 In addressing the fifth section, we have to return to the powers and authorities that belong to the people in whose name this constitutional agreement is being signed. No citizen has the power to determine who will be the representative for her neighbor. That authority is personal. They cannot give the gathered Congress the power to challenge the authority of any elected representative. There simply is no authority to interfere with or to prevent the election of representatives. Proclaiming Congress to be the judge of member elections does not let the body of Congress establish and enforce its internal rules as to its own membership. Congress cannot refuse the will of the people who elect a representative, but they do not have to accept the representative as an active member of Congress. This section recognizes the right of the members to look at the details of election and to judge whether any elected person is fairly elected and has met the minimum requirements for fulfillment of the congressional office to which he or she was elected. Beyond this, there is the power to regulate the behavior of the members of Congress when acting as a member of the body. This is, by writing, even open to assessment of punishment. In the common law, punishment is the assessment of a negative consequence to some act. Punishment by the common law was an extraordinary power. No person could legally punish his neighbor. Punishment was reserved for the sovereign authority and limited to established crimes and misdemeanors, or to exercise the right of sovereign to rule. It was like the power of parents over a young child enforcing parental rules on pain of active parental response. The effect of this provision is to set the body of Congress into sovereign authority over its members, but with the limited purpose of seeing to its operation as a public body serving a public purpose. A specific note, this does not give Congress any additional powers or authorities when dealing with the people who elected that representative. It assumes that discordant behavior by any elected member of Congress is misrepresentative. Punishment goes to the member instead of reflecting on the people who are represented. The Journal of Proceedings is a requirement for management of the legislative business of Congress. Writing it into this provision is clearly beyond simple management, especially when the provision allows exemption of items from the record. What this justifies is a separation of the journal into two volumes. The one to be public containing the records of operation that any citizen may see. The other is secured and is a record of the actions that are not to be published. It implies the publication of the one volume. It does not address what the Congress is to do with the other. The final provision addresses the intentional coordination of the two houses of Congress. It addresses simultaneous meetings, implying intent that they work in coordination and fulfilling the purposes set forth in this constitutional agreement. The lead paragraph in Section 6 arranges for the members of Congress to be government employees. They are to be paid from the common treasury. This has a secondary common law impact as it deals with the laws that apply to employment. One immediate challenge is that these representatives are not employed to represent the United States as a whole, but to represent the people who are the base for their election. Payment from the U.S. Treasury is not meant to interrupt this and must accordingly address citizen owner's rights in the Treasury. The government gaining funds in the Treasury is not meant to interfere with responsibility to represent the people. It speaks to the need to see funds within the Treasury as belonging to the people. Funds collected from those in representatives' area of representation belong most directly to the citizens being represented. Other funds, as those collected from regulating international commerce, are shared in ownership with all the citizens of the United States. Simply dumping funds into an omnibus account is probably improper and is certainly poor management. The effect is to assure that the members of Congress are to be paid out of a representational portion of the funds held in the Treasury for that representative's territory. Separate accounting to the people represented should be appropriate. The obvious intent of a congressman's immunity from common arrest is to assure that the representative's unfettered ability to represent is maintained and to act without fear of personal reprisals when engaged in the people's business. There is, after all, provision in the previous section for self-regulation of Congress as a body with ability to contain disruptive or improper behavior by such rules and actions as Congress may choose to put into effect. The intent has proven to be unrealized due to the large amount of legislative business being completed by this body of hundreds of people. They do not have time and opportunity to self-regulate through their internal corporate actions. As a matter of general practice, they simply allow members to commit slander in hopes that the public will not support their representative in engaging in such published criminal acts. Even where the slander is intended to damage someone's ability to pursue their chosen profession, it has gone unpunished. Most recently it has even been used to slander for political benefit, intentionally interfering with the representation of candidates for congressional or other elected offices. This provision has been openly and widely abused without restraint. But any correction is a matter for Congress, and accordingly not for lesser government bodies or authorities to interfere. Where we the people have authority to interfere, we currently have a lack of good and recognized process for action, even if we come together to address matters of concern. The second paragraph also addresses avoidance of representative bias, putting a specific ban on actions and relations that would divide their interest and loyalties by secondary employment. They are, for the time they are in office, to be focused on the people's business. This provision does not require direct member action. Again, the first focus in Article 7 is on finance, on the importance of handling the people's public money. It is also indicative of the people's intent that the bill's raised revenue must start in the House of Congress that is most representative of the people. This government's gathering of funds is the people's business. This further emphasizes that funds in the Treasury are also the people's business. The public is seen as having a direct and abiding interest in the public money residing in the U.S. Treasury. The following paragraphs specify the general process that is to be used for passing laws. It is significant that it includes the President as a check on the authority of Congress, even as it does allow a supermajority in both houses to see to the representative will if the President is not disposed to support congressional action. Article 8 enumerates certain powers that will belong to Congress. It accordingly sets effective responsibility upon Congress to exercise these powers on behalf of the people of the United States, seeing to the purposes given. It is noteworthy that a large percentage of these go to financial operation of government. This is a major matter of interest in the people's delegation of powers to the government formed under this founding document. There are specific provisions addressing the militia, the people of the nation as volunteers for military direction. There is specific authority to call these bodies to national purpose. There is not exclusive power as it is of a volunteer force, people by sovereign citizens. The state also has potential for military efforts. There is authorization to create federal enclaves, where federal law will be the sole legislative authority. It is significant that, except for the seat of government, all such lands must be approved by the states, the territorial representative bodies, before an enclave can be legally established. Inheritanness is the right of the state as the people's territorial authority to withdraw their approval, reclaiming their territorial rights to represent those who are within their borders. Territorial authority other than the seat of government rests first in the states and then in the constitutional government arranged in this agreement. The ending of this list with a catch-all provision indicates that the list is to be inclusive, not exclusive. There are other powers that will belong to the Congress, even though not included in the list. Where section 8 addresses things Congress was to do, section 9 addresses things that Congress is specifically not to do. It bans many historical interferences with citizen activities that are to be recognized as citizen rights and privileges. It includes some privileges recognized in the state governments. It specifically directs that Congress not favor any state over any other in matters of commerce. It also strengthens the ability of people to manage their government by assuring published account of receipts and expenditures. This has proven to be limited in effect as secrecy is also specifically permitted. And as involved noting the expenditures and receipts, but not requiring a specific statement of the particulars for otherwise secured transactions. There is good reason to believe that this has allowed and supported some public abuses. Section 10 deals with recognizing those traditional trappings of sovereign government that are reserved to the Congress. In writing of this provision, it is somewhat awkward as it is written in a negative, addressing powers and authorities as being forbidden to the states. While this is somewhat in accord with the signing of the document by colonial state representatives, it should be read as this document setting limits upon state governments as denial of state sovereignty. This document, however, especially Article 1, addresses the creation of central Congress and not definitive as to other bodies. It suffices to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Congress on matters covered. The states are not to be recognized by those in Congress to be separate sovereign governments. Neither does it subordinate the state government to a new government, but merely limits their ability to act as sovereigns where Congress is given jurisdiction. It should appear that the states by their acceptance also accept the indicated divisions of authorities. The very act of writing of this constitutional article sets duties upon Congress. It sets specific limitations on its authority to act. The larger agreement among we the people as to what they grant, government, contains its own set of limits based on the larger purpose of self-governance. The U.S. government is not able to act as a sovereign over the citizens of the United States but to represent their interests in accord with the written agreement and within its stated purposes. The first purpose of Congress is to pass laws delivering services to the people. The second is to perform internal management of the operation of government on behalf of the people. It is also provided with a list of specific duties to address through the operation of the Congress. To draw together, it is an act in coordination with the President in the legislative efforts to support an executive arm of government through passage of laws. This is not a matter of checks and balances so much as direction to act in coordination with other elements of government and assuring the purposes of government as set forth in the preamble.