 We have to set the Constitution into its historical framework to gain a deeper understanding from how it was handled and the actions of governance and amendment that followed from its being written and ratified. To begin, I would have to bring in modern observation that has bearing. A government that has no people, has no power, no authority, and no control over its own resources. The potency of government comes from the people, no matter what its political form or claim to sovereignty. A government whose people have no power can gain none from them, and will also necessarily be without any real power or authority. Where the British government had taken action to reap economic benefits from the American colonies, it had effectively oppressed its own citizens. Not having learned from the lesson from King John's attempt to oppress the Barons, an effort that yielded the English Magna Carta, that government had to again face rebellion. This time it was by the people of the American colonies. I note this because the United States has not learned from this either. It has divided the people against each other and has selected one side to support while oppressing the other. Hopefully, with a little more perspective, we can avoid the need to enter into armed conflict to resolve our political problems. That path has always proven to be horribly expensive. The colonial settlers were not commonly educated or otherwise versed in the common law and probably only had a vague understanding of what sovereignty really meant. Yet, they found themselves represented by state legislatures and those representatives had signed the new constituting agreement to create a United States. The citizens were faced with a whole new concept of citizenship, one that reversed the relationship they had with the British government. This did not appear to be common knowledge and many leaders still maintain their earlier understanding of sovereign government purpose. A sovereign citizen under this constitution is not the subject of national governance, but the owner of the nation. Instead of the citizens legally owing allegiance to this government, the government and its leaders owe allegiance to the citizens. The colonials were not informed of this prior to signing the constitution that initiated this new government. Did they ever come to understand it? There was no apparent effort to provide the knowledge to common citizens and even a large part of the more educated leadership seemed unsure of the new sovereignty relationship their constitution had initiated. In fact, there had been no concerted effort to provide this type of foundation to citizens until quite recently. This course of study is part of that effort. Its purpose is not simply informational, but development for young citizens as they grow into effective adult citizens who are then able to take a more direct part in self-governance. With this lack of understanding the confusion of relations, the effort to amend and improve the constitution for the protection of common citizens began during the convention that proposed the new constitution. For perspective, this was such a radical change that even the people who were putting it forth for signature had difficulty with the concept of sovereign citizens. They're rightfully worried about whether others like themselves might find the concept so troubling that they simply ignored it and treated citizens as subjects of government under this new agreement. The founders realized they had an immediate problem, a challenge that setting the new government into place did not resolve. Even as they realized that they could not resolve their differences in legal slavery, they also had no solution to the ignorance of the people as to their ownership of the nation. Both slavery and legal ignorance were known problems that were simply passed down to the following generations for eventual resolution. As a side matter, resolving these problems was not even a constitutional purpose. The purpose of the central document was arranging and establishing the government, and it included unifying the people and states for the benefit of the people. Focus on the people's divisions and disagreements could only be counterproductive. As a forerunner to our study of the amendments, we have to address the results of the common ignorance concerning the sovereignty of the people. It results in attempts to use the constitution to defeat its own stated purposes. It results in government leaders attempting to act as sovereigns to the detriment of the people who are governed. As long-term results, we have an avoidance of public education on the subject wherever it might constrain those who would rule over the people. The very concept of development and empowerment of we the people has been actively discouraged and there is little official support for the purpose of empowering the next generation of citizens even though this is a universal purpose of people. We have some performance rules to apply in our ongoing analysis of law and government and these are essentially universal. The first principle already encountered is that the people are the public. Those things that the people are forbidden to do are or are powerless to do, they are unable to legally authorize or empower the government to do in their name. Where the government or its leaders would act in violation of this principle, they act in misrepresentation of the people. As a light principle, any government order that people must be compelled to obey is in violation of citizen sovereignty. If the people would not do it on their own then the government order is open and obvious misrepresentation. This does not address criminal or tort law where certain behaviors are banned with the active support of the public but acts of government that address regulatory enforcement. As intruency laws where the government arranges for legal punishment for those who would withhold their children from public schooling, it includes like regulation of non-public schools so that they must accept the purposes and restrictions of public education. Consider the legality of the US courts ordering the busing of children to satisfy the purpose of racial policy. Where is this policy? What public does it support? If the sovereignty of the citizen must be ordered to comply, then it is not what the common citizen supports. Such actions are just beyond proper authority of the court. They are beyond the authority of the people to even delegate it to their government. It has gone so far as laws that forbid people to gather as militias without government direction. Our constitution is not just a document authorizing and limiting government. It is an agreement by and among the people. We the people on how we are to govern ourselves. We are the source of all government authority and all the powers and our leaders can ever have under our constitution. Our history demonstrates in stark terms that our government leaders have not been willing to represent us in the past and are likely to avoid representing us in the present and future until we recognize our own personal potency as citizens. As a third practical rule, to empower citizens will also empower their representatives and disempower those who do not represent us. Our leadership has as a general direction of sovereignty acted to represent created beings, corporate entities, instead of citizens. There will be reaction to the teachings of this course and it will likely come from corporate sources rather than from people acting as citizens. Citizens own the government. They do not have to be paid to see to their personal interests though insisting that their government represents and supports them. There are many others who are paid to represent other interests. This is not a theory. It is a witness of our history. Employment law, the balancing of corporate and labor interests is just a witness to not supporting the people as individuals. Our final rule comes from performance studies. People working together in coordinated efforts are more than twice as effective as people working as individuals. People working against each other can only accomplish what other sides cannot prevent. There is no less effective approach than dividing into competing efforts which has become common for our nation. It continues through government even with the government of the United States being ordained and established for the purpose of perfecting the union. The very operation of our government is put to the test. Can two neighbors legally decide to invade the home of their joint neighbor stripping them of his rights and taking what is his because the two of them agree it serves some public purpose? If people cannot do this as individuals then they cannot authorize their government to do it in their name. This is the very nature of sovereignty. You cannot a vote away the rights of your neighbors and a majority vote does not authorize government to ignore the sovereignty of the citizen. Our government is to serve not to rule. Can two people decide to spend their joint neighbors money? If they cannot do such a thing as individuals they cannot authorize our government to do it in their name. Such things are the strictures that the common law would put upon a government over a sovereign people. It is no wonder that many of the states have declared that their legislated laws have replaced the common law. It is the very definition of a sovereign authority that sovereign legislation overcomes any documented restrictions. Still a whole village can decide to expel a violent man from within their midst in their own protection. So a supermajority can act against even a sovereign citizen. This is the basis for criminal law, a realization that there are such disruptive behaviors that the people will not allow these to continue. This is the basis for requiring a jury in our government proceedings against a sovereign citizen. We have this basis in law, even if our leaders would prefer to act as rulers. Our solution is not revolution. A man does not have to revolt against what he owns. He just takes charge and uses what is his. This requires only two things, that the man realize that it is his and that the man has a purpose for using what he owns. This course is designed to provide that sense of ownership that comes with being a sovereign citizen. The purpose must be your own. If it is a purpose that is common to all citizen owners, then it will also become the purpose of those who represent the citizens. With this understanding, we are able to look back at the original Bill of Rights and Amendments in perspective of the times and with the sense of both our purpose and our accomplishments.