 where the first four articles deal with the structure and operation of the government that is created by this agreement. The last three deal with important ancillary matters. Article 5 establishes a process for changing the document. This allows for handling any errors that are discovered in the original document or changes required to keep the agreement effective where the original provisions might end up ineffective or even harmful to the continuation of constitutional government. Article 6 addresses continuation of the authority from the existing colonial confederation, the nature of legal authority, and the orientation of public officers to the authority of their offices. Article 7 provides the process for enactment and empowerment of the agreement itself. Article 5 provides a process for additions to this constituting agreement, and it is much like the process that was used to propose and ratify the original agreement. The additional party to the process is the Congress, which is also able, on behalf of all people, to call for a convention of proposed amendments. As with the original convention, those who gather are not subordinate to nor to be limited by authority of state or central government. They are to represent we the people in their efforts to see to the needs for amendment and then to propose the same where there is agreement in convention that they are presented to the states for ratification on behalf of we the people. In large, neither we the people nor our leadership has been educated in the original document, but have been presented with misinformation concerning what was agreed. This has had impact on the quality of the amendments that have been accepted under this process. In large, our lack of previous education is the purpose for providing teenage students with opportunity to read and understand a remarkable founding document. For the great American experiment in self-government to continue, we need to have both an understanding of past experiment and a basis for coming to awareness of what we can agree upon today and in the future. Rest assured, there are those who will not agree even to support education for fear that they may find themselves disadvantaged. Recognize that this is a common fear for all people and that only by our agreement will it be dispelled. It is only where we, as a people, can have faith in each other saying to our corporate benefit that the experiment will be ready to enter into a new phase. Even coming to that realization that the government has a purpose of the people may be sufficient change, but this will be in the hands of future citizens of the United States. We will separately be addressing the numerous amendments as not only additions, but as historical events and purposes that have been accepted as a basis for changes. Article 6 covers three important and salary matters. The first is continuation of a new government from the Confederation of Colonies, which it was replacing. The second was the establishing of the Constitution as the legal authority of the states as well as being the basis for central government. The third was assuring the support of public officers for the provisions of their constituting agreement. The first was both financial and political continuation from the pre-existing government. It recognized financial obligations that had been incurred before the new government took office under the constituting agreement. The second was continuation of any political arrangements made on behalf of the colonial governments, which were not in discord with the provisions of the new agreement. Treaties and other political arrangements with foreign nations were to continue as if they had been signed under the authority of the new constituting document. This was to ensure that all affected parties that they get a high level of continuity and transition to a new structure and operation of an American government. This provision was transitional and no further effect after ratification of the constituting agreement. All new financial and political arrangements would be made under the new authority and in accord with its written provisions. The second paragraph arranges legal priorities for the government. It includes a people's recognition that the new constitution will be the agreed authority in the United States and it will represent its sovereign citizens. In that it will also have to be center of legal government for the states as well with recognition that they are to be representative bodies addressing internal groups of the same sovereign citizens. Of specific note, there is nothing in here about states' rights. States are also representative bodies. The people are the ones with rights. The states have authorities attended upon representing the people just as the federal government gains its authorities from the people of the United States. There is no agreement to any contest between the authority of the states and the authority of the federal government. They are both representing the same people. There is rather a division on the sort of actions they take in their separate parts in supporting the sovereign people who are their source of authority for both of them. It was also wise, even if not technically necessary, to state in writing that the state-level court officers were required to apply federal law in their decisions. This headed off potential for state governments to refuse to apply laws that would not be advantageous to the citizens of the state. It assured uniform application to the citizens of the United States. It is for us to note that this did not set new government above the state governments but rather recognize that the sovereign people of the United States as a whole could be granted greater representational authority than the regional populations of the states. The use of supreme law is probably more a political statement than a factual one. The sovereign people are the authority behind this supreme law and they own the government that sets laws in place. Both legislation and the constitution that authorizes legislation are only empowered by reference to the ability of the sovereign people to come together for that purpose. The third paragraph of this article gives the Constitution immediate jurisdiction of all public officers, both state and federal. It requires oath and affirmation to support this constitutional agreement. It makes it both a crime and a tort for any public officer to act in defiance of the provisions of this agreement. Disparagement of the Constitution is not only a cause for removal from public office. It is a basis on which any sovereign citizen might sue for personal damages that arise from official acts of contravention. The only way to justify such an action in public office is ineffective representation of citizens who would support such contravention. The sovereign people are the only recognized higher authority. The inclusion of a ban on religious tests for public office is an important one. This is not some separation of church and state, but recognition that the divine authority claimed by religious adherence is not being used to prevent representation of sovereign citizens. The sovereignty of the American citizen is to be inherent in being a citizen, not an adherence to religious beliefs. This is recognition of religious authority as potent, but not as the basis for self-government under this constituting agreement. Religious adherence is not to be a foundation for this agreement. The government derived under it is not a religious institution and does not come from any divine right to rule, as was claimed for past European governments. Article 7 addresses the process for approval and implementation of this new agreement. It generally addresses the ability of many prior colonies through their agreement to terminate and replace the existing confederation. There are two ancillary matters that are not addressed directly. The first is the status of non-ratifying states when the confederation of government is terminated, and their citizens are not yet recognized as part of the newly formed United States. It simply goes unstated. The other is the status of those colonial governments that had assumed the role of legal governments in the vacuum left by revolution. They had no legal source of sovereignty and had limited acceptance as separate government entities, especially in their attempted government through confederation, which had been terminated. Once this new government was authorized, their options seemed limited. They could ratify or not ratify, but they would be hard-pressed to otherwise exercise any authority as to gathered states that was forming a central government for the Americas. This will be noted again in the study of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment to the Constitution. Having such a specific statement of citizen rights was considered by many to be an essential for a new nation that was being formed. This finishes our study of the originally signed agreement, with emphasis on the nature of the document as the people's document that authorizes a central government. It ordains, and on ratification would establish, a new government that received its authority from those who were to be governed. The clarity and thoughtfulness that was demonstrated was simply magnificent and worthy of appreciation by all people, most especially those who reap its benefits. But even in its ratification, we have the seed of political divisiveness, and it was in the form of a need for amendment to specifically include the rights of citizens. One group was technically correct, in terms of the rights being inherent in the government, having only delegated powers and authorities. The other group recognized the practical reality that leaders would ignore the nature of the document, treating it as a recognition of right to rule and continuation of European traditions. As it turns out, the concerns of both were correct.