 Larry hires on to a corporation as a truck driver with intent to deliver their goods to distributors and to pick up supplies and materials at corporate provider facilities. He thinks that his employment is a contract where he agrees to be an employee and work for an employer who will pay him for his services. Indeed, his purpose for signing the contract is to earn income, and the business purpose for employing him is to have him deliver on incoming and outgoing materials. The challenge is the unwritten part of the contract he signs. It is contract obligations set by government instead of by agreement between the parties. Larry is also obligated to pay taxes and to have the business collect them from his earnings. He is to be registered into a social security system that is to be supported by even more taxes, even if there is no mention of this in the contract he signs. For its part, the corporation, again unmentioned in the contract, is obligated to collect taxes from Larry, depositing them in accord with government instructions. It agrees to pass the Internal Revenue Service information on Larry's pay and taxes, information from Larry's employment. It agrees to conditions on some union agreement that would not even be a viable contract under the common law for lack of consideration. There are few areas of law that have greater government interference than employment. It is where government regulation has intruded into the contract, adding conditions and obligations that are not agreed by the parties and are often not even written into the contract document that they sign. This behavior is patently unconstitutional interfering with the obligations on private contracts is directly and absolutely banned in Article I, Section 10 of our Constitution. The very purpose of this section is to set a duty upon Congress. It is a duty to protect we the people from even state laws that would attempt to pass bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, or would impair the obligations of contract. Here we see Congress not simply failing to protect the public, but creating the interference that has a duty to prevent. Larry is not going to be paid what was agreed as the value of his services. Some of his earnings are going to be seized under tax laws. The employer does this as an agent of the government without any legal basis per agency. Larry's earnings, the value he contracted to receive, will not be legally secured from seizures. The government will take it without even a promise of just compensation. The business gets Larry's services as agreed, but finds itself obligated to become a tax collector. This is a new obligation outside any contract, and the time and effort and risks of business operation to complete this task are set upon the employer as a cost of contracting with Larry. There is no just compensation received by the business nor is one offered. How could this be? The answer is that both legislators and judges are ignoring constitutional limits. They legislated a change in the 16th amendment that would authorize them, in the name of the people, to seize on the private income of citizens as a new authority of government. Of course our leaders were not authorized as representatives to redefine their authority to include those that were forbidden to do. Any citizen who puts his hand in his neighbor's pocket to seize upon what he wants or needs would be prosecuted for theft. No representative could, as a representative, put his hand in his citizen's pocket without engaging in criminal behavior in the name of the people. To make sure that this sort of violation was clearly banned, the Constitution wasn't even signed until there was a Fourth Amendment ban on seizing the property of citizens set into the language where the ban was clear. Instead of normal legislation, those who were in authority, only as representatives, took it upon themselves to ignore the limitations of agency and document their defiance of our Constitutional provisions as an amendment. They violated their trust as agents of the people. Relying on their authority as sovereigns, they applied the new law through legislation to interfere with the obligations of employment contracts. Having ignored the limits of Constitutional government as to their responsibilities, they had little problem in proclaiming the limits written into the original document were no longer appropriate. Like Congress, federal courts have supported interference in contract obligations and have ignored the duties set upon Congress that might interfere with the sovereignty of government over the common citizen. As far as their oath to support the Constitution is concerned, the illusion from the National Agricultural Foundation is appropriate. In protecting citizens under the Constitution, our courts have been about as useful as tits on a pole. Our leader's general application has been support of legislative law and support of the Congress. Our courts have almost uniformly supported the actions of Congress, whether representative or not. They have assumed a right to use interpretation of law to rewrite the Constitution when it would not support what Congress would do as a sovereign body. In ignorance or slaw, take your pick. Our courts do not approach the Constitution as a contract by and among we the people. It is only by collusion, a conspiracy to support whatever Congress is willing to put into law that modern courts can claim even the color of legality. The courts support a constitutional process, even where it accomplishes an illegal result. Our Constitution has its faults, mostly in being dated and limited as to the knowledge and intent of the people who brought it into existence. It is still an incredible and wonderful documented source of legal government. Unlike other national constitutions, those that recognize and set limits upon a sovereign government's authority, our constitutional agreement is the open recognition of sovereignty of citizens. It records an attempt to create a government to meet our sovereign purposes as stated in the preamble. That is what makes the United States politically unique among nations. It is that it is founded on the dream of self-government. It is a dream that is based on a reality that the ultimate freedom of a nation is only found in the freedom of its people. It is based on the reality that prosperity of a nation cannot be greater than the prosperity of its people. It is based on a government where leaders serve the people instead of a government where the citizens are required to work for its leaders. There is no greater violation of the American Dream than a government where the people work for the rulers and those who rule determine what the people get for their efforts. This is involuntary servitude for the people of the nation, and nowhere is the violation of the American Dream greater than in the open and hostile setting of obligations on those who would enter into employment. This pollutes the lifeblood of our national economy, our personal commitments to the economic welfare of our nation. The result is a government putting its hands into the pockets of its citizens to do what government leaders feel is right. Doing it in the name of the people does not make this any better. It is criminal behavior, and justifying crime by blaming it on someone else does not relieve it any more than claiming it is somehow necessary to be a criminal if you are to serve the public. The rule is a simple one. If the result is criminal, the acts that create that result are also criminal. This is a major element of our commercial environment, and the result of acts in violation of the principles of the common law and specific provisions in our Constitution. The result is real, and it will not become different unless someone makes changes. For the effective citizen of tomorrow, we again have too many potentials to offer a clear path. Are we to correct what is wrong reversing the changes to our Constitution that are so clearly beyond what authorities we granted to our representatives? Do we demand our courts recognize our personal sovereignty and support our authority as owners of government? Do we raise the owner flag and start cleaning house of the leaders who seem least inclined to serve we the people? Do we mandate changes to the Constitution to initiate our exception management over its questionable uses of our authority? We face the twin challenges of what actions by citizens can be effective and what we can agree to do as we the people. We face the secondary challenge of inertia of the many citizens who are unaware of the serious breaches of authority limits that were set on our government. We face the secondary challenge of a government that has proven quite willing to punish unwanted questioning of its authority. Unless the change is fairly certain, there will be new government obligations applied to those who would challenge. That is the nature of rule. Once established, rule does not lightly tolerate competition. On the other hand, when the people are agreed, there is no longer any competition. There is only the authority of we the people. What we seek in this course is empowering the citizens of tomorrow. Empowerment comes from agreement, from coming together for what people agree upon. Our Constitution, marvelous as it is, is subject to this same agreement. The question is if we can agree that our public officers are to abide by its provisions. Our written constitutional agreement is not a true authority unless we are agreed that it is. And we are in charge whenever we are willing to put our agreement into effect as direction to our public employees. You as citizens are also owners. The United States is your nation. The constitutional agreement proclaims itself to be your self-government agreement. It is to be implemented as a corporate government that can only be authorized to continue through your agreement. The U.S. government that is created under this agreement exists only to serve the purposes that we as sovereign citizens have given to it. It should only have the authorities that we are agreed to provide. We are the citizen owners, and where we are in agreement, everyone is in agreement. Your ownership is also a reality, even though it may be now denied by our public employees. When it comes to interfering with the obligations of employment contracts, we have a criminal violation of the authorities granted to government in our constitution. This leaves us with both the reality of being victims of criminal acts by our own government and the reality of our authority. The reality of being victims of crime is not going to change unless someone changes it. The challenge of change is not in authority or potency. It is whether we, as we the people of the United States, can find sufficient agreement among ourselves so that we will mandate our changes to our leaders for their action.