 The American common law, like the common law of England, had the purpose of supporting the common citizens and their business transactions. 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 principle of the common law that our Constitution was prepared as an agreement by and among the people of the United States. This set in writing the business relationship between the sovereign people with their signatories serving as agents of we the people and the corporate national government that was created by and through this contractual agreement. 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 ones in whose name the document was signed. The mention of the states in the signing just indicates that they are representing the parts of we the people that were represented by each signature affixed. Under the law of agency, those who signed as agents of we the people could not authorize this new government to do any illegal acts. They could only take actions on behalf of citizens that citizens were legally unauthorized to take. It could not establish a government exercise sovereignty over citizens as the now freed colonial people did not have authority over one another. As to the officers of this new government, the Constitution provided terms to the contract under which they were employed and they could only have the powers and authorities that we the people would 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 to contractual relations that were not to interfere with the limitations set upon 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 document did not accept the limits of authority but chose to act as corporate sovereign over the people under whose authority they were put in office. They accepted the Constitution as their source of sovereignty 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 the Constitution would place on those who were authorized under its provisions. There are few places where the violation is more public than with interferences in the obligations of contract. Yet the heart and soul of traditional business law was to honor the commercial agreements made by U.S. citizens. Interference in contract relations has been massive, adding to the agreements those things upon which the parties never agreed, setting requirements upon contracts that are not even written into them and violating the very principles upon which this 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 promotion of the common good. These were simple violations. They were criminal misuse of public authority and they were an open violation 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 the 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 the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves at our posterity. There is no valid public purpose for legislating provisions into employment contracts on which sovereign citizens who sign those agreements have not agreed. The scope of the violation of both purpose and law is so massive that it leaves 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 the development of employment law, especially in the novelty of the establishment of corporate America as a predominant mode of commerce. In short, this change in commerce established a new business aristocracy. Those who ran large corporations as the barons of industry were, by law, given effective sovereign 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 the effective source of government resources. Accepting these 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 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 these corporate commercial businesses. Corruption spreads. The people who worked, who were also signed up, employment agreements, were the real source of government authority. And they also, as a corporate body, controlled vast resources. The leadership in non-citizen corporate businesses who had gained influence with government leaders soon found themselves opposed by non-citizen corporate labor unions who 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? There was 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 the business aristocracy was not reversed, but matched by additional corruption by union aristocracy. There 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 and corporate agency, the corruption that has not yet spread to other areas of business law. There is also a 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 set 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 base 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 employees. There is much political hype addressed with business benefits of leaders 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 have to be ordered to do what they would choose to do. Some people have to be ordered to put these provisions into their employment contracts. It is because they would not otherwise have them included. Contracts between citizens other than employment are generally supported in accordance with a common law. Other agency is honored by our courts, accepting of course where the agency would apply to those who operate our government. The government handling of incorporation has many legal challenges. These are perhaps most obvious in the question of whether there are benefits for private citizen businessmen who incorporate 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 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, sovereign citizens, but 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 is the revelation of the reality of citizens choosing incorporation for private businesses, and it witnesses 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? The partial answer is that there is no good foundation in the common law for incorporation. That was considered sovereignty concept. It applied to government and administration and military activities. It applied in a very limited way to a village, town, or city administration, which served common people living within its territories. It included ships at sea, where the ship's master or captain was the effective aristocracy. Rights and privileges of such leaders were only specified for the ship at sea and military. The others were directly answering to sovereignty that survived on the productivity of the common people. On the need to reap the benefits of larger business organizations, it was a blank slate for the legislators, with their history addressing only sovereignty as a basis for development. The need to create corporations was obvious, as was the benefit available to 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 that sovereignty, all they could, to the corporate entities through the laws governing incorporation. Where government officers had accepted legal protection from the acts on behalf of the government, they also granted these new corporate leaders protection from the results of their acts on behalf of the corporation. Corporate sovereignty and office was raised to protect publicly elected officers from complaints by citizens concerning their representation. Likewise, corporate officers would be protected in their leadership positions from complaints by corporate owners and investors in 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 granted that acts of corporate leadership would be the acts of the corporation rather than personal acts of the leaders. As effective sovereigns over the citizens, public leaders accepted that their purpose as a body of representatives were the public purposes, and so they accepted 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 purpose 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 in supporting U.S. citizens. It provides us with a truly awesome potential. The corporation is general, as it is the damage it visits daily on the prosperity of we the people. The universal damage is a basis for universal support for changes that enhance the prosperity through our commercial dealings.