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.

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 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.

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 that now turn toward supermajority. 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. Supermajority is impartial to both conviction and acquittal. The USA upheld the 9-3 rule.

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.