Voluntary Civic People of Baton Rouge: June 2018

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Jury model

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.

It seems no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to dual federalism managed by the people convinces me the preamble is legal.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies children. “Freedom of religion,” which government cannot discipline, bemuses freedom to develop civic integrity.

Our Views

June 30 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_e4863db4-7bab-11e8-9f03-f3ffd7fd474d.html)

“The proverbial saying 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' conveys the opinion that, as a person's power increases, their moral sense diminishes.” https://www.phrases. org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html. To invoke the sacred in response to an attack on a business seems un-civic.

I hoped that my hometown newspaper had humility rather than the hubris to invoke “civic sacrilege” to describe a merely typical work-place shooting. The press redefines words at their leisure.

It seems that newspapers simply cannot handle freedom of the press. It’s too much power. The First Amendment may be amended.

There’s opportunity on the table. We’ll see if, between now and November The Advocate personnel present the other view of the unanimous jury. In the late 1780’s someone in Louisiana read the U.S. constitutional requirements for jury decisions and noticed that states are required to provide impartiality rather than traditional English unanimity. Someone asked, what does it take to expect an impartial verdict when one firmly biased jury member has been erroneously or intentionally seated?

I wrote a mathematical model to examine the question using these bases: 0, 1, 2, or 3 firmly biased jury persons in a jury of 12; 67% of citizens are habitually impartial; the other 33% are positivly subject to the awesome courtroom experience; and 87% of U.S. juries justly convict or acquit. The computations are presented in this table:

Super…...Biased.. Expected impartiality..... Impartial jury

Majority Jurors Habitual Influenced Total... Predicted?

12……… 0….. 8.0…... 2.4............. 10.4… NO

11..…… 0… .. 8.0…… 2.4............ 10.4… NO

10..…… 0… .. 8.0…… 2.4............ 10.4... YES

..9……… 1….. 7.3..….. 2.2…….….. 9.6... YES

..8……… 2…. . 6.7…… 2.0……….... 8.7... YES

..7……… 3……..6.0…… 1.8……..….. 7.8... YES

Viewing the fourth row, with 12 jurors, one of whom is firmly biased, an impartial verdict is impossible, as expected. The other eleven jurors being typical citizens, 67% or 7.3 persons are habitually impartial. The 33% who by emotions or other psychology may be influenced 87% of the time toward impartiality amount to 2.2 persons, for a total impartiality of 9.6 in the jury. That meets the supermajority of 9. Thus, with the 9 impartial, super-majority, a correct verdict is possible even with one biased juror.

It is critical for citizens to look past the Jim Crow beginnings in 1870, so as to relate Louisiana’s 9-3 jury rule as this great state’s contribution to the U.S. Constitution’s quest for impartiality more than unanimity. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted in Johnson v Louisiana (1972) that unanimity among a supermajority of 9 is not diminished by the opinions of the dissenting 3.

The Advocate personnel may demonstrate that they understand it is not merely free press but responsible press that is required for civic integrity, a domain where sacrilege has no standing.

More importantly the people of Louisiana may struggle to learn about and understand the brilliance of Louisiana’s 1879 9-3 jury rule. Find a person skilled in mathematical modelling and ask them how, in this conflicted age, a state can provide an impartial jury with one firmly biased person on the panel.

From my table, I prefer a 7-5 rule. I want to protect my fellow citizens from up to 3 firmly biased jurors.

I recall in the late 1960s Muhammad Ali wanted to see black people in every venue he faced. In 2018, in an all black courtroom, both the victim and the accused would want a 7-5 jury rule. All civic citizens want impartiality rather than vigilantism, and at least 67% of citizens want civic integrity.

June 28 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_91323f72-7959-11e8-a60f-a74e483c3a9a.html)

“. . . vilified, like the Colorado baker who declined to create a wedding cake for a gay couple and won a Supreme Court victory this month.”

Respecting the liberal democrat vilifications, the The Advocate personnel’s simile is accurate. However, the bakery and restaurant situations are vastly different. The civic morality is in the same world but a different ball park and different personal liberty.

The baker offered to sell the gay partners anything in his store. However, he would not offer his creativity to express a definition of marriage he did not advocate. (I agree with the baker, but not for religious reasons. Marriage owes progeny, as persons, the dignity and equality to be reared by his or her mom and dad. Perhaps Justice Kennedy’s convictions on this oversight helped him decide to retire.) Offering goods in a store does not negate the baker’s freedom of expression.

On the other hand, the restaurant owner discriminated on the basis of political party. Perhaps she’ll become a millionaire as a result. Perhaps not. The restaurant may not be lessened, but the owner seems simply un-American. The preamble to the constitution for the USA, a legal sentence and a civic agreement, offers citizens the chance for individual liberty with civic morality.

Not all citizens want either civic morality or the responsibility that comes with liberty. I don’t think The Advocate personnel accept civic integrity. Freedom of the press seems too liberal to motivate responsibility (and the impartiality a civic culture needs).

To : Guadalupe Zapata-Slim

I regret your angst.

The preamble to the constitution for the USA, a legal provision, offers each individual an agreement on which to collaborate for civic morality with individual liberty. Citizens, as well as aliens are free to reject the agreement.

You seems to state plainly that you care not to collaborate and you expect your god to destroy the civic people.

Agathon informed us that not everyone wants individual liberty with civic morality. It’s unfortunate that nearly 2500 years later, Agathon’s message seems repressed. Perhaps Donald Trump accepted Agathon’s tacit instruction: neither initiate nor tolerate harm---to or from anyone or any institution and Trump is doing his best to follow the advice.

To Phil Stanley: I appreciate your question and presentation.

Some Americans ask, "What can stop our divisiveness?” Five years ago, three of us started EBRP library meetings to suggest that the preamble to the constitution for the USA offers collaboration for civic integrity. The purpose and goals of the preamble define civic agreement, which is neutral to religion, gender, ethnicity and other human distinctions. The preamble divides inhabitants between civic citizens and dissidents.

I deliberately say “and” rather than “versus,” because there’s a wide range of both behaviors: civic and dissident. “Civic” means behaviors from law abiding to discover unjust laws and activing to amend them. “Dissident” means behaviors from ignorance to criminality. In a civic culture, laws are based on actual reality and thus seek statutory justice. Dissidence lessens because of the benefits of civic discipline.

Your second question is appreciated as well. Above, I spoke of collaboration, deliberately avoiding cooperation, subjugation, civilization, socialization, submission, and other terms representing less than individual liberty with civic morality. I consider civic morality with individual liberty the neglected American dream, which is offered by the preamble.

I think at least 2/3 of living adults and adolescents want individual liberty with civic morality, and try to create words and phrases that can help the civic people discover each other. Civic citizens live to responsibly pursue their individual happiness and facilitate other civic citizens’ safety and security to do the same. In a civic culture, dissidents may join because they experience and observe the benefits of civic discipline.

It seems there will always be dissidents, but perhaps in a civic culture, criminality would decline. In the future, Americans might asymptotically approach the totality, We the People of the United States, who use the preamble.

I hope you are encouraged to help this work. Lately, we have discovered that the preamble is a legal sentence. Our first concrete evidence is that June 21, 1788, nine states established the USA, and the Continental Congress lessened to four states. One state joined the USA before March 4, 1789, when the USA began operations.

It is good to notice that July 4 celebrates the declaration of independence from England by the thirteen eastern seaboard states. The thirteen states ratified their independences on January 14, 1784. However, the confederation of states did not work out. The people, under their state constitutions, authorized a limited national republic. According to the preamble, self-discipline of by and for the people was established on ratification of the 1787 Constitution. We call our June 21 annual meeting “Individual Independence Day.” We also celebrate each Constitution Day.

An achievable, better future is possible through civic integrity based on the preamble and actual reality, the-objective-truth.

To Phil Stanley again: Your response to Matthew White seems skeptical respecting “civic.” Can a community of immoral citizens survive?

Letters

First, save and invest, then own a home (Barnes) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_d7a394f4-7a28-11e8-9474-171ace5e0987.html)

I thought this letter was a written by a sales person with low reliability. For example, the most important controversy comes at the very end: “the future of our city, and our state, depends on the stability of its homeowners.”

There are many stable renters for their reasons, and elected officials may choose to spend efforts to improve their stability, too.

But more importantly, the key to human integrity is to earn the living you want plus at least 15% savings with which to build wealth. If the reasonable cost of living for a family of four is $75 K/year, then the breadwinner ought to be earning $90 K/year and reliably saving the $15 K.

If the public wants a full time job fulfilled, the remuneration ought to be the cost of living plus 15% for wealth building. If the job warrants more pay, the employee may be in a position to increase lifestyle. American capitalism is not performing in civic integrity.

Too many children are entrapped in poverty. It is barbaric. Maybe in addition to the inflation---interest rate index a civic culture needs a poverty index and mechanisms come into play that discourage expenditures for adult satisfactions so that all newborn persons can receive the care needed for the fantastic transition to adult person with the understanding and intent to live a complete human life developing integrity if they so choose.

For example, right now, the national debt is $22.2 trillion. With 0.004 billion newborns a year and now decrease in sight, each newborn faces $5.6 million debt. Adult entertainment could slow down until the debt starts declining.

Promoting housing is a business interest more than civic interest.

Columns

Study mystery (the Holy Bible) study long (Christopher Simon) (https://issuu.com/richlandcentershoppingnews/docs/vp0531 page 6)

Each human has the opportunity to develop individual integrity; but it usually takes about 65 years or more. The development cannot happen with study of only one source. For example, Agathon, in his speech in Plato’s Symposium, informs humans, in my paraphrase: With fidelity to actual reality a person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.

Similarly, William Faulkner, in “Barn Burning,” informs individuals that if reared in a family that opposes human justice, it is beneficial to leave that family, with no idea where you’ll go. The only way to out Snopes a Snopes is to leave (extension from Faulkner’s Trilogy).

Similarly, Anton Chekhov, in “Rothschild Fiddle” presents the consequence of five decades’ spousal blame.

I doubt it is possible to develop integrity from mystery like the Holy Bible. The opposite opinion is expressed, I think erroneously, by Michael Polanyi in Personal Knowledge, 1958.

News

I oppose BRAF’s reverse philanthropy (Andrea Gallo) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_52b8cbb0-7bdb-11e8-ab03-df2521523153.html)

It is unwise for Baton Rouge to propose any taxes. Mayor Broome’s platform, church and dialogues on racialism, is not working. I want to see Baton Rouge promoting the civic discipline that is offered by the preamble to the Constitution for the USA and the civic integrity that is possible by collaborating to discover the-objective-truth rather than compete for dominant opinion about spiritualism. Spiritualism is a private practice that has no place in civic morality.

If BRAF’s Bridge Center will save money, let the city float a bond to be paid back from the savings. I do not want anyone to pick my pocket for the next 10 years to create Baton Rouge savings I’ll never see.

I like Cecil Cavanaugh’s proposal. Let Baton Rouge pay its expenses out of the budget and stop creating shell-schemes by which to pick the people’s pockets.

Also, after the diabolical dealings with COA---approving a tax vote when COA management was clearly out of line; merely observing the public disclosure of apparently illegal deals; then awarding the tax money anyway---it will be decades before I trust the Metro-Council.

I am not going to bring into print the name of the group that sponsored the CATS tax, but anything they support I suspect, just like BRAF. If BRAF is for it, I suspect it and am looking for gains by their capital branch. I oppose AMO groups and philanthropists. They want to govern and tax the people without running for office.

Catholic philanthropy to overshadow systematic sex abuses (Jack Jenkins) (https://religionnews.com/2018/06/15/at-catholic-bishops-conference-a-deeper-embrace-of-pope-francis-and-relevancy/)

News of refugees is scattered with philanthropy by the Vatican, for example, “He has received recognition of his refugee status from the Mexico government and has found work for the local Catholic Church parish, where he is in charge of updating records, including baptism, marriages, communions and other ceremonies.” See http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2018/5/5b03f5364.html .

I oppose philanthropy that imposes global problems on my taxation, when I am paying increasing interest on the growing federal deficit. I consider the Vatican personnel aliens and enemies. Not only do they use children for priestly amusement, they abuse children to promote secret coyote abuses through Mexico.

Other fora

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/06/29/the-curious-awkwardness-of-the-argument-in-federalist-10/

Rogers’ discussion applies to the moral factions that dominate attention in 2018 USA.

Since April 1, I have been developing opposition to the proposal to replace Louisiana’s unique 10-2 supermajority jury verdict with a 12-0 requirement. The supermajority enhances the impartiality of a 12 person jury in criminal trials.

The 12-0 proposal has momentum based on AMO style sensationalism and attacks on persons who express opposing opinion. In my case, someone stole my identity, by copying my portrait from Facebook, opening an account with the name “Phil Beaver,” then answering my posts with the claim to be the real Phil Beaver. Facebook stopped the offender after my report.

My mathematical model for impartiality with a 12-person jury, based on 67% impartial demographic and 87% judicial agreement with jury verdicts in the nation (48 states have unanimity and 13% failure), shows that, with at least 10-2 supermajority, impartiality is possible. Further, with one juror committed to bias, 9-3 supermajority is required and with 2 biased jurors, 8-4 is required---again, theoretically.

I do not have the data to compare Louisiana judicial agreement, but starting with a theoretical chance for impartiality, consequence should be better than the nation’s 13% injustice rate with unanimous jury verdicts.

In an age with increasingly accurate crime forensics, civic impartiality seems divergent: bias among inhabitants is high.

National non-profit factions are sensationalizing Louisiana’s unique provision of jury impartiality as nonunanimous and “Jim Crow’s Last Stand.” The Louisiana Legislature has neglected obligations to continue to provide its jury impartiality, which the USA has been repeatedly upheld.

The USA’s civic morality and integrity has emerged in times of conflict. Roger’s ideas seem pertinent to the legality of USA impartiality in jury-supermajority vs the emotionalism of English unanimity in utopia and Jim Crow history. Thank you.

To gabe:

Super…...Biased..   Expected impartiality..... Impartial jury
Majority Jurors Habitual Influenced Total... Predicted?
12……… 0…..   8.0…... 2.4............. 10.4… NO
11..…… 0…   .. 8.0…… 2.4............ 10.4… NO
10..…… 0…   .. 8.0…… 2.4............ 10.4... YES
..9……… 1…..   7.3..….. 2.2……….. 9.6... YES
..8……… 2….   . 6.7…… 2.0……….. 8.7... YES
..7……… 3……..6.0…… 1.8……….. 7.8... YES

I hope this table of various super-majorities with a jury of 12 comes out as I see it now.
The mathematics is easy from column one to column two. For example, viewing the fourth row, with 12 jurors, one of whom is firmly biased, an impartial verdict is impossible. The other eleven jurors being typical Americans, 67% or 7.3 are habitually impartial. The 33% who by emotions or other psychology may be influenced 87% of the time toward impartiality amount to 2.2 persons, for a total impartiality of 9.6 in the jury. Thus, with the 9 impartial, super-majority, a correct verdict is possible even with one biased juror.

I would not quarrel with someone mathematical model for how to provide an impartial jury with one biased person on the panel, so I produced my own.

However, there is data to support my three key parameters: 67% habitual impartiality, 87% judicial-process influence toward impartiality among the 33%, and the existence of firmly biased people, some of whom get through the vetting process.

It seems unjust for states to require unanimity among a 12 man jury when, for example, there are mean people with proprietary skills at getting through the vetting process. What the US Constitution requires is impartiality and unanimity within a super-majority. With the political rancor we suffer, I prefer a 7 super-majority in a jury of 12 to accommodate 3 firmly biased jurors, as my table shows.

To Guttenburgs Press and Brewery:

I appreciate your patience with my errors.

The important point is that 48 states kept England's fascination with unanimous juries. Louisiana opted for impartiality, and Oregon joined.

Perhaps one person in the late 1870s took it upon himself to examine what Louisiana did to address its responsibilities per Amendment 6 of the U. S. Constitution. He covered many issues, especially impartiality. He recommended and sold to the Louisiana Legislature the 9-3 super-majority. I call it a Louisiana treasure on par with its provision regarding free expression. [It points out that the speaker may be held responsible for consequences, and is superior to the U.S. First Amendment in that regard.]

The U. S. Supreme Court defended the Louisiana rule at every opportunity, including Johnson v Louisiana (1972). Opponents have called it Jim Crow's last stand to help sensationalize a vote in November to establish a 12-0 rule. They downplay the French influences in Louisiana, which may or may not be accurate.

I hope my model work will inspire a more authoritative mathematical model and help preserve a Louisiana treasure and a national example of a state providing jury impartiality.

At the very least, the model emphasizes that jury unanimity is not expected in today's political enmity and desperation. And 13% of the time injustice is the consequence, according to national data.

I am a chemical engineer and work for civic collaboration rather than lawsuits. Professor Rogers' ideas may help me in my collaboration with my fellow citizens, including the ones who are elected officials.

Any help from this forum would be appreciated.

To Paul Binotto:

I cannot answer your question except to say it is an overall observation that contains all the variations on actual reality. Here's the study I referenced: https://www.ipr.northwestern. edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2006/IPR-WP-06-05.pdf. It reports percentage of time the judge agrees with the jury: 87% compared with an earlier study at 85%. In other words, it is a subjective data set to start with.

I was looking for a measure of the courtroom experience I had in a civil case: awesome influence to be impartial! However, one of our panel for two hours expressed the chorus, "It's Exxon who pay! Just give him the money!" The majority vote of eleven decided unanimously against the plaintiff, who apparently showed up for work intoxicated. I read the abstract and a couple text paragraphs, realized some weaknesses, such as biased judges, and went with the 87% to compute that 61% of the time subjective citizens may be moved from the 33% to join the 67% habitually impartial people.

Another failure of my model is that fact that the 87% includes juries that had firmly biased members. In other words, my model is too simplified for the non-zero firmly biased entries in the table. I am sincere when I say I hope my work leads to the work of a qualified modeler. Perhaps a study that reports the frequency of firmly biased jurors would be needed in order to account for their contribution to the 87% success/13% failure. Or is it 85/15?

I would appreciate anyone's model, and I imagine it would favor a 7-5 super-majority rule, because firmly biased jury candidates are the most dedicated citizens regarding "working the system." Most citizens make certain they are neither victim nor accused and could not care less about the rules until they are called on to obey them.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/06/29/the-curious-awkwardness-of-the-argument-in-federalist-10/

Note: I feel fortunate that this post did not get through; it’s a grammatical mess. The above revision is published.

I appreciate Prof. Rogers for sharing his concerns and independent theory and in time for my current study.

A civic citizen, chemical engineer even, may oppose the divine aura of politicians and lawyers who pretend that their propriety precludes one person’s opinions on reading the preamble to the constitution for the USA and promoting its use rather than the lamely referencing “we, the people.” It’s merely my opinion, but the preamble offers an agreement for civic discipline more than governance. Willing people collaborate for civic integrity and elect leaders to execute developed statutory justice. Everything important to a civil USA springs from the agreement that is offered in the preamble.

The term “founders” refers to leaders of political factions who competed for power. First, during the critical years 1763’s objections to tax money leaving the colonies for England’s use until 1774’s farmer-liberation of Worcester, Massachusetts. Then from elites forming the Continental Congress to the 1784 ratification of the Treaty of Pairs, which admitted to 13 free and independent states by name: 13 names for 13 constitutions (some not written). Then from elites competing to preserve the Union to 12/13 states meeting in Philadelphia and 2/3 of delegates signing the 1787 Constitution. The Signers specified radical break from both Blackstone common law and Canterbury theism, a Chapter XI Machiavellian partnership with politicians. So-called founders continued to exert factional powers and tainted the work of the Signers by demanding a Bill of Rights---a partial return to English rule. Madison is a Signer, but in my opinion a weak citizen. I hold Madison most egregiously responsible for “freedom of religion” whereas each individual may develop integrity and would, in a civic culture, be encouraged to do so.

Rogers’ discussion of Federalist 9 and 10 applies to the moral factions that dominate attention in 2018 USA. Substantially due to the organizational brilliance of Saul Alinsky, the past five decades have been dominated by what I call Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO). The current prince is Barack Obama and OFA; https://medium.com/ofa/president-obama-there-are-no-do-overs-f54154e92415 and https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/obama-aligned-organizing-action-relaunches-trump-era-n719311. Only a civic people can defeat the AMO push to replace the civic order of the American republic with a chaotic social-democracy.

Since April 1, I have been developing opposition to the proposal to replace Louisiana’s unique 10-2 supermajority jury verdict to enhance the impartiality of a 12 person jury in criminal trials excepting capital punishment cases. The proposal has momentum based on AMO style sensationalism and attacks on persons with opposing opinion and expression. In my case, someone stole my identity, but copying my portrait pic from Facebook, opening an account with the name “Phil Beaver,” then answering my posts with the claim to be the real Phil Beaver. Facebook stopped the offender after my report.

But the point I want to make here is that the national faction sensationalizes the English idea of “jury unanimity” as a foundation of civic morality. At best, unanimous jury decisions is a relic of obsolete English debates. In Supreme Court cases regarding the Louisiana rule, originally 9-3, the court has said the USA requires states to provide impartiality rather than unanimity and have upheld the 9-3 rule. My model, based on 67% impartial demographic and 87% judicial agreement with jury verdicts in the nation, shows that only with 10-2 supermajority is impartiality possible. Further, with one committedly biased juror, 9-3 supermajority is required and with 2 biased jurors, 8-4 is required, again, theoretically. I do not have the data to compare Louisiana judicial agreement, but starting with a theoretical chance for impartiality, consequence should be better than the nation’s 13% injustice rate with unanimous jury verdicts.

National non-profit factions are sensationalizing Louisiana’s unique provision of jury impartiality as nonunanimous and “Jim Crow’s Last Stand.” Collegiality in the Louisiana Legislature has neglected obligations to continue to provide jury impartiality that has been repeatedly held up by the USA. Roger’s ideas seem pertinent to the legality of USA impartiality in jury-supermajority vs the emotionalism of English unanimity in utopia. Thank you.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/06/29/our-philosopher-king-retires-supreme-court-anthony-kennedy/

I call Kennedy the erroneous lord of dignity and equality. For example, in the civil marriage opinion, he totally neglected the dignity and equality of progeny---appreciation and lifetime support from his or her mother and father. But the call to civic citizens is broader.

“After passing politics on to [Chapter XI Machiavellianism or the church-state partnership] for so long, we must now ask ourselves: [Will we base] our laws [on the-objective-truth (actual reality)] and enforce them? It would make us [advocates of the 1787 Constitution’s preamble], learning the rudiments of [individual liberty with civic morality] after servitude . . . We would have to [collaborate] and [develop civic integrity]. We'd have to test the purpose and strength of [self-discipline], as well as our citizenship.”

The preamble to the constitution for the USA, a legal statement, offers individuals purpose and goals for civic discipline more than civil governance. Each citizen may adopt the agreement or not. Today, I better mimic Abraham Lincoln in 1863: Gettysburg is hallowed by the sacrifices of willing men so that self-discipline and civic justice of by and for the people may survive.

I encourage each reader to consider the preamble, paraphrase it for 2018 living, and decide whether you want to trust-in and commit-to its civic agreement or not. If yes, offer the changes you’d like to collaborate for, knowing that after collaboration for modern application, the original words will remain. I want integrity rather than Union and to clarify that “posterity” means first children, grandchildren and beyond.

The preamble is both a civic sentence and a legal sentence that is neutral to religion rather than secular. Note that as of June 21, 1788, the USA was established and there remained four free and independent states. When operations began on March 4, 1789, one state had joined the USA, two remained dissident and one remained a rebel.

Major issues were “We the People of the United States” and theism. Religious institutions partnered with political regimes to suppress the legality and power of the preamble, but moreover, most people neglect the preamble’s agreement.

The USA is and always was divided, I think 2/3 wanting a civic culture, and willing people may clarify the situation: civic citizens and dissidents collaborate to develop civic integrity and statutory justice based on actual reality.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/06/19/on-the-universe-we-think-in-schall-what-is

This post reminds me of Michael Polanyi’s “Personal Knowledge,” 1958, yet the leap to Schall’s opinions seems more worthy and easier to reach---not adversarial.

As always, I think “the-objective-truth” is more definitive and defensible than the “truth [that] is said to exist.”

“Truth is said to exist when what is out there, so to speak, corresponds with what we think about it.” The-objective-truth exists, and humankind may discover, understand, and behave in order to benefit or not. Thus, we conform to the-objective-truth, the reverse of Schall’s order.

“The universe reveals order, mind, as Anaxagoras taught Socrates, but the mind it reveals is not its own. It is a received mind. And it is clearly not our mind.”

Each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Integrity is fidelity to the-objective-truth. It is a comprehensive fidelity that extends to self, immediate family, extended family and friends, the people (nation), humankind (the world), and the universe, both respectively and collectively. However, not every individual discovers integrity. Also, the individual who develops integrity cannot know all the discoveries. When the individual is asked but does not know, integrity requires the response “I do not know.”

The collective mind, humankind’s mind, can account for the discoveries, but no entity possesses the collection at any point in time and some discoveries were lost in individual deaths.

“We find that we need to put some discipline into our own lives if we want to live justly and fairly among others. Indeed, we find, as Aristotle said, that without ordering ourselves we will probably not see properly what is ourselves.” Civic discipline requires impartiality.

During the last couple days it has occurred to me that the preamble to the constitution for the USA, a legal statement, offers individuals purpose and goals for civic discipline more than civil governance. Each citizen may adopt the agreement or not. That articulation motivated me to mimic Abraham Lincoln in 1863: Gettysburg is hallowed by the sacrifices of impartial men so that civic discipline of by and for the people may survive.

“What is peculiar about the human mind is that it needs many minds over much time to see all that is there to see in this universe that already is.” In the-objective-truth what "already is" may no longer be. For example, 4.6 billion years ago, the earth was gaseous, and it may return to a gaseous state. If so, will humankind have colonized space and be aware of the earth’s return to gasses?

“The final drama of the world we think in is the judgment of how we have freely lived in the time and place we found ourselves living in. The world we think in is the world that is.“

I suspect Schall implies that the spiritual world is the world that is. If so, I must recall Soren Kierkegaard and say: That is a leap of faith I cannot take.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/06/26/madisons-originalism/

I want to witness radical reform to establish the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble that was ratified in 1788. The preamble legally offers individual liberty with civic morality for willing citizens.

”Madison’s politics were more . . . fundamentally an argument about justice.” What justice? Another world’s justice? Civic justice? Human justice? I prefer “civic justice,” by which I mean individual citizens responsibly pursuing the happiness for their here and now such that fellow-citizens may do so too. That’s the unrecognized American dream: individual liberty with civic morality.

“. . . perfect justice and perfect knowledge of justice are not of this world.” This is a false premise founded on the assumption that there is another world. Each human has the opportunity to develop integrity and thereby perfect his or her life. The only knowledge-and-justice that pertains to humankind is of this world---the world wherein individuals live. The one who posits another world may either present the actual reality or continue the vain attempt to impose ungrounded propositions. But a better future is achievable and therefore may be adopted.

“[The] 1787 Constitution . . . became the supreme law of the land when the people, acting through ratifying conventions in [nine] states, ratified it. What did they ratify?” First, only 2/3 of 12/13 of the people’s representatives signed the 1787 Constitution. The signers of the 1787 Constitution broke at least two civic momentums: the people’s discipline according to theism and political power according to the Magna Carta. The people of nine states ratified radical termination of England’s Blackstone and Canterbury in order to establish a new country.

Starting in 1788, willing citizens claimed the opportunity for collaborative discipline for stated purpose and goals and authorized a limited nation to serve them in their states. Each citizen may choose to trust-in and commit-to the preamble’s agreement or reject it. On the preamble’s morality individuals choose between: civic citizen and dissident. When civic immorality is discovered, the civic citizens ratify the constitution to develop a civic culture. Professor Samuelson writes, “If the ratification process had meaning, it must be the case that there is a fixed meaning of the constitution the people ratified.” The people ratified their intent to amend the constitution to correct immorality discovered therein.

The ideas that political factions use to distract the individual and thus the people from civic self-discipline are abundant. Samuelson regresses to 1776: “Governments are instituted among men to protect their rights, and ‘derive their just powers from the consent of the governed’.” Governance fails to appreciate the people’s amendments for self-discipline. Samuelson “rejected the very ratification process which is what made the Constitution the supreme law of the land.” The First Congress, under the people of ten states, bemused the people, instituting congressional “divinity,” by hiring ministers to serve Congress. Then, under the people of fourteen states, the First Congress imposed freedom of religion rather than freedom to develop civic integrity. Congress ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Politically astute for his individual cause, Abraham Lincoln bemused himself with theism and historical revisionism. In his first inaugural address, he iconoclastically asserted that civic justice comes from the people (rather than governments or gods). He could have further promoted the preamble’s promise by saying, at Gettysburg: Three score and fifteen years ago . . . civic discipline “of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Instead, Lincoln expressed a personal dream not unlike consent of the governed. The people disciplines itself according to the-objective-truth.

Originalism oppresses subsequently discovered civic morality. In 1941, Albert Einstein expressed that civic morality comes from the-objective-truth or actual reality; from discovery, integrity, and fidelity, rather than from lies, reason, emotions, passion, doctrine, or study. Science studies to discover the object.

I write not to dismiss “the founders” or Madison or Lincoln or Samuelson but to promote the signers of the 1787 Constitution and the parade of people who promote civic morality, as Einstein did 2400 years after Agathon. Agathon informed us that a civic citizen develops integrity and fidelity and in thought, word, and action neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.

In the 230 years since the USA was established, political regimes have worked to distract the people from the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the 1787 Constitution. The preamble, the first legal statement in the constitution, may be taken seriously by at least 2/3 of the people, and if so, an achievable, better future will develop, without delay.

https://www.quora.com/Should-we-be-moral-only-because-it-is-to-the-overall-greater-good-of-society-to-do-so

Let me rephrase the question: Should the individual manage personal behavior so as to comport to external plans for his or her life? Either way; no.

There are many people who have trouble with either question, for reasons only the individual may address. Mom and Dad reared me to believe that if I mastered interpretation of the Holy Bible, life would be a dream that ended with passage through pearly gates onto streets of gold! I’m sincere. Mom (KJV) and Dad (always considering at least five interpretations) were such good providers I sought to believe for five decades, half the time in love with MWW, my friend and wife of 48 years, who is Louisiana French-Catholic. I would not change anything about MWW or the life she lives.

Society and societies tend to dissuade the individual from developing integrity. Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity within their lifetime. It typically takes over 65 years. The challenge is to discover the-objective-truth (actual reality) and master benefiting from the discovery: That is, practice integrity.

For example, it's fun to appreciate that the earth’s rotation on its axis un-hides the view of the sun in the horizon opposite to the hiding some twelve hours earlier. Further, to appreciate that north, south, east, and west as well as morning and evening are definitions by humans, but that they are more factual than “sunrise and sunset.” The latter are more misrepresentations than impressions. Once I understood the daily un-hiding of the sun, I could no longer imagine the sun rising. Hemmingway’s title “The Sun Also Rises,” took a dimmed brilliance. But that’s only me; many people are artists or prefer visions or simply pursue individual happiness that differs from my pursuits. Yet I would have adults say, “Earth’s rotation will unhide the sun again tomorrow,” so that children would learn early to visualize the enormity of the sun and the earth’s distance from it and more.

Which brings me to the verb “should.” That’s a verb of duty or obligation. The reason humans have IPEA, is that, theologically speaking, they are gods facing death. Each of them has the potential to advance humankind’s quest for fidelity to the-objective-truth. To do so, he or she cannot be duty bound to conform to society or civilization or an ideology. He or she may develop integrity. For example, Agathon, in his speech reported by Plato in “Symposium,” informed us, in my paraphrase: Appreciation, the most wonderful human practice, means neither initiating nor tolerating harm to or from any person or institution. Agathon took the liberty to describe a human practice rather than a myth’s effects on humans.

Albert Einstein informed individuals not to lie so as to lessen human misery and loss. In civic integrity, neither reason nor emotion nor passion nor hopes nor dreams can motivate a lie.

Society neither preserves nor coaches children in what humankind has already discovered in both physics and in psychology; neither does it encourage and coach the child to develop integrity. Society has no integrity.

Society may reform. Perhaps change the education system so as to inform children about the leading edge of discovery and encourage them to make the most of it during individual development of civic integrity from the emergence of his or her awareness until the end of learning.

(MWW and I agree we are developing integrity.)

My response may seem strange. Perhaps society is so far from integrity that it is strange. I write to learn and would appreciate comments.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Which-article-provides-the-right-to-equality

I think the request is: Cite the article in the constitution for the USA that provides the right to equality. It’s in the preamble more than in the articles that follow.

The fact that the preamble changed this independent country from a weak confederation of the thirteen free and independent eastern-seaboard states to dual federalism managed by the people in admitted states convinces me the preamble islegal. The USA began operations on March 4, 1789 with only ten admitted states: three remained dissident. Since then, forty states have been admitted. Yet many citizens have neglected their opportunity.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-for the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try to use the preamble without articulating commitment to the goals. But it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies children. “Freedom of religion,” which government cannot discipline, bemuses freedom to develop civic integrity.

So far, the civic citizens, who develop public integrity, have been repressed by a suppressed actual reality: Every human owns the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. Integrity is fidelity to the-objective-truth, in other words, actual reality rather than mystery.

Every individual owns equal opportunity to develop civic morality---living so as to collaborate with other people’s opportunity to responsibly pursue individual happiness. Civic people neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution. People who are dissident to individual liberty with civic morality may commit crime, and a civic people constrain crime. In other words, in a culture of civic integrity, loss of equality is a begged consequence of irresponsibility.

Responsible living starts with discipline, a practice that has been obfuscated in the past. For example, in 1863, Abraham Lincoln did not say, “that this nation . . . shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that [discipline] of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Government cannot discipline people. Lincoln constructed his Gettysburg dream. Lincoln himself was bemused by theism. It is reported that “under God,” often included in the above quote, was deleted from the draft for his speech.

Furthermore, in 1872, Congress adopted a motto, “Out of Many One” in Latin, but the 1954 Congress erroneously, egregiously changed it to the divisive “In God We Trust.” Many individuals have a personal god; some are self-disciplined; and some are dissidents to civic morality. Theism is divisive.

The 1954 motto divides the people on mystery, whereas the preamble offers equal opportunity to develop civic morality based on integrity or not. The preamble offers the only human equality a government can offer: Equal opportunity to develop either integrity or dissidence. Dissidence against discipline begs loss of equality.

Note: Only yesterday, June 23, 2018, discovering the civic duality, discipline and governance, perhaps unraveled the mystery of Lincoln’s image --- unreal government not perishing from the earth. I think several months of briefly observing the culture of civic discipline at Baton Rouge’s Perkins Road skate-board park helped me get past “government.” I am grateful to the skaters and trick-bikers I watch there.

Phil Beaver does not “know.” He trusts in and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. Conventional wisdom has truth founded on reason, but it obviously does not work. Phil is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, and consider essays from the latest and going back as far as you like.

Saturday, June 23, 2018

10-2 criminal jury verdicts

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 USA Constitution’s most neglected legal statement: Willing 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 the children --- and to cultivate limited USA services to us and our states. I want to collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase, yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people. It seems no one has ever challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement, but the fact that it changed this country from a confederation of states to dual federalism managed by the people convinces me it is legal.

Our Views

June 23 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8e9d3c26-6e7d-11e8-b9fe-7fbd6152aabf.html)

“Waiting for miracles is a sad tradition,” but The Advocate personnel do their part to preserve Babel: for example, they publish G. E. Dean each week-day under “Today’s Thought.”

Today, it’s Joshua 24:15, CJB, “If it seems bad to you to serve ADONAI, then choose today whom you are going to serve! Will it be the gods your ancestors served beyond the River? or the gods of the Emori, in whose land you are living? As for me and my household, we will serve ADONAI!"

Dean routinely ignores Exodus 7:20, CJB, "You are not to use lightly the name of ADONAI your God, because ADONAI will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.”

Does the Bible blaspheme Dean in John 6:39, “. . . I should not lose any of all those he has given . . .”? Is choosing Dean’s god possible in competition with “those he has given”?

I was in a Senate Committee room a couple years ago when Senator Ben Nevers closed a passionate imposition, I recall, “Jesus is in this room.” Some of the faces in the panel seemed to express covert contempt. I was naïve until this April in https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778, that many of the people in the room were African-American Christians. Jesus is brown or black rather than white or red or yellow or spiritual.

Trusting in mystery produces chaos. Not only is there a god for every believer, there is a Jesus for every believer. So far, there’s been some 8 trillion man-years of human experience starting perhaps 2.8 million years ago, accelerating perhaps 0.1 million years ago, and exponentially advancing perhaps 0.01 million years ago. Only now has enough chaos emerged for humans to begin to accept that civic integrity comes from each individual. Each person owns the power, energy, and authority to develop individual integrity. Integrity is discovering the-objective-truth, understanding how to benefit, and behaving to benefit.

Mutual, comprehensive safety and security is possible only when most citizens collaborate for individual liberty with civic morality.

The Advocate started off topic. Now that we know Louisiana revenues are more than sufficient, the Legislators should vote to stop picking the people’s pockets for more. With up to $800 million new sales tax income on the way, there’s no excuse for preserving any of the temporary sales tax.

Indeed, lawmakers who oppose tax and spend, get back on track: Kill John Bel Edwards’ diabolical plan to pick the people’s pockets as much as he can.

June 14 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8e9d3c26-6e7d-11e8-b9fe-7fbd6152aabf.html)

Marsha Marshal

Jay, the sun doesn't rise in the morning. The earth rotates, and the sun only appears to rise in the east each morning.

By the way, are you a Geo-centrist or Flat Earther? How about Young Earth Creationism? You down with that World Ice Theory?

Like · Reply · 17h

To Marsha Marshal: I had no idea that you would answer for the artificial intelligence (AI).

But you wrote, “Jay, the sun doesn't rise in the morning. The earth rotates, and the sun only appears to rise in the east each morning.”

I doubt anyone who understands the earth’s rotation around the sun would respond as you did, because the earth is a shocking 93 million miles away from the sun. The earth’s rotation hides the sun each evening and un-hides it each morning. Once someone understands the relationships, his or her mind cannot construct “the sun only appears to rise.” The human mind is so powerful that once there is understanding he or she cannot re-use appearances. Each morning the mind thinks the earth’s rotation is un-hiding the sun. Yet I created a minor trick/riddle for the AI to resolve. Will Marsha Marshal again speak for the AI?

However, the AI’s impressions about the sun is not the real topic. The Advocate personnel have used Jim-Crow emotionalism to convince themselves that opposing a Louisiana treasure, the 10-2 jury rule, would serve their business plan, regardless of the harm it would do to the people of Louisiana. Let me explain again.

There’s lots of evidence that despite all appearances, about 2/3 of Americans (67%) live the unrecognized American dream: individual liberty with civic morality. “Civic” refers to citizens who responsibly “live and let live,” hoping the ever-present dissidents will reform during their individual lifetime. Dissidents are so not because they are evil but because of psychological complications. The citizens are divided yet remain citizens: civic and dissident; impartial and biased. The impartial are subject to psychological error and some biased individuals may be influenced to reform.

There is national evidence that judges agree with jury decisions 87% of the time https://www.ipr.northwestern. edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2006/IPR-WP-06-05.pdf. The national study includes the 48 states that have a 12-0 jury rule. The national data is so large, we may interpret the numbers to say that 61% of the time, the courtroom experience, including the prevailing opinion in the jury room, influences the non-impartial (whether by psychological error or by bias) to join the prevailing opinion, or the 87% “judge quality” opinion.

The national constitution requires the state to provide an impartial jury of local citizens. Regardless of opinions written about unanimity, the constitution does not specify how to achieve impartiality when some citizens practice dissidence and some are subject to psychological error.

Using the above parameters: 87% jury accuracy, 2/3 impartiality among civic citizens, and the computed 61% courtroom influence, we can calculate chances when the state system unfortunately includes biased jury members. In other words, despite all efforts to provide an impartial jury, for example, paring a pool of 36 to 12 persons, it is possible that some biased individuals will be seated on a jury. The constitutionally compliant state protects the people from this systematic injustice.

With the 12-0 rule and all civic jurors, there are 8 impartial jurors and 4 who may be influenced by the court proceedings for another 2.44 impartial results, or only 10.44 total: not an impartial jury. Unanimity is not likely, and the empirical data cited above shows error 13% of the time.

With the 11-1 rule there may still be 12 civic citizens, 10.44 impartiality (as in all increments of the rule). However, one firmly biased person would reduce impartiality to 9.67 but to only 10.28 if courtroom influenced the biased to reform. But 11 is required. Thus, neither the 12-0 nor the 11-1 rule protects the people from predictable jury error.

Continuing down the list from 12-0 to 10-2 and on to 5-6, we compute the following chances for cases with an impartial jury: 0, 0, 17, 50, 60, 67, 79, 81, respectively. Only at 9-3 can one firmly biased juror be negated according to the study assumptions.

Whoever recommended the 9-3 jury rule over a hundred years ago did so on mathematical skills and past statistical evidence I can’t touch.

It is tragedy and tyranny that The Advocate personnel have so trashed a Louisiana treasure. I hope the people of Louisiana will preserve the 10-2 jury rule come November.

Marsha Marshal

Ray,

There's nothing in the 6th Amendment nor in jurisprudence about the impartial jury clause even remotely touching on your entirely self-contained "civic citizens" nonsense, the 2/3rds, the secret preamble, all the rest. Because it's just something you made up, it has nothing to do with American law. It's not real. It's just in your head.

What is actual American Constitutional law is Burch v. Louisiana, which mandates 6-0 for Louisiana petit jury trial convictions. That's a 1979 Supreme Court decision, decided unanimously, finding the necessity of jury unanimity under the 6th and 14th Amenments to the U.S. Constitution. And Louisiana's had to abide by that since 1979.

But, because of two 4-4-1 decisions in Johnson and Apodaca, the SCOTUS has left non-unanimity on the table in Louisiana and Oregon.

So, November 6th is coming, and so far you've got precisely ZERO public support for keeping non-unanimity. You got blown out of the legislature, you lost Gene Mills, you lost Colonel Rob Maness, you lost the Louisiana Republican Party.

And you continue to believe Louisiana went to non-unanimity in 1880 because of "mathematical skills and past statistical evidence." Even though the studies you butcher like a boucherie were published about a century after the Louisiana legislature went to 9-3 in 1880. So, unless Doc Brown was on the legislature back then before returning to Hill Valley, no way they could use you erroneous, foolish, perversion of logic.

The legislature's 1880 intent was clear: They wanted non-unanimity to overrule black people on juries, as part of the rollback of Reconstruction after 1876, and to feed the convict lease system. Done. That's the answer.

Like · Reply · 10h

To Marsha Marshal:

I appreciate my mom naming me Phillip Ray Beaver for at least two reasons. First, the initials seem to build, especially in script: PRB. But more importantly, when I meet someone named Ray and want to express appreciation, sometimes I say, "I'm Ray, too," and explain. Now I can tell this story. Someone who may not appreciate my preambling called me Ray merely because I asked. Thank you.

Today, an aging friend asked me "What is the meaning of early to bed and early to rise?” I responded, “I think the statement came from Benjamin Franklin. In the mid 18^th century, a home could not be well lighted 24-7. Franklin might have meant: to bed before Earth hides the sun and out when axial rotation un-hides it. My perception of the earth-rotation’s daily hiding and un-hiding of the sun cannot go back to before, and I doubt anyone’s could. It’s like discovering that Santa-Clause is a metaphor for goodwill to all.

It is remarkable that you write, “. . . the secret preamble . . . Because it's just something you made up, it has nothing to do with American law.” Patrick Henry, in 1787-88, lobbied to change “We the People of the United States” to “We the States,” so that the eastern-seaboard state confederation established in perpetuity in 1774 would not legally end.

Once a person recognizes brilliant civic morality from the past, there’s a determination to get to understand. In 19^th century Louisiana, someone, I’m betting a person schooled in Napoleonic law, decided to compute the probability of achieving jury impartiality with unanimity with 12 members by increasing allowance for bias. In other words, strengthen undeniable evidence by providing jurors among whom unanimity is possible, by offsetting firmly biased members. To put it another way, Louisiana would answer John Adams’ question, do you expect unanimity among 500 people? Louisiana uniquely would provide impartial unanimity among 12 jurors. Through their statistical model, however, they devised it, they recommended for 1880’s Louisiana the 9-3 jury-decision rule. The U.S. Supreme Court approved the rule each time it was challenged, first in 1972 and subsequently by not hearing appeals.

In 2018, we can re-examine the statistics of unanimous impartiality among 12 jurors. There are several evidences that in the U.S., perhaps 87% of the time the judge agrees with 12-0 jury decisions, the rule in 48 unfortunate states. In other words, 13% of the time, the jury failed, in the judge’s opinion. Also, there’s abundant evidence that 67% of citizens are impartial, leaving 33% with psychological tendencies toward bias. A common psychological problem is not understanding statutory law. Apparently, there’s a courtroom influence, about 61% effective, that convinces the 33% biased members to join the judicially impartial decision 87% of the time. In other words, 61% of 33% plus 67% is 87%.

With even one, possibly reform-able, biased jury member, it is statistically improbable for the state to provide an unbiased jury. According to the model, an impartial jury is not possible with 12, 11, or 10 unanimity requirement. With unanimity requirement of 9, 8, or 7, there may be may be 1, 2, or 3 firmly biased jurors, respectively. Perhaps an 8-4 jury rule is desirable.

The current selection process starts with 36 candidates. Defense and prosecution may each eliminate 12 candidates. The 9-3 jury rule helps assure an impartial jury even when one firmly biased juror slips through the vetting process. The people of Louisiana may preserve the 10-2 rule for now and lobby to return to the 9-3 rule, or to 8-4, which, in this model would accommodate two firmly biased jurors.

Once Louisiana citizens understand the statistics that supports the wisdom of a 9-3 jury rule, they are not likely to vote for a 12-0 rule. The enlightenment is not much different from enjoying the feel of the earth’s rotation un-hiding the sun each morning.

Perhaps petit jury unanimity ought to be 4-2. Perhaps the Supreme Court rule ought to be 6-3.

I appreciate sharing my name Ray and the prompt to exchange my mug shot for a yoga depiction, poor as my half-moon performance is.

June 17 (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_c6512bc8-6f31-11e8-9724-efcc862aa726.html)

I wonder who or what is writing: “The reality is that the money taxpayers invest in today's facilities is not enough. In a private business, pay would go up to fill vacancies; consultants would be brought in to make processes more effective; more money would be spent on technology, instead of constant make-do and paperwork in state institutions.”

I refute that private businesses always rely on more pay and consultants. Existing employees often know their business. But I focus on “constant make-do and paperwork in state institutions.” I recall consultant Bob Newhart’s message: Stop it; Stop it; Stop it.

I hope the legislature drives Edwards’ craving to propose an eighth special session and the people to demonstrate for his resignation.

Letters

Teacher’s article crazy (John S. White) (theadvocate.com07dffc68904d.html)

“Young black teachers throughout Louisiana should be insulted by the inference that they can no longer meet the standards their parents or older siblings have met.”

I agree, and there’s more.

What’s more shocking is that The Advocate personnel publish the insinuation that black skin means lessened humanity, lessened citizenship, lessened responsibility, lessened desire for safety and security. Police are to lessen civic expectations in certain zip-code areas. The judicial system is to favor the accused rather than the victim.

The Congressional Black Caucus and other black groups pretend that non-black skin-colored humans---yellow, red, and white are privileged. The white-skins are diabolically privileged even though the yellow-skins achieve higher scholarship. The Congressional Black Caucus would accuse me of racism! They might even want to castigate and censor me for not calling them the Congressional [African-American] Caucus; only they can emphasize skin color. They might object to my claim that the Civil War was fought white church against white church, and that some of black church evolved into African-American Christianity during the AMO era beginning in the late 1960s.

I think it is past the time black neighbors may think of themselves as 1) human beings and 2) fellow citizens, the willing setting moral examples for the dissident. That is, some trust-in and commit-to the preamble’s agreement and some erroneously don’t, for reasons ranging from innocence to arrogance to criminality. The preamble to the constitution for the USA divides citizens---for or against---on the stated purpose and goals. The literal subject of the preamble is the living We the People of the United States who choose to manage the USA, rather than the font-enhanced “We the People” or the lame “we, the people.”

The willing citizen knows that he or she must either work for the lifestyle he or she wants or thank bureaucrats. Likewise, he or she may work for the freedom-from oppression that enables the liberty-to responsibly pursue the happiness he or she wants rather than the dictates of another person, an institution, or an ideology.

A student in the classroom may think of himself or herself first as a human being, a person, and an individual, and second, a citizen. Race, creed, gender, and skin-color have no standing. Teachers may encourage and coach students: Your life is in your hands, so comprehend the knowledge, acquire the understanding, and intend to live a full human life.

There is a place in time where civic collaborations aim for human justice, or civic integrity and fidelity. We’re in the place. Let’s accelerate the time.

News

Should the government provide an impartial judge? (Matt Sledge) (http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/courts/article_f3077286-7408-11e8-8089-b754330f0f50.html)

This civil-rights case sheds light on a Louisiana treasure: the 10-2 felony-jury rule. It would be wise to restore the 9-3 rule or better.

There’s lots of evidence that, at least in the USA, inhabitants are split into thirds regarding civic morality: active, passive and dissident (Mr. Miller pointed this out, based on his experience as an entrepreneur who interfaces with his customers). The agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA allows a citizen to consider where they stand on civic morality. According to the goals stated in the preamble, am I a civic citizen or a dissident---even a rebel or a criminal?

In this federal civil rights case I see two long-term problems for citizens for civic morality or human justice. Providing an impartial jury and providing an impartial judge.

In this case the accused’s father being a professor who could favor one juror’s scholastic pursuits does not relate to other student jurors with no connections to the accused’s father. I do not trust the judge’s reversal and oppose a civic people having to suffer the expense. A civic people of Louisiana and the USA are being subjected to judicial churn brought on by black skin-color.

The court is not impartial about ensuring the right of a civic people to be first human and second citizens respecting civic justice. The court is bemused by black skin-color.

This is another case that serves to illustrate the obligation of each state to provide unanimous jury agreement that the evidence was presented beyond a shadow of doubt. One firmly biased juror guarantees biased jury decisions when 12 of 12 jurors must agree!!! The 48 states that have a 12-0 unanimity rule are struggling against statistics. Impartiality, required by the sixth amendment, is not expectable with the 12-0 rule, even though judges think juries reach the right decision 87% of the time.

There’s data that shows that 67% of citizens are probably impartial, leaving 33% who may be influenced or not. The 87% judge-agreement implies that 61% of the time, the 33% are influenced, perhaps by the courtroom experience, to join the impartial jurors. Unanimous impartiality among 12 jurors is not possible with one firmly biased juror. By judges opinion only 13% of the time does the jury fail. To provide impartial 12-person juries, the statistical study shows that only 9-3 jury rule may accommodate one firmly biased juror and still reach impartial unanimity among 9, 10 or 11 of the 12. An 8-4 rule would accommodate 2 firmly biased jurors.

It is critical for Louisiana citizens to preserve in November the unique 10-2 jury rule in Louisiana. In the meantime, civic citizens may commend the legislature to restore the 9-3 jury rule or better so as to protect from firmly biased jurors.

Our posterity (Bryn Stole) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_acd9917c-7345-11e8-aab7-f30a5861756b.html)

(My cat pic is so popular I'll let it identify Phil Beaver a while longer. I appreciate Alex with theadvocate.com for teaching me how to report a fake account to Facebook. My report took effect within minutes. Alex explained that my account had not been compromised. Someone simply created a facebook account using "Phil Beaver" and copied and pasted my photos. I could have continued leading them from mug shot, to yoga shot, to cat, etc., but consider that a waste.)

U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Bossier: “Every parent understands the heartbreak of what is happening at our Southern border.”

This is hyperbole or not true. There are 6 million abused and neglected children in America. It’s barbaric to continue to support adult satisfactions while many newborns face a life without appreciation for his or her person---neglect or abuse.

The final goal stated in by We the People of the United States is to “our Posterity.” That means children. Our children.

People who exploit foreign risks to children at the expense of children in the USA are blameworthy.

Parents in the USA who neglect and abuse their children are not in Johnson’s group, and We the People of the United States are wrong to foster domestic child neglect and abuse.

Gov. Edwards appetite facing another rebuke (Tyler Bridges) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_1db93dde-70b2-11e8-9e0b-9b76f61c0270.html)

There’s no bias in a front-page article captioned “Gov. Edwards’ tax appetite facing a seventh rebuke.”

But the review of Edwards’ and Democrats’ legislative tyranny is striking, so the caption is understandable.

In defense of the people who pay sales taxes, income taxes, and property taxes, I appreciated Bridges’ statement: “conservatives opposed [tax] and spend more money for government programs.” Citizens work for a living rather than for government programs, so we can thank Bridges for defending us.

Hopefully, a seventh failure will send Edwards packing.

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/Is-capitalism-incompatible-with-ethics

If I may restate the question, I will answer: Does civic morality require capitalism?

My response is: yes.

In civic morality, citizens collaborate for individual liberty with civic morality. “Civic” requires mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that each individual may responsibly pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than the dictates of someone else.

No one can supply the goods and services needed to facilitate his or her lifestyle. Also, no one can alone create continual improvements on those goods and services. The person who perceives new goods and services or improvements on old ones, the entrepreneur, takes responsibility and risk the consumer is unwilling to take. In return for taking responsibility, the consumer happily rewards the entrepreneur with profit on the venture.

In civic morality, both consumer and entrepreneur exercise discipline. However, there are some citizens---dissidents---who abhor discipline. Therefore there must be government. The civic consumer and the civic entrepreneur have discipline, but because of the dissidents, they need government---a monopoly on force.

However, government offers power, since the officials are given authority to manage the instruments of force. Government attracts dissidents to civic morality. The dissidents use the power to manipulate capitalism, creating the appearance that neither consumers nor entrepreneurs are disciplined.

However, most citizens, both consumers and entrepreneurs are disciplined, and they resist government expansion, which could ruin capitalism.

Capitalism is the only economic system wherein both the consumer and the entrepreneur have the means to moderate government so that the people may survive.

It may seem that I hold my opinion as the-objective-truth. However, I do not know the-objective-truth and can only express my opinion.

https://www.quora.com/Why-should-I-live-7

Comment to Mel Knight: The person is the cumulative choices the individual makes.

Humans live within the-objective-truth, both the static and the dynamic actual reality. If the individual develops fidelity to the-objective-truth, long life is possible. With long life the individual will discover his or her person.

It takes about 65 years for the mature individual to emerge. With freedom from both external and internal constraints self-discovery may begin. At that point, the discovery is well worth whatever it takes to continue the appreciation made possible by fidelity.

Midway to age 80, I am developing civic integrity and hope to carry on in well-being until at least age 121, perhaps to end able to attest that I did what I intended to do.

Justice Kenney’s hubris (https://www.wsj.com/articles/discrimination-law-isnt-supposed-to-punish-the-wicked-1528326381)

Ryan T. Anderson, in “Discrimination Law Isn’t Supposed to ‘Punish the Wicked’,” WSJ, June 7, 2018, presents some insight into Justice Kennedy’s erroneous lord-of-dignity-and-equality hubris.

Anderson quotes Kennedy in Masterpiece [Cakeshop], “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

Religion and philosophy, reason and faith, and science and religion all compete with actual reality as sophistry. We are passed the possible time for sophistry to make way for the-objective-truth. In other words, Kennedy uses reason to (erroneously) obfuscate the-objective-truth.

Kennedy’s opinion emerges from the court’s obsession with conflicting opinion about 400 year old opinion! In a culture of civic integrity, the judicial system monitors the process of discovering the-objective-truth, determining how to benefit from the discovery, legislating statutory law and law enforcement that is compatible with actual reality, and Congressional action when new discovery demands change. When the Court discovers injustice, Congress may amend the constitution.

On this topic, civil union of non-heterosexual partners, actual reality informs us that adult contracts that do not offer a child parenting for life by a heterosexual, bonded, married couple, compromise the child’s dignity and equality and that of the child’s children---posterity. It is true that some adults may focus on personal satisfaction, like believing in personal beliefs, more than a child’s dignity and equality. It is also true that some children suffer worse impositions. But a culture of integrity does not condone imposing beliefs on non-believers: The LGBT beliefs may not negate Christian beliefs. Competitive believers may conform to the-objective-truth.

The purpose and goals stated in the agreement offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA divide citizens as civic citizens and dissidents. The civic citizen hopes the dissident will reform before actual reality terminates the dissident’s mind, body, and person. But there will always be dissidents for reasons the dissident holds dear; some sincerely believe dissidence pays. Yet people with the hubris to hold their opinion above the-objective-truth beg woe. To the question, “How do you advocate the dignity and equality of the child you subject to an adult contract?”, Kennedy could admit, “I don’t know.” My mantra is: I do not know what I do not know and do not encourage others to act on what I do not know. I don’t object to either Christianity or LGBT lifestyle chosen by adults, but neither belief ought to be imposed on children.

Actual reality, a synonym for “the-objective-truth,” does not respond to any of philosophy, religion, science (a study method) or reasonable men, as Justice Kennedy seems to dub himself.

“Democracy” a modern mystery. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/sometimes-the-language-game-needs-a-penalty-box-1528326307)

Joseph Epstein, in “Sometimes the Language Game Needs a Penalty Box,” Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2018, cites H.L. Mencken as one who feels that sticking to the dictionary is pedantic, then asserts that “sometimes words become so twisted in their meanings that one feels the need for a referee . . . to keep things at least generally in bounds.” He gives examples. “Surreal” means fantastic but is used for the ordinary, such as delivering twins. “Many” and “several” are often misquoted as “multiple.” “Global,” formerly spherical, now means worldwide. Table, once a surface on legs, changed to a verb meaning delay.

I think by his stylish writing Epstein misses the seriousness of the problem. However, his article is evidence that I am not alone in the thought that a glossary is necessary to express 2018 thoughts. And it is not pedant: It is hard work.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-of-culture-society-and-politics

What is the relationship of culture, society, and politics?

Each of these three entities seek something distinct yet associated. We have over 400 years of scholarship about the common good. Often, the scholar is debating reason or religion as basis of common good. Sometimes its science or religion.

I think each individual wants mutual, comprehensive safety and security with the opportunity to pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than the dictates of another entity, be it a person or an institution. I call this way of living civic morality, where civic implies individuals collaborating for freedom-from oppression throughout their lives so each may have the responsible liberty-to pursue the happiness he or she desires. I hope this paragraph defined civic morality, a goal.

So far, civic morality is not pursued anywhere on earth. To achieve civic morality requires the development of civic integrity. Practicing integrity develops comprehensive fidelity to the-objective-truth or actual reality rather than opinion, mystery, or doctrine. Comprehensive fidelity extends to all relationships and transactions. If a majority of a people, say 2/3, developed civic integrity and fidelity, a civic culture would emerge. The 1/3 who were dissident to integrity and fidelity would be motivated and coached to reform, and if necessary due to caused-harm, be constrained or annihilated.

I work to establish this new way of living and regard the culture as the ultimate goal, society as both the collaborators and the dissidents involved, and politics as the power by which a civic people discover statutory justice that does not excuse dissidence. In other words, individuals break laws because they consider the laws to be capricious and often are correct. A culture of civic integrity would deliberately lessen the preponderance of arbitrary laws.

I hope I have expressed that culture is a continuous pursuit of life, society is the living people involved, and politics develops power over society, with or without civic integrity.

I write to learn and would appreciate comments.

Comment on Phil Beaver's answer to What’s the most disturbing part about American society?

Thomas Hanson

I’m afraid I don’t understand. Are you saying that the right of religion should not exist? Or that it isn’t as important as the freedom to develop your own moral code? And this is my personal opinion here: The 1st Amendment isn’t there to protect the institution of religion so much as one’s right to hold their own religious beliefs. If it was to protect the Constitution, then the Church would collect taxes, raise a military, and have significant power. If the US was protecting the institution then it would’ve used its muscle to shut the Boston Globe up about the Catholic Priest child molestation scandal, instead of working to root out the priests responsible.

To Thomas Hanson

I wrote, “Freedom of religion rather than freedom to develop integrity is tyranny!”

An institution is two things: a corporation and a practice. I’m saying that government has no standing to favor a practice that bemuses an individual’s development of integrity.

In a secondary consideration, government also has no standing to support religious institutions. Believers maintain pursuits that help them and reject the others.

Individuals do not develop moral codes. Morality exists in actual reality, the-objective-truth, which humans may only discover, learn how to use for benefit, and behave accordingly. The-objective-truth does not respond to reason, belief, doctrine, or any other human construct.

For example, life begins with the ovum, and therefore a woman ought to take care of her physiology and psychology. A man does not threaten a woman and her ova. Only a man and a woman who are bound to each other for life risk creating a human, a newborn person. They share the commitment for life unto posterity, as required for the human condition. In this example, religion is not involved at all.

Integrity is a practice: discovery of the-objective-truth and fidelity to the discovery. Integrity is a human opportunity not everyone chooses.