 There was an obvious fear that the sovereignty of the people would not be accepted by leaders once they were in office. All that they feared is now part of our history. Attempts to address unwanted government by specifically banning it in amendments has failed. Government leadership has largely ignored what was written, wherever it would require recognizing the people as sovereigns or as a source of their authority. Agreement on amendments had only limited success in curbing government excesses. Our witness is not just avoiding what was written. Where the very purpose of these amendments is restrictions on those who govern, implementation has been restrictions on the public and granting special rights to non-citizens. In the First Amendment, Congresses forbidden to pass laws that would establish a prohibit religious exercise. The leadership actively misread this to erect and promote a wall of separation between government and religion. The writing does not even ban Congress from setting up a religious shrine should they desire to do so. It addresses law, banning the Congress from passing laws to regulate or promote any religion. It is written to prevent the sort of abuses that caused the pilgrims to come to America. It was written as a ban on the laws that would achieve religious persecution. It does not ban other areas of government from doing anything. It does not authorize regulation of religious behavior and practices by public employees, nor does it institute any requirement for equality among religious entities in the public. All these are active interferences with religious practices. Government leaders have accomplished interferences, all the while proclaiming that the First Amendment provision somehow requires it. It has been used to restrict the practice of religion by citizens in public places. That is the exact opposite of what is written. It has been used to promote equality among religions, which is not a purpose of either we the people or the government that they created through this constituting agreement. Purging the public of religious icons, banning the ten Judeo-Christian commandments from public places, and such like actions are not promoted by this provision, they are discouraged. Where Congress was banned from passing such laws, the courts have legislated religious persecution from the bench. The next provision addresses the citizen's freedom of speech or of the press. Again, it is the Congress that is addressed, and these are areas where it is not to pass laws attempting to regulate or control what people say or publish. There was no need for government regulation of speech. This was already well covered in the common law. The rights of one citizen was already limited by the rights of other citizens. It was Congress that was forbidden to pass laws that might interfere with what had already been resolved. A citizen could not speak to invoke panic in a crowded room as in yelling fire in a theater. It was personally accountable for anybody who took injury because of their false alarm. A citizen could not speak fighting words that knowingly would provoke violence in other people. If they did, they would be the ones responsible for any damages or injuries that would follow from the violence they provoked. A citizen could not slander other citizens and could be held accountable for damages that would follow from twisted statements or lies told about other people. These were already regulated behaviors that needed no government interference. Where Congress was banned, the courts legislated from the bench somehow coming to the conclusion that protest speech was entitled to special protection. That those who spoke against government actions were no longer subject to common law limitations, but could preach violence without being held accountable for the result. It was the courts who gave special protection to religious groups that preach hate and violence as a creed, accepting their leadership for responsibility for the breaches of peace and violence that follow. It was the courts and judge-made law that would give special protection to those who burned a U.S. flag in front of military veterans, excusing them from any violence that might be provoked. Where Congress was banned from interfering in publications by citizens, the courts actively misread this provision to address the public's right to be informed. That is not what is written and requires a special sort of active misreading to somehow justify a special protection for those in the news business. It shifted them away from having to take responsibility for slanderous materials or for personal damages from mistruths that they might publish. And then there is political speech, a special protection for those engaged in politics where they are protected from telling outright lies to the public, misstating facts to support political postures, and slandering one another. The right to peaceably assemble and to petition government for grievances has been protected, including even gatherings that are gathered by paying the attendees to take part. The right of assembly is for people to gather and for people to choose to petition their government. This is not the right of people to procure or promote assembly or to establish gatherings to see to their own purposes through acts that gather the public. It is the people who choose to gather peacefully who are exercising this right. Those who might provide transportation and pay to others who attend events or gatherings should not be protected from the results of the actions they set in motion, but should be held to account personally and liable for the results of promoting their own purpose through assembling people. The abuse of this First Amendment's written provision is legendary at scope. Article 2 addresses a well-regulated militia. A militia is a civilian force, a potential gathering of volunteers for a purpose of civilians who are gathered. It is generally a reactive force, an assembly of volunteers gathered only to mitigate threats. The militia is a potential, not an existing force. It exists only when the people come together for a military purpose in addressing some threat they all feel. This article addresses the right of a citizen to be armed and forbids government regulation of that military potential. The militia can be supported. Volunteers can be trained and equipped by a government action. Once formed, the militia can be regulated. This amendment addresses the right of a citizen to be armed and forbids government to limit or interfere. As in other rights, the common law protection for the right of one person is only limited by the rights of other citizens. The right of the citizen to be armed is only to be limited where the right to be armed becomes an assault upon other citizens. Carrying weapons could, for example, be banned at sporting events, in courtrooms, at public meetings, and in other places where emotions tend to run high. The maintenance of large amounts of explosive munitions and city limits could be banned as an assault on neighbors. Registration of weapons is without public purpose. Regulation of sales is not authorized, beyond assuring that the weapons are bought by citizens who have not been declared mentally deficient or otherwise had their ownership limited by judicial orders. Regulation of types of weapons produced for the public or sold to the public is beyond the authority of government, yet we have no end of gun control laws and regulations supposedly in accord with good government practice. The rights of the citizens under whose authority this constitutional agreement is signed does not support government interference of any type short of protection of the rights of other citizens. Political government has simply ignored such limitations. Legislation is used to abridge this right. The courts are used to abridge this right. An executive authority is used to regulate and limit this right. This amendment is treated as permission for leaders to do what government has clearly forbidden to do. The quartering of soldiers in private homes was a long-standing feudal practice. It was originally justified as feudal peasants' home was on the feudal landlord's property. With sovereign citizens, such a practice could not be continued. It interfered with citizen ownership of their property. This provision has not been challenged and has been of little effect. Our central government has been allowed to gather and apply public resources to maintain a military force. It has no need for quartering soldiers separately. The first ten amendments were passed in an attempt to secure the rights of the people from encroachments by government leadership, abuses that had been common for sovereign governments. History witnesses to both the wisdom of our founders' concerns and to the active and intensive efforts of government leaders to abuse the people they were empowered to serve. If there is a lesson in this, it would be that the details written into the people's agreement are treated as impediments to proper government by those who come into authority. Instead of protection of rights, they are read to authorize government actions to effectively defeat the purpose written into the document. It highlights the importance of this education in law and government. This course provides that missing citizen empowerment where the people are seen as a source of government and its source of both power and authority and empowered people are a danger to those who would abuse them. Once people are armed with knowledge of their rights and their shared agreement as owners, they each become a personal threat to those who would try to abuse them and armed people are a dangerous people. That, of course, was the purpose of the Second Amendment and why the government efforts to ignore this first. The First Amendment has been so intensive and consistent and informed people cannot be stripped of their personal capacities. Once educated in personal rights and authorities, the people will demand representation instead of simply calling for it as good government.