Legislative camaraderie takes bad turn

Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.

"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for responsible freedom more than for the city, state, nation, or other institution.

A personal paraphrase of the June 21, 1788 preamble, the 1787 Constitution’s most neglected statutory law:  We the civic citizens of nine of the thirteen United States commit-to and trust-in the purpose and goals stated herein --- integrity, justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity, liberty, and perpetuity --- and to cultivate limited services to us and our states by the USA. I want to collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase, yet would always preserve the original, 1787, text, unless amended by the people.   

Our Views

April 28 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_e6d9247a-489b-11e8-bffb-9f42a33b2cb8.html)

I think EBRP is doing a great job to reform K-12 education.

There’s a lot I would change. Primarily: observe, encourage and coach children to accept their human authority and power to manage personal energy for life, so as to establish individual integrity. Today’s children must accomplish this feat in a world that is confused and conflicted over nourishing adult satisfactions. A civic people must help children in the three-decades transition from feral infant to young adult with understanding and intent to live a full life of some 85 years or more.

Some people in this forum often tell me I have no children in school so I should not comment on education. However, today I will vote “yes” on all the tax propositions. In five decades here, I have never voted against school taxes.

However, I would reduce John White’s salary and reduce administrative salaries as much as possible.

April 1 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_9e97a99e-32d3-11e8-a696-b72954df9722.html)

  

To Marsha Marshal: The USA purchased the Louisiana territory from France (Napoleonic law) in 1803. Louisiana drafted a constitution on January 22, 1812. The USA admitted Louisiana to statehood on April 26, 1812, but moved the celebration to April 30, the anniversary of the purchase.

The pertinent words in the 1812 constitution are in Section 18: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused have the right of . . . a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage . . .”

What does “impartial” mean? In your heat toward me, are you expressing impartiality rather than emotions? I do not intend to be an object of a jury trial but would not want you on my jury or anyone else’s jury for that matter. There’s no place for emotional decisions in the trial between victim and the accused.

Moreover, when you stonewall the reality that the constitution for the USA did and does begin with a civic contract that is erroneously demeaned, for example as secular, by every faction the USA ever suffered, are you being impartial? I do not demean the preamble when I assert that I want to change “unity” to “integrity.” When my proposal has had civic collaboration, I will accept the consequence.

I don’t think you are impartial toward the preamble. Frederick Douglass was impartial in his 1852 speech on July 5. I think the US Supreme Court would be on my side in the defense of the preamble’s legal power.

However, I do not think the court is needed in the matter, and it already affirmed Louisiana’s jury law. Every human individual has the authority, the power, and the energy to spend his or her life developing integrity. Every USA citizen is human. Most citizens accept individual authority and power, but some are dissident to integrity. Some, for example, perhaps ex FBI director James Comey, don’t seem to have ever encountered the call for individual integrity.

We seem at a point in history when the individual may collaborate for civic integrity or continue to suffer conflict for dominant opinion and the chaos we are suffering. We’ll see if an achievable, better future unfolds. I’ll to do my best to help.

April 25 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_fb0be142-48a7-11e8-a628-23e6e2ee3226.html)

Kill HB 365

 

When freedom-from oppression and the liberty-to pursue justice are sincere, civic citizens collaborate for justice. I think the majority of citizens want sincere liberty.

Unfortunately, Louisiana legislators allow the camaraderie of egocentric grandstanding lessen their interests in the people. And The Advocate personnel exacerbate the tyranny with biased personal opinion posed as news.

I think innocent until proven guilty rather than unanimous jury vote is “a cornerstone of the American legal system,” and have the opinion that both Gordon Russell and The Advocate’s administration are immorally taking advantage of the people of Louisiana in this issue.

Rather than give up the justice of Louisiana law because racial motives were stated in the history, sincere legislators have the opportunity now to act for civic morality. As a first proposal, kill HB 365, then re-group to establish use of the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA to collaborate for civic justice rather than social emotions.

 

For example reform Louisiana law mimicking the importance the United States Supreme Court places on majority votes, 5-4. Quoting uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1, “A majority of Justices must agree to all of the contents of the Court's opinion before it is publicly delivered. The Justice in charge of writing the opinion must be careful to take into consideration the comments and concerns of the others who voted in the majority. On rare occasions . . . one or more Justices switch their votes after reading the drafts of the majority and dissenting opinions.”

That's a good system for felony trials. Louisiana has the opportunity to lead the USA to an appreciation for both the victim and the accused by modelling a nine-panel majority decision on perhaps the world’s best procedure, which nonetheless has had about 250 reversals in its history.

Last, but not least, I cannot emphasize enough the fact that "the people" are not solely to blame for neglecting the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Fellow citizen Ed Tarpley, a former D.A., asserts that “The jury stands between the people and the government.” With that kind of dissidence against government’s role as servant of the people it is no wonder that Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg dream, government of by and for the people, has never been approached on earth. Tarplay may consider the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble: It establishes the purpose and aims of the entire constitution for the USA.

 

The Louisiana Legislature has the responsibility for an achievable, better future in its hands. Do they have the authenticity to act? We’ll see.

 

I lost hope for reform by The Advocate personnel, but they know not and seem to care not what woe they nourish.

Each human being has the authority and the power to manage his or her life’s energy to develop integrity. I encourage citizens: contact your state representative and ask him or her to kill HB 365. Copy your state senator so that he or she will know your intentions for fidelity to civic justice.

  

To King Alexander: Does African-American Christianity want to re-establish slavery? See wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778.

In their view, is "the world" in John 15:18-23 white Christianity? I think the covert divisiveness of John's writing is civic immorality and one of bountiful reasons to exclude both church and racism from collaboration for justice.

To Marsha Marshal: I know that the phrase “African-American Christianity” emerged in the early 1970s. Expressing disunion of Christianity has a purpose, but only the writers and speakers who use the phrase know their intentions.

I know that I think John 15:18-23 is immoral. It is part of the Roman canonization of the Holy Bible in about 325 AD. I do not know if African-American Christianity accepts the Roman canonization.

 

I am not a Christian. I do not tolerate any claim that a civic non-Christian hates Christians, Jesus, and God, as John seems to claim in his Chapter 15.

 

I think those three entities--- Christians (including African-American Christians), Jesus, and God---may individually both conform to the-objective-truth and collaborate for civic justice.

 
April 24 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_0ab213bc-4729-11e8-860d-a3bb74bcab59.html)

I think the state of Louisiana should continue to uphold its law, which has been endorsed by the United States Constitution, according to the 1972 Supreme Court 5-4 opinion in Johnson v Louisiana. See supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/356/.

 The court held that:  “The provisions of Louisiana law . . . do not violate the Due Process Clause for failure to satisfy the reasonable doubt standard. [That some] jurors vote to acquit does not mean that [those] who vote to convict have ignored their instructions concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or that they do not honestly believe that guilt has been thus proved.”

Further, Louisiana’s purposes in non-unanimous verdicts are valid, and Mr. Johnson’s arrest was legal.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review Johnson v Louisiana, and so should the 2018 Louisiana Legislature. If anything, the rule should be revised from 10-2 to 7-5 and for petit court 3-2 (revising to five) to follow the Supreme Court example 5-4.

By all means, exemplary Louisiana law should not be overturned by a rogue newspaper promoting law by sensation, poles, or popular opinion.
 

Contact your state representative and ask him or her to kill HB 365; legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=18RS&b=HB365&sbi=y.

April 23 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_05716d58-4431-11e8-bded-ef9abfe5a2ea.html)

The keys to an achievable, better future may be 1) use of the agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA to coordinate civic issues and 2) collaboration on the-objective-truth to discover justice.

 

Individuals can, even in this divided country, live on the leading edge of justice. Neither Duncan nor Vitter work for an achievable better future rather conflict for a dominant opinion, and they should not be confirmed to judicial positions.

The Advocate personnel publish uncanny will/intent to influence un-civic choices.

  

Fellow-citizen Cedric Richmond: “. . . the decision ending segregation was an absolute must and the right and just thing to do.”

The Advocate personnel:  “We see Vitter as agreeing with that view, even if she” expressed the negative.

Perhaps The Advocate personnel may think of themselves as fellow citizens collaborating for justice.

April 21 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_05716d58-4431-11e8-bded-ef9abfe5a2ea.html)

Kill HB 365.

In five decades reading my-hometown newspaper, I have never seen The Advocate writers so vulnerable to the thought, “civically immoral bias.”

Let’s see The Advocate writers sensationalize “5-4 weakens law and order,” then present The Advocate emotions about demanding unanimous opinion---nine vote---from the US Supreme Court.

Louisiana law developed from Napoleonic law, based on concerns beyond racism.

The Advocate starts praising a felon who intimidated the public and the police with his vehicle. I hope those citizens are not traumatized. At least for the lead article The Advocate writers had read the Shreveport Times account with Greg Pearson’s photo of a desperado. I hope the dog who fished the renegade out of the river is OK.

Where’s The Advocate’s arguments about some felony criminals intimidating some jurors? To offset this effect, I’d like to change from 10-2 to 7-5 and 4-2. Also, I’d like jury pool to have attested to the agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.

Do writers for The Advocate understand criminal law well enough to serve as jurors? Forming opinion for their balance for the people’s benefit instead of the felon, I would not want one of them on a jury. The modern French are concerned about the public’s ability to judge based on the law: The French doubt social justice.

The Advocate’s “full scrutiny of society’s judgment,” is the most ludicrous idea. Consider where social morality has brought the USA in 229 years! The USA is in chaos over social morality and is in dire need of civic morality: The widespread intent to live during the same years in the same place with mutual, comprehensive safety and security rather than conflict for dominant opinion. In other words, collaborate for private liberty with civic morality.

It occurred to me that promoting criminality increases belief in crime or the proportion of inhabitants who think crime pays, which increases criminal incidents, which some newspapers delight in reporting, believing that it promotes revenue. Surely it’s an erroneous thought.

Kill HB 365, and let’s find a responsible hometown newspaper.

To Marsha Marshal: I read the news. Seem like deja vu to you? It does to me.

But I hope this time, instead of legislators imposing their way, a civic people collaborate for private liberty with civic morality, in other words, human justice. Every human being has the authority and power to manage his or her energy during every moment of life to develop integrity.

Join me in the effort to persuade citizens to consider the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Much as individuals may earn their bread, civic citizens may collaborate for justice by discovering and using the-objective-truth rather than conflict for dominant opinion.

Justice does not come from emotions, passions, popularity, or conflict.

To Marsha Marshal: Often, arrogant scholars ignore the article and respond about “objective truth,” which may be false. The hyphens help express an existing entity, the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. The-objective-truth does not respond to reason. Humankind works to discover the-objective-truth, understand how to benefit, and to behave accordingly. Many individuals are dissident to this noble work.

Thanks for associating me with Peter Sellers. He’s one of my favorite comedians. But he worked from a script. I often respond spontaneously. For example, a Senate Chair at the capital read my green card and asked, “Phil, must you speak?” Under that duress, I responded, “I’d like to.” I wanted Louisiana to make medical marijuana a low-cost supplement, handed by the druggist to the customer holding a doctor’s recommendation.

I’ve had only one academic course in social sciences, and my opinion of their opinions is very low. Social morality has only one destiny: chaos. What humans need and want is civic morality with private liberty: human justice. In other words, mutual, comprehensive safety and security.

As an individual, you have the authority, power, and energy to develop integrity. Will you? If so, you will first develop fidelity to the-objective-truth; then yourself, your family, your extended family and friends, the people (nation), humankind, and the world, both respectively and collectively. With extended practice, you will recall: In every thought, every word, and every action I neither initiate nor tolerate harm. Being human, you will err sometimes, but not often.

These things I have confidence in, even though I do not know.

  

To William Bonin: Bonin, I appreciate that story.

  

Also, among the black citizens I know, not one thinks crime pays. Among the black citizens I have met, for example, one who hit my sister-in-law's vehicle attempts to escape responsibility.

Most people are aware of this country's deliberate march from the horror of Africa's world commodity, black slaves. And the European-Christian colonization of the America's---purchasing black slaves to power the agricultural economies. And the North's objections to the South's defense of slavery as a more righteous religious opinion: it was white Christian church against white Christian church. And the path to the Civil Rights acts of 1964-5. Most people are also aware of the emergence of AMO---Alinsky-Marxist organizations for black power involving what became the Congressional Black Caucus.

But who understands James H. Cone's 1969 book, Black Theology and Black Power. O James Baldwin's pity for the white American (youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w&t=373s) or Cornel West's "African-American Christianity"; wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778?

As a Knoxville, TN, Southern Baptist, I hardly noticed John 15:18-23; I was not being accused. However, as a non-Christian for the last of three quarter centuries, I do not tolerate John's "hates" claims against me. (Nor Luke's awful 14:26.) I appreciate civic Christians, appreciate my view of Jesus, and would not turn my back again on the-objective-truth to favor one of the Christian gods in the world. If blacks perceive America's march to justice as evidence that white Christianity hates black Christianity based on the likes of John 15:18-23, I deem it erroneous belief not to be tolerated.

The Advocate's job is to collaborate for informed justice rather than excite existing division.

  

To Glen Miller: In case I was included in your question, my point is that black leaders are ruining the lives of black citizens. (Many people are expressing this point in national columns.)

European Christianity can be held responsible for everything that happened here. For example, the Roman canonization of the Holy Bible in 300 to 400 AD did not have to include passages that condone the master-slave relationship and vice versa. Luther could have denounced slavery in 1517 could have renounced slavery.

The signers of the 1787 Constitution prepared for emancipation of the slaves, and Frederick Douglass witnessed to that effect in 1852. In the Civil War, 27 free states rebuked the attack of 7 slave states and as the rebel states increased to 13, the states that rejected the Holy Bible’s affirmation of slavery won the military victory. But the dissidents continued their fight for another century.

For the past five decades black leaders have waged a war to “cash a check” for the past. No one else in the USA takes such a divisive, egocentric approach to citizenship. The civic black citizens wants mutual, comprehensive safety and security. For them, jury systems should protect the victim against the aggressor. The family of the murder victim against the murderer. It is a competition between civic citizens against dissident citizens rather than the government. The government is authorized by the civic citizens to constrain the dissidents.

The Louisiana Legislature and The Advocate are hiding many pertinent facts, and I think they are both immoral---civically, religiously, socially, legally, and neighborly immoral---any way you cut it.

BTW, I corrected a gross error in my original post, and I hope it makes more sense to you now. Posts as long as mine unfortunately suffer interruptions, and sometimes interruptions hurt my attention. Sorry.

   

Letters

A dissident citizen (Esman) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_118b4944-48b7-11e8-930e-5f30c4c9dd78.html)

   

To James Hyde: Esman’s letter is a good example of opinion/policy based evidence. It prompts a review of US history rather than English history and encourages intentions to kill HB 365.

Esman cites the justice of non-discrimination, but neither reviews other non-unanimous voting nor begs blind retribution for events that led to 1898 Louisiana. For example, there’s no complaint against either Africa’s bitter fruit: slaves nor the Church’s authorization of evil purchases for colonies: slaves. In Frederick Douglass’s 1852 words, the rest of the world has long since let go of African slavery so as to collaborate for an achievable, better future.

Esman’s history cites the preamble to the Bill of Rights but does not appreciate the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. I wonder if, based on the purpose and goals stated in the preamble, Esman would count herself a civic citizen or a dissident. Since she obfuscates the legal importance of the preamble, I consider her another dissident.

The preamble brilliantly offers the individual citizen private liberty with civic morality; in other words, human justice. The preamble advanced the opportunity for human, individual independence from Magna Carta’s clergy-lords-partnership (1215), to the English Bill of Rights (1689), to the Articles of Confederation (1781), to thirteen free and independent states (1784), to the possibility for governance of by and for the people (1787). “Self-government” was only imagined by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. In review, the signers of the 1787 Constitution offered the leap from un-civic Canterbury-Parliament-partnership on monarchy to states rights to the potential to establish human justice, in only 800 years. There were 2/3 votes at critical steps in establishing the USA. Also, the US Supreme court makes many decisions on 5-4, simple majority. Unanimity is often unachievable. With dissidents like Esman in charge, Lincoln’s dream will “perish from the earth.”

I think “to form a more perfect Union” refers to the USA as “Union.” However, the opportunity for unity among the people exists only in utopia---imagination. The range of human understanding from infancy to adulthood across civilizations is astounding. With individual independence in mutual safety, each person has a unique pursuit of happiness and no one else’s view of happiness need be imposed on them.

The preamble is a civic agreement on which the law and law enforcement are promulgated. To clarify that point, I propose to amend the preamble from “Unity” to “to promote integrity,” where “integrity” refers to both wholeness and understanding. I learned that civic collaboration often leads to even better reform, so would accept its consequences.

Egregiously, Esman pits the trial system as the citizen vs the government. The need for trials arises when a dissident perceives that he or she can take advantage of a civic citizen or another dissident. The arrogant act creates two entities: the victim and the offender. A civic people (as stated in the preamble) authorized a court system to restore justice as much as possible when someone has been accused.

Accusation is not taken lightly, and therefore prosecutorial rules are strict. The accused cannot be tried without a Grand Jury indictment. The indictment is valid on a 12-4 vote (75%). Only then can the accused go to trial. The civic victim understands the gravity of accusation yet must suffer a long process, even though he may know the accused is the offender.

The trial is a procedure to decide in favor of the parties in the incident: The accused vs the victim. Esman’s equivocation of “impartial jury” to unanimous jury to “protect people from the government” is mendacity. A civic people as defined in the preamble defines, authorizes, and institutionalizes the government. The purpose is to protect public integrity not only by holding criminals responsible but by taking the first step in their reform: indictment and conviction of their offense.

Having written this, I think the Louisiana District Attorneys Association slights the preamble’s agreement by requiring unanimity to defend the public. They also slight first responders, like the police, who are vulnerable to repeat offenders. I hope they reform their rules to something like majority, 2/3 or 75%, consistent with the intentions of a civic people, who admit to themselves there will always be dissidents to justice.

I urge a civic people vote 'yes' on today’s tax needs and contact both your state representative and your state senator and ask them to kill HB 365.

To Marsha Marshal: Are you certain about each of us? Are we persons? Citizens? Dissidents? Aliens?

Here are some of my recent writings on a prominent law-professors' blog, where I feel invited, perhaps because of my impartiality, candor, and integrity:

libertylawsite.org/2018/04/03/to-secure-the-blessings-of-liberty-sharing-stories-of-american-civic-purposes-virtuous-citizenship-symposium/

libertylawsite.org/2018/04/03/cultivating-virtuous-citizenship-a-law-and-liberty-symposium-on-american-national-character/

libertylawsite.org/2018/03/22/democratic-persuasion-and-the-weakness-of-social-democracy

libertylawsite.org/2017/02/14/when-faction-and-solidarity-intersect/#comment-1520478

libertylawsite.org/2017/11/17/one-and-a-half-cheers-for-more-civics-education/#comment-1607679

libertylawsite.org/2017/12/12/is-liberty-natural/#comment-1616601

libertylawsite.org/2017/10/12/progressivism-and-the-preamble/#comment-1595926

If someone uses “Phil Beaver” in the search bar, they find fifteen pages at ten posts per page or 150 contributions. Not only am I a chemical engineer: I am also a civic citizen according to the preamble.

To Marsha Marshal: You are correct: the 39 of 55 delegates (over 2/3) represented the states present. However, that was only a vote of 12-1, since Rhode Island sent no delegates. They were the dissenters.

 

Is your slight of history a matter of intent, oversight, or revisionism? Don't worry though, it seems almost no lawyer worries about integrity (if you are a lawyer). After all, if there's anything I don't know about, its your person or computerized AI generator for that matter.

  

First responders (Dyer) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_38c85612-4418-11e8-9bdd-474b6c77a227.html)

   

I don’t think Dyer is putting himself in the role of first responder on the scene. Maybe tell us a related medical story and how nobly you performed when you felt you had to act, Dr. Dyer.

My career was in chemical engineering, and the AIChE instilled in me a profound attention to protecting the public. At times, my employment was in question with individual bosses, because of the stands I took for safety. However, the company defended my ethical stands for thirty-five years. Thank you Ethyl Corporation and Albemarle Corporation for being ethical.

But I was written up twice for taking risks! Both threatened my own life. First, I walked over to a solids conveyor and stuck my finger into the unexpected glisten to confirm that it was water. I had risked exposure to deadly hydrogen cyanide gas. Second, when we started up a 3,000 psi compressor, a 2” safety-valve-installation started shaking. I yelled at the acoustic-vibration designer, and he started grabbing a 2-by-4 as I wrapped my body around the valve to suppress the shake, while the operations engineer called for shut-down. The acoustics guy yelled “Hold on,” as he wedged the board under the pipe to stop the shaking until the compressor shut-down.

Just now, I recall one that was not written up. I was 100’ above grade with nothing but metal grating below. For about the fifth time, I was replacing a pressure gauge after removing it to use a test gauge I was using for accuracy in a compressor circuit. I imagined the 150 psi blow torch that would happen if I broke the 1/2” pipe nipple. I froze. Then, I slowly finished installation of the gauge, opened the valve to read the pressure, shook all the way to the ground, but never went back up there. My work was done. 

Do I wish I had not taken those risks and others that were not written up? Not really. I was doing my job to the best of my ability. I’d take that career again and expect to live the second time.

No one who observes the videos and officials’ comments has a valid thought beyond what has been expressed. It is best not to be a felon, and fellow citizens are grateful to people who accept the people’s authorization to uphold the law.

One thing that has not been expressed is that bad politicians, bad lawyers, and bad judges put a lot of pressure on first responders. Fellow citizens, let’s tighten up the DA’s ability to keep criminals from repeatedly threating the police.

For example, kill HB 365; legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=18RS&b=HB365&sbi=y. Call or write your state representative.

Next year, originate a bill that effects 7:5 and 4:2 jury decisions in Louisiana. Also, require fellow citizens to attest to the agreement that is stated in the preamble as a qualification for the jury pool.

Discrimination (Smith) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_1b4a750c-471f-11e8-aab1-6b7874b95a2c.html)

  

Dear fellow citizen Smith, please consider joining the nay votes on HB 265. And other fellow citizens, please contact your legislators and ask them to defeat HB 265.

Frederick Douglass’s 1842 speech before the president of the United States (rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945) is pivotal in my reading play, “Sincere Liberty,” which fictionalizes historical speeches to show what would could be if the people had followed General George Washington’s 1783 statement---to fellow citizens about political survival (loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html).

Douglass approved the preamble to the constitution for the USA and the articles that follow as non-discriminatory on race or slavery. However, black leaders I have spoken to say things like “My people never thought the preamble included them.” They disagree with Douglass.

The preamble offers a civic agreement that is neutral to race, religion, and gender. By reading, understanding, trusting, and committing to the preamble’s agreement, citizens of the USA divide themselves between citizens for justice and dissidents. Dissidence arises for differing reasons: innocence, opposition, arrogance, perception that civic citizens are prey, belief that crime pays, evil, and worse. Civic citizenship is also chosen for reasons: goodwill, reciprocity, gratitude, responsibility, and better.

One could say that the people are to blame for neglecting the preamble, but I do not agree. Since the USA was established on June 21, 1789 when ratification conventions in nine states voted "yea." Thereafter, political regimes effected subversion of the preamble and Abraham Lincoln's 1863 dream, governance of by and for the people. Worst of all they re-established of a priest-politician-partnership when the 1789 Congress hired factional-Protestant ministers to compete with "divinity" in the Archbishop of Canterbury's agents in Parliament. In 2018, fellow citizens know more and can collaborate to reclaim the path to justice that the preamble offers.

Every human being has the authority and power to use his or her life's energy to develop both integrity and fidelity to the-objective-truth. Some individuals prefer justice and others prefer dissidence. Voting is restricted. Only adult citizens with no criminal record may vote. I recommend further restriction: Only adults who attest that they agree to the purpose and goals stated in the preamble may vote. Call it the Pat Smith priority bill.

Please help create this house bill during this session. If not, and you become Senator, please help create a companion senate bill. Do this not for a special interest group but for the people who are influenced by civic citizens.

Meanwhile, please consider my points, then consider voting “nay” on HB 265; legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=18RS&b=HB265&sbi=y. It would be affirmation of my hearty handshake the day I erroneously contributed to John Bel Edwards’ campaign.

(My voting error is more forgivable than erroneously taking small money from my family.)

  

Columns

Hubris (Michael Gerson) (washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-few-evangelicals-forge-a-path-back-to-gods-kingdom/2018/04/19/30c814fc-43f0-11e8-bba2-0976a82b05a2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.573052a49ad5)

Gerson illustrates the problem that proprietary language creates for the proprietor.

Gerson labels civic morality “secularism” and thereby creates his intellectual division that empowers him to preserve his social morality. Once he labeled the other party “secular” without collaborating with the other party, his entire struggle became egocentric.

His column establishes an example of the harm done by political regimes that label the foundation of American law “secular” when it is a civic agreement. The constitution for the USA begins with a civic agreement I paraphrase: states’ citizens who are willing to trust-in and commit-to the purpose and goals stated in this agreement “do ordain and establish” the institutions and laws for the USA. Since Gerson does not appreciate the agreement, he chooses dissidence.

He demands that civic citizens accommodate his religion. Most human individuals accept their authority and power to spend their life's energy according to personal preferences rather than Gerson's or other person's wishes for them.

Legislative camaraderie herding off a cliff (Stephanie Grace) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/stephanie_grace/article_595d3e24-4972-11e8-acb8-67e2f55dd3a4.html)

Louisiana Representatives, kill HB 365 to uphold constitutional justice rather than legislative and press emotions.

The preamble defines “peer,” and political regimes do all they can to lessen the power of the civic agreement the preamble offers to the individual citizen. I think divisive organizations perceive that hiding the preamble’s agreement is critical for preservation of the political advantages they perceive and often enjoy. For example, if churches condoned the preamble, ministers erroneously perceive they would lose money. I minorities condoned the preamble, they erroneously perceive they would lose the opportunity to “cash a check” for past racial disparities (Grace).

“When a large, diverse group of people come together over a weighty matter, it makes a statement.” The Advocate personnel freely whets racial appetites for foolhardy legislative camaraderie at the expense of the people of Louisiana.

“Sen. Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge . . . admitted that as a young prosecutor he’d used the law to what he now considers improper advantage, and called out the right to trial by a jury of one’s peers as a fundamental protection against official overreach.” How many people grandstand on personal infidelity to their profession?

  

Young Claitor failed judicial integrity and adult Claitor failed both the judicial definition of “peer” and personal representation of the USA.
 
As in so many cases, constitutional definitions are vague. Online at definitions.uslegal.com/p/peer/:  “A peer is a person's equal. The U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a "jury of one's peers," which means an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives. However, jurors are not required to be ethnically, educationally, economically or sexually the same as the defendant, although in some jurisdictions attempts are made to meet those criteria.”

The constitution for the USA, which does not include the word “peer,” has two pertinent statements about jury. Article III, Section 2 specifies, “The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be by Jury; and . . . in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed. Amendment 5 specifies, “an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” which Grace reports as Claitor’s definition of “peers.” The US Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution, and in Johnson v Louisiana (1972) (supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/356/) decided that Louisiana’s then 9-3 jury decision is legal: Unanimity is not required by the US Constitution.

And that’s where Grace’s “powerful unanimity” is verifiable. The Louisiana Legislative camaraderie is joined by The Advocate personnel to obfuscate the facts so that the popular trend of local racism can be used to an end. What that end is, I do not know, but I expect unintended woe if they succeed.

Civic citizens do not intend to be the object of a jury trial. However, if I became the accused, I would demand a jury of civic citizens, defined as otherwise qualified for jury duty with the extra provision: For civic purposes my peers attest to trust-in and commit-to the preamble to the constitution for the USA. I would want the provision to stipulate that someone who had a well-grounded complaint about the preamble and proposal for more justice could be a juror.

The preamble is the most neglected legal provision of the constitution. However, it states, in paraphrase, “state citizens who want to achieve the goals stated herein establish and authorize the USA.” On the preamble’s agreement, citizens are divided: civic-citizens vs dissidents.

Of the delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention, only 2/3 signed the preamble and the attached articles, leaving 1/3 dissidents. In the nine state ratifying conventions only 2/3 of delegates voted “yea,” leaving 1/3 dissidents delegates and 1/3 dissident states. A month later, one state joined, but the other three remained dissidents when operations began on March 4, 1789.

The constitution does not address Supreme Court rules, but their decisions may be made with 5-4 majority or 56%.

There is no unanimity in the foundations of the USA beyond the emotions of some people!

I could get emotional over the mendacity that comes from both The Advocate personnel and the Louisiana Legislature’s isolation from civic citizenship. Every individual has the authority and the power to manage their energy for integrity during their lifetime. Aligning with a rogue group is no excuse for personal failure.

Civic citizens of Louisiana may contact their state representative and state senator and urge them to kill HB 365.

Social morality at war with civic morality (Stephanie Grace) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/stephanie_grace/article_2dfdc6d4-43f7-11e8-adc7-93bd2300e000.html)

  

Kill HB 365.

Senator Claitor’s honest hubris in grandstanding his 32-years passed infidelity to the people’s pursuit of just law is not especially surprising after James Comey’s sensationally adolescent June 8, 2017 senate testimony: ://nytimes.com/.../politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html.

Then, I remarked to MWW that we were viewing the performance by a nanny-state, adolescent-adult who honestly has never encountered personal integrity. Throughout the testimony, he witnessed to his dependency on a higher authority for Comey integrity. Every adult individual has had the opportunity to develop integrity, but many have not accepted their human authority to exercise their personal power. They flap like a fish on the sidewalk looking for a reliable higher power but find none.

I think the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (of ChE) does a better job than the American Bar Association in apprising young adults of their individual authority, power, and obligation to act on integrity in order to protect the people (and other stakeholders).

Given the chance, let me brag about 1973 integrity that motivated civic fidelity (protection of the people) at an overseas chemical plant. My responsibly as ChE Supervisor included technical fidelity for the plant. We had discovered that our plant effluent was poisoning shell fishes and were near starting a remediation project. Suddenly, effluent standards were promulgated, and the local management bid to lie to the government. I said that rather than lie we would report our project, its cost, start-up date, and expected consequences. In response, they reassigned the local engineer who was gathering the data to the operations superintendent, and he no longer discussed the matter with me. Six weeks later, with all the officials there to sign the document, including the lie, the local ChE excused himself and came to me. Two ChE’s collaborated to maintain the technical fidelity for the plant and for my employer. In my sixth year, the local management terminated my assignment, but my company kept me involved in their integrity for a 35-year career.

When I moved to Louisiana in 1967, I soon learned that Louisiana law reflects Napoleonic law. I know nothing of that history but am aware of French concern that a jury of inhabitants cannot be trusted to understand the law. French influence was present when Louisiana decided its jury rules.

I do not plan to be the object of a jury trial. However, if I were, I would reject the present system, asserting that many citizens are not my peers. My peers would come from citizens who understand, trust-in, and commit-to the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Other citizens are dissident to the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble and are thus dissidents to the laws We the People of the United States develop and maintain. I think my case would make its way to the US Supreme Court, and I would win.

I mean Dan Claitor no harm but am looking for a new state senator in my district. I consider him nanny-state adolescent on par with James Comey and others.

I encourage Louisiana representatives to kill HB 365.

   

News

  

Public disturbance (Simerman) (theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/courts/article_1d1ad7f8-4208-11e8-918e-b700171b2891.html)

   

Kill HB 365. Later, consider a new bill that calls for 7-5 and 4-6 jury decisions, patterned after the Supreme Court’s 5-4 opinions. Also, a jury of peers agrees to something close to civic morality rather that social morality or religious morality, and I suggest the preamble to the constitution for the USA.

Not all DA’s and prosecutors employ Senator Claitor’s lawyerly cunning. Some people employ integrity no matter what the circumstances. I have the impression that D.A. Hillar Moore, III is authentic.

If you want an example of policy-based evidence making, read “Although it’s tricky to compare across jurisdictions, the data indicate that defendants who go to trial in Louisiana face longer-than-usual odds.” It’s not unlike “You can’t tell up from down, but everybody knows which way to go.”

Write or call your representative and ask him or her to kill HB 365. Claitor? Let’s find somebody who does not think honesty is enough; someone who knows the people need integrity.

Marsha Marshal

The Beav needs to retake his first year in law school. Or start it. 

This Constitutional Scholar and his civic morality need to read the U.S. Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Burch v. Louisiana (1979), which not only would swat his four out of six petit jury proposal like a cockroach under a copy of Rules for Radicals, but the actual Louisiana state law permitted convictions by five out of six. 

And no, sweeheart, you can't get the State to make everybody agree to your 'civic morality pledge' before they get sworn onto a jury. Take your pills.

To Marsha Marshall: I wrote somewhere else that the American Institute of Chemical Engineers does a better job than the American Bar Association in coaching and encouraging civic citizens to develop integrity. I would not allow law school to infect me.

I saw on another of your posts the 1979 decision and asked why the Supreme Court does not reform to unanimity in all decisions. If the Supreme Court is on an ineluctable path toward justice, any unjust decisions may reverse.

As for the “sweetheart” and “take your pills” comments. Do you consider them personal abuse? I do.

To Marsha Marshall again: The subject is integrity.

Public disturbance (Russell and Simerman) (theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_48a11022-43e8-11e8-a984-df8200880997.html)

   

Kill HB 365.

In five decades reading my-hometown newspaper, I have never seen The Advocate writers so vulnerable to the thought, “beyond stupid.”

Let’s see The Advocate writers sensationalize “5-4 weakens law and order” and present The Advocate emotional demands for unanimous opinion from the US Supreme Court.

Louisiana law developed from Napoleonic law with jury concerns beyond racism.

The Advocate glorifies a felon who intimidated the public and the police with his vehicle. Where’s The Advocate’s arguments about some felony criminals intimidating some jurors? To offset this effect and common stupidity, I’d like to change from 10-2 to 7-5.

 

Moreover, I’d like jury pools to have attested to the agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.

Do writers for The Advocate understand criminal law well enough to serve as jurors? Drawing opinion for their ability to write for the people’s benefit instead of the felon, I would not want one of them on a jury. The modern French are concerned about the public’s ability to judge based on the law.

Last but not least, The Advocate’s “full scrutiny of society’s judgment,” is the most ludicrous idea. Consider where social morality has brought the USA in 229 years! The USA is in chaos over social morality and is in dire need of civic morality: The widespread intent to live during the same years in the same place with mutual, comprehensive safety and security rather than conflict for dominant opinion. In other words, collaborate for private liberty with civic morality.

Kill HB 365. And let’s find a responsible and free hometown newspaper.

Second post: I like the public interest. Be sure to call or write your state representative and ask him or her to kill HB 365. See legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=18RS&b=HB365&sbi=y to protect your integrity respecting the number, 365.

To Julius Dooley: I have struggled since 2006 to find an accurate, precise, expressive phrase and would like something better than "the-objective-truth". Most scholars who respond make the mistake of ignoring the article "the" and thereby revert to their personal objective truth. The-objective-truth exists and humankind works to discover it, discover how to make best use of it, and remain alert to a discovery that requires revision and perhaps reform.

 

Your list "the light of truth, full truth, real truth," is expressive and expansive---light, full, real. However, Newton’s law of gravity was real until Einstein discovered the effect of space-time on orbital rotation of the planets; “real” discovery may be temporal. Your assertion of subjectivity to the-objective-truth (or using your phrase) is also agreeable.

 

Every human may develop the individual authority and power to insist on civic collaboration according to the-objective-truth. However, not one person can impose on humankind a scientist’s erroneous work, or a government's forceful opinion, or a god's coercion.

To Marsha Marshal: The US Constitution has no problem with Louisiana's 10-2 law. What we should do is revise the petit jury to 3-2 and felony jury to 7-5 to more closely mimic the Supreme Court's 5-4, which is also constitutional law.

To Marsha Marshal again: Thank you for the information.

Why doesn't the Supreme Court reform to unanimity?

To Marsha Marshal again: Thank you for the information (Jeremy J. Waldron opinions).

You have a third option, which is to accept that I was supporting my proposal to revise Louisiana's 10-2 to 7-5. Actually, 5-4 might be cheaper and better, especially if the jury pool is drawn from civic citizens as defined by the agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.

The preamble is vital to both civic citizens and dissidents, and my appeal to you to help promote it as well as use of the-objective-truth rather than struggling for dominant opinion is sincere.

The preamble is available to help solve concerns like assimilation of immigrants. It is my suggestion for a resolution of Luma Simms’ heartfelt dilemma expressed in “Identity and Assimilation,” National Affairs, Number 35, Spring, 2018, page 90 (nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/identity-and-assimilation). Simms observes that many people who were born in America are not assimilated. I think political regimes are at fault for lessening the promotion of the preamble, for example, falsely labeling it “secular” when it is neutral to religion.

   

Other forums

quora.com/What-impact-on-society-had-Rene-Descartess-philosophy/answer/Phil-Beaver-1/comment/60419984?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=2370480808

I am motivated by Peter Schuller’s informative comment about Plato’s precious writing.

This is about 2500 years after Plato, and what I have in mind respecting “tools” is the ability to perceive in the dimensions that contain God. I speculate that might be beyond ten dimensions, even though I work with only six dimensions, including imagination (it can fool ya).

In the meantime, I agree with Schuller’s point, if I understood it: If anyone approaches you to share God, they are merely expressing their opinion about their idol.

quora.com/Do-you-think-that-the-standard-for-average-common-knowledge-is-where-its-suppose-to-be-and-if-not-then-would-the-decrease-or-increase-of-it-cause-any-major-consequences-disbalance-in-society

If political regimes wanted to keep people at the leading edge of civic morality, most people would know that the human being is so physically and psychologically powerful that it takes a quarter century for the body to complete its brain and another few years’ experience and observations for the brain to start building wisdom.

Fortunate is the thirty-year old person who has the understanding and intent to embark on a full life of civic morality and learning.

If political regimes created education systems that encouraged and coached children to accept their authority and power to acquire understanding and intent to live, future achievements by humankind would be astoundingly better than may now be expected.

Email to Screenwriters-Down-South

Thanks. I have not forgotten you, but feel like a fish out of its pond when visiting your group.

Don’t forget me, though. We---artistic people in Baton Rouge---could develop a great docu-movie on the myths about the USA political regimes imposed along the way, say from 15th century papal bulls. Ray Raphael’s 2004 book, “Founding Myths,” barely touches the iceberg, but covers very well that 1776 was motivated and instigated by the people, especially the revolutionary farmers in Massachusetts who traveled to the cities by the tens of thousands and kicked the British tyrants literally out of their homes. In other words, the vaunted “founding fathers” are not as critical to the story as are the people.

But my list of revisionist objections is larger in number but less detailed excepting one: the harm being done by not recognizing the dualities citizens contend with: integrity vs politics’'; good vs bad; civic citizens vs dissidents to morality; freedom-from tyranny with the liberty-to pursue personal preferences; personal happiness vs someone’s prescription for you; fidelity vs arrogance; religious beliefs vs the-objective-truth; individual authority vs other powers. By clarifying these dualities instead of obfuscating the challenges, the people may perceive that the way to a better future is individual collaboration to discover justice with individual expression to the elected representatives the justice the civic citizens have discovered. Officials who do not act for justice get voted out by a super-majority who are collaborating for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.

In other words, just as a person must earn his or her bread, a citizen must preserve his or her justice.

I visited you to interest someone in my original reader’s play, “Sincere Liberty.” That’s still interesting, but the above idea is a step further into the potential for public justice.

libertylawsite.org/2018/04/24/pope-francis-mess-ross-douthat-catholic-church-to-change-the-church

“In fact . . . one must go back to the New Testament to comprehend its ultimate stakes, fidelity to Jesus Christ” is an understatement to this non-believer. What’s at stake is justice.

The pope’s mess is a personal problem. It does not address civic morality in the USA at all: it relates only to social justice for Catholics. It takes ancient proprieties to comprehend my point.

The Jesus of John 8:58 is better represented by Agathon, in his speech in Plato’s “Symposium.” About 350 years before Jesus of Nazareth, Agathon said that love neither initiates nor tolerates force. John did not understand Agathon’s Jesus and wrote “hates” into Jesus’s teaching.

In John 15:18-23, John claims that a non-believer (like me) hates Christians, Jesus, and God. To me, John’s “God” means the Christian gods (at least six, based on the number of branches, but tens of thousands based on sects). In fact, god competition is the subject of papal messes throughout history. In 2018, there is no excuse for continuing to rebuke the integrity of civic morality: most citizens want mutual comprehensive safety and security in public with private hopes for their individual afterdeaths. Most non-believers are not haters, and they should not have to deal with Christianity’s covert claims against them.

Likewise, Luke imposed “hate” into Jesus’ language, even though Agathon’s speech was known. It was explained to me as Jesus’s desperate overture to me personally, but there’s no excuse for “hate” in Luke 14:26.

The preamble to the 1787 Constitution left personal motivation and inspiration, or spirituality, or religious belief to the individual. The individual human has the authority and the power to develop integrity in the use of his or her personal energy during every moment of his or her life. Some humans develop fidelity to the-objective-truth and some compromise to a persuasive power. However, Christianity falsely claims the preamble offers a secular agreement, when in fact the agreement is civic---neutral to religion.

Some signers of the 1787 Constitution had read Nicolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” 1513, and were aware that it demanded separation of church and state, which Magna Carta, 1215, had not accomplished. Therefore, for the first time in this country, the signers wrote religion out of the articles that established laws and institutions for the nation. However, the first Congress, by May, 1789, established legislative “divinity” on par with the English parliament’s “divinity,” by hiring factional American ministers to compete with the partnership of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Blackstone common law.

We the People of the United States need relief from the Christian gods. There is no forum that better understands the opportunity to relieve the people of subtle overtures to hate---to establish separation of state from church---than this forum. I do not know the-objective-truth and write opinion with the hope to learn from fellow-citizens rather than political regimes.

Is individual authority and power to develop personal integrity and fidelity lost in this forum?

Mayo Clinic Staff, “Depression in women: Understanding the gender gap” (mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/depression/art-20047725)

I think this statement is a non-sequitur and woefully inadequate: “Because girls typically reach puberty before boys do, they're more likely to develop depression at an earlier age than boys are. This depression gender gap lasts until after menopause.”

The female body develops its brain chronologically faster than the male body develops its brain; the typical male brain is complete at age 25, two years after the female brain. Auto-insurance rates reflect the difference.

But Mayo’s staff does not evaluate the harm our education system, notably TV shows that are decorated by half-dressed women, but moreover failure to inform, imposes on children. It would be easy to help children develop the understanding of human sexuality and gender realities. The female has genes and memes that empower collaboration with her viable ova during her fertile years, but cannot activate natural caring without knowledge and coaching. At stake are her physical and psychological health in collaboration with her viable ova. The authentic woman is responsible and caring.

Similarly, the male who does not understand human sexuality---attraction, reserve, mutual appreciation, intimacy, commitment and satisfaction---cannot possibly appreciate the collaboration by a female with her viable ova. The male who understands, appreciates, and commits to life, would not threaten a woman, much less a woman and her viable ovum. Thus, the authentic man is responsible and caring.

The authentic woman and the authentic man seek monogamy for life, because they formed a bond which they would share with their children, their grandchildren, and beyond.

Eliminating the confusion about human sexuality, would dramatically improve the mental health of adults in the USA.

Every human individual has the authority and power to develop understanding and make best use of it during their lifetime. It is shocking that institutions with so much power do not establish the will to help the people regardless of popular opinion.

Kevin D. Williamson, “When the Twitter Mob Came for Me”, Wall Street Journal, April 21-22, 2018, page C1, wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-me-1524234850

The story makes one wonder who was playing whom: Williamson or Goldberg. Either way, I was finished with The Atlantic long ago and WFB, Jr. ran me away from National Review before that.

Also, long ago, I made a personal policy to try avoid being cute with writing, avoiding urges like “I have hanging more in mind.” I’m human and fail sometimes, but I usually catch cuteness and stop. I also avoid evaluations, like “very determined,” when “determined is enough.

 Phil Beaver does not “know” the actual-reality. He trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. He is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.