 The 22nd Amendment is a curious piece of political thinking. It appears to be an additional limitation that is placed on the executive branch of government requiring a change. Indeed, from the standpoint of other leaders, this appears to limit an imperial president to two terms. This is an amendment for a political oligarchy, where the political party insiders who decide who serves as candidates can only have any one standard bearer serve two terms. But when we get to the issue of shared sovereignty in government leaders, there is another and much darker side of this amendment. It only is seen when we address the sovereignty of the people and their right to pick their own representatives. It might still be a good amendment, even with this, but the failure to even consider how it might limit we the people in our choices leaves it in question. It is supposed to be the people who elect the president. It is supposed to be the people who are entitled to representation. Is this amendment passed to limit the right to elect the person of their choice? If those who set this amendment in place really wanted to solve the problem, they would have addressed the right of the people to set demands upon their hired president so that he could not act as a sovereign. Once again, the failure to educate the public in their role as owners leaves the actions of government unchallenged. Without that question of representation being raised and resolved, the amendment does not represent the American voters. It represents the political oligarchs who run the political parties, who train tomorrow's political leaders and who select those who are expected to see to the party's needs. The 23rd amendment deals with citizen representation in those living within the District of Columbia, the seat of government. It is intentionally not a state, and this has some political limitations for those who live there. This 23rd article is a maintenance amendment, bringing the Constitution to address a detail that had been left unsettled in the original writing. It is an amendment that is well within the purpose of amendments, as noted in Article 5. As noted, this challenge had already been met for federal enclaves, territories within the boundaries of states that had been ceded to the federal law jurisdiction by agreement with states involved. The citizens then affected just voted as citizens of the state, and were represented by state representatives. The only difference was that the states would have to agree to have these citizens counted as part of their population for the purpose of voting. Apparently, the political problem was so confounding to the leadership that they chose rather to amend the Constitution. And so Congress, which cannot seem to find time and opportunity to manage even its own members much less senior leaders in the executive or judicial branches, retains its duty to manage the operation of the District of Columbia. The need to do something to address this matter is real, but the priorities indicated by the effort of amending the Constitution are curious. The 24th Amendment is insidious in terms of giving voting privilege to primary elections, purely political constructs. Primary elections were not creatures of the constitutional voting process. The right to representation was recognized in the original Constitution wording, and it had not been modified or removed. Primary elections had no previously supported part in the state of the election process. Primary elections are created by the American political industry, giving official recognition to primary elections is a way to assure tax dollar support for the internal political process of these parties. It is a way for the political industry to fund its own efforts out of the taxpayers' pockets to serve the political purposes of the parties. The purpose is, of course, presented as assuring that the right people get to run for office. The actual purpose is that only the right people get to run for office, and that established political businesses get to pick the few right candidates to set before the voters. This is the way for political parties to determine which of their selected favorites will get is most electable, and whatever could be done to shake the non-professionals out of the race would be handled by assuring that great expense would have to be met before even getting to be a candidate. When election is seen as a hiring action, then primary election, provide authorization for political parties to pick electable candidates who will most likely support their corporate interests. This amendment supports funding these political organizations' internal selection process and further grants them a voice in government. And where are we the people in this? The purposes written into the preamble do not address such matters as this, and certainly do not concern their funding. That is a political operation. This 24th amendment has little to do with amending the Constitution. It supports an election process that has no part in constitutional government. It does not appear to have a valid constitutional purpose, though its enactment may be seen as accepting a new purpose. One of supporting the internal political party process for selecting its preferred candidates. The 25th amendment is another maintenance and updating amendment, setting the conditions for transferring the duties of President to others, where needed to keep the government in operation is both sensible and the ordering of government in full accord with the original purpose of the Constitution. The ordering is a little complex and filled with evidentiary requirements for those who initiate actions, but it does seem to provide a consistent and effective working base should the President be unable to fulfill the duties of office. The 26th amendment is another voting rights amendment. Like the others, it has meaning only in terms of a government that does not answer to its sovereign people, but grants them limited permission in place of government services. It is another witness to a government that considers the voice of the public to be very much less than ownership, and useful only to continue the career politician's authority to act as sovereign. It assumes public leaders will be elected to do what is right by the voters, that they run a benevolent government on behalf of the people. It assumes that the same public leaders will be the ones who best know how government is to run. It accordingly is limited to guaranteeing voting, not to guaranteeing or even promoting representation. In short, it still does not matter who is voting. It is the leaders available for selection. In short, it still does not matter who is voting if the leaders available for selection are not intent on representing the voters. The ideal of a voting public selecting only a representative and not a career political leader seems to conflict with history. The 27th amendment addresses legislation impacting on congressional pay. As a side note, this is only a small part of the cost of congressional action, as they also maintain considerable staff, both for their in-congress efforts and for dealing with individual citizen interactions. Going through the process of amendment to set a pay process limit on Congress is a pretty good witness to the improper use of the people's resources. What employee gets to set his own salary? He or she can petition the employer for a fair wage or salary with good expectation of support, but does not get to put his hand in any employer's pocket to take what he or she feels is right. That is criminal behavior. This is a constitutional amendment to limit the criminal activities of congressmen. It does not provide a comforting witness to the political condition of the United States. Apply common employment thinking. Pay for our congressmen for what they accomplish for their constituents, which is their job. Then they would not have to spend their paid time passing laws to assure their own pay. Congressman had traditionally acted more as professional leaders than as representatives. They maintained staff to handle the problems of citizens in dealing with their sovereign federal government. Federal support for citizen problems can always be used to advertise their value to the public. With performance thinking, it is more on point to have congressional constituents determine the leadership pay based on services that the constituents receive. Modern congressmen have not advertised based on what Congress has achieved for very good reason. And so we end our constitutional study with another set of amendments that largely witness to the ongoing refusal to accept sovereignty of citizens. It is a refusal to accept any power of the citizen over their benevolent sovereign government. The attitude expressed is that the citizens are given the vote, recognizing that they are given the proper people to vote for and should be pleased with the ability to determine which group of pre-selected professional rulers will provide them with services that leaders determined to be best for them. I note that our government in early 21st century is not functioning as a republic, even though it may be seen as in republican inform. It is a political oligarchy, a government of a ruling aristocracy of professional political leaders who accept their own benevolent purpose as right for their nation. This is neither right nor wrong in any absolute sense, it is reality. They are, after all is said and done, good and effective Americans in their own right. They are the ones who keep the American dream alive. But then again the constitution is also real. The observation that power and authority and capacity for government come ultimately from the people is also real. The American dream, even though not yet realized, is written into our constitution and it is still a part of who we are, even if our implementation has wandered. Our history, written into the constitutional agreement, also tells us that the American experience in self-government is real and that we the people are the ultimate owners of this nation and government of the United States. We face the challenge of what our government has done in our name that has not always been what we would do or even what we would legally do. The management rule is appropriate, the one who acts on granted authority is responsible for the consequences of that action. The United States may indeed be a representative government, but it is unclear just who is being represented. We face the question of how much responsibility we may then have for the things which our government has done in our name, but without representing us. The legal responsibility is part of the common law, but the personal responsibility that we as owners accept is unwritten.