it could legally offer to employees. This would not be interference with contract, but setting requirements for corporate existence. Corruption of contract has spread to all employment contracts. As a failure to apply it to private businesses would seriously impair the resource space available to corporate aristocracy. If non-corporate contracts did not contain the government mandated provisions, non-corporate business would have a great advantage in attracting the best employees. There is much political hype to address the benefits of leader interference in employment contracts, how they are really better for employees. The reality is far different than the sales pitch. The reality is that pay would rise and restrictions would reduce for private employment. If this were not so, there would be no need for the incredible violation of applying this to citizen employers. People do not need to be ordered to do what they would choose to do. When people have to be ordered to put these provisions into employment contracts, it is because they would not otherwise have them included. Contracts between citizens other than employment are generally supported in accord with the common law principles. Other agency is honored by our courts accepting of course where agency would apply to those who operate our government. Election is into public employment and other corporate employment anomaly. The government handling of incorporation has many legal challenges. These are perhaps most obvious in the question of whether there are benefits for a private citizen businessman who incorporates his business. The answer is, of course there are benefits. There is the lack of personal responsibility for what the business does. There is protection from the displeasure of employees and customers. The challenge is that it is just highlighted where being incorporated is more beneficial than being a sovereign citizen. Just who is our government serving? It is supposed to be serving us as sovereign citizens and has been openly supporting corporate entities created beings. The face of corruption can only be hidden by redirection, by focus on something else. When it comes to personal decisions by citizens, the corruption comes open for inspection. The subject of this revelation is the reality of citizens choosing incorporation of private businesses. It is a witness to political corruption. This does not have effect on the reality in which our personal commerce efforts will have to take place, but it can provide eventual impetus for citizen initiated changes. So what is incorporation and what is its effect on commercial business? A partial answer is that there is no good foundation in the common law for incorporation. That was considered a sovereignty concept. It applied to government administration and to military activities. It applied to a very limited way to villages, towns, and city administrations, which serve common people living within their territories. It included ships at sea where the captain or master was the effective aristocracy. Rights and privileges of such leaders were only specified for the ship at sea and military and the other officers were directly answering to the sovereignty that survived on the productivity of the common people. On the need to reap the benefits of the larger business organization, it was a blank slate for the legislatures with their history addressing only sovereignty as a basis for development. The need to create corporations was obvious, as was the benefit available to the people of the nation from having corporate commercial entities that could prosecute business on behalf of owners and investors. The need was there and political leadership acted to satisfy that need. Of course our government leadership had already accepted their corporate sovereignty over citizens. Their direction for action was to pass what sovereignty they could to the corporate entities through laws governing incorporation. Where government officers had accepted legal protection from their acts on behalf of the government, they also granted these new corporate leaders protection from the results of their actions on behalf of corporations. The Indian office was raised to protect publicly elected officers from complaints by citizens concerning their representation. Likewise, corporate officers could be protected in their leadership positions from complaints by corporate owners and investors as to their corporate actions. Those who governed considered their actions as a corporate body of leaders to be seen as authorized government actions. And so they accepted the acts of corporate leadership as the acts of the corporation rather than personal acts of the leaders. As effective sovereigns over the citizens, public leaders accepted that their purposes as a body of representatives were the public purpose. And so they accepted that the corporate purpose was the purpose of its leadership. We have state level laws for business incorporation and they exhibit the general characteristics noted above. They do attend to business. Even as the federal government now attends to national business, they do operate in general accord with the purposes for incorporation, even as our government tries to act in accord with the constitution as its source of authority. As citizens, we must survive and prosper within this commercial environment, even with the corruption of employment and the establishment of corporate aristocracy. It does work to some effect supporting US citizens. Even with incredible corruption that feeds upon itself, we are still a prosperous people relative to others. The corruption is general, as is the damage that it visits daily upon the prosperity of we the people. The universal nature of that damage can provide us a basis for universal support for changes that enhance citizen prosperity through our commercial dealings.