Saturday, July 28, 2018

Louisiana: joie de vivre more than Jim Crow


Louisiana: joie de vivre more than Jim Crow
English juries reformed by Louisiana impartiality in 1880 then by England in 1967

The 2018 Louisiana Legislature does not seem to recognize that this great state is the only one whose civic citizens collaborate for la joie de vivre more than to preserve English tradition.
In 2018, it seems evident that social opinion, or emotional politics, threatens the 1787 U.S. Constitution’s civic[1] promise: individual liberty with civic morality. In the entire country, only Louisiana has a history of collaboration for la joie de vivre. That explains Baton Rouge citizens’ prevention of riots here so promoted by national special interests---factions---in the summer of 2016. Louisiana citizens have an opportunity in November to further help establish We the People of the United States.
Louisiana voters may preserve singular independence from the obsolete English tyranny:  unanimous juries rather than majority juries, specifically Louisiana’s 10:2 majority. Preserving that independence may also affirm that in Louisiana, a jury of peers is characterized as We the People of the United States rather than some faction of the population that favors English tradition or would use traditional language for alternative factional interests.[2]
The 2018 Louisiana Legislature, in Act 493, unconstitutionally created a popular vote to upend the state’s unique provision of impartial juries. Among the 50 states, Louisiana conforms to U.S. Amendment VI and Oregon does, too; the other 48 states fail impartiality. This exception arose from Louisiana’s non-English, France-dominated history.
Act 493 further breaches U.S. Amendment XIV.1. There’s no reason to think the Louisiana Legislature, the governor, and the capital city newspaper, The Advocate, are insincere in their actions for liberal democracy or socialism rather than America’s representative republic under We the People of the United States. Yet it seems significant that The Advocate does not report advice from the LSU Law Center, who contractually advises the Louisiana Legislature; I will try to learn more. Also, it seems egregious that Louisiana’s governors and prize-winning newspaper would so readily favor national special-interest groups at the expense of the people of Louisiana. However, the people of Louisiana may act in their own best interest by voting in November to preserve Louisiana’s constitutional impartiality in the 10:2 majority verdict. The impartial jury provided by Louisiana favors all victims of crime, especially black victims of crime.
Residual English oppression of U.S. citizens runs deep and long. The 1787 Constitution’s promise to posterity starts in the preamble, which was ratified on June 21, 1788 by nine states. But when federal operations began in 1789 with ten states, Congress lessened the Revolutionary War victory by re-instituting[3] English injustices which We the People of the United States still struggle to terminate. Revolutionary war victory at Yorktown, VA, was strategized and dominated by France as a battle in their second hundred years war against England. England, in 1967, rendered obsolete their unanimous verdicts, but the tyranny remains in 48 states.
Many people accept this country’s challenge, but few articulate that the heart of the U.S. promise to the individual is opportunity to discover and develop integrity during his or her one and only human lifetime.
It seems in all ages nobody wants to be governed, but many people desire self-discipline. But some people practice immorality. Some persons use their human authority for crime and are “street smart.” The citizen who never expects to be the object of a criminal court, whether the victim, or the accused, or the family of either party, may not pay due attention to the provision of impartial juries. However, the civic citizen wants the justice system to provide impartiality to each the victim, the accused, and We the People of the United States.
How can most people collaborate for civic morality? The civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. constitution invites citizens to develop civic integrity. Widespread use of the preamble’s agreement has been available for 230 years, but the agreement has been neglected if not repressed. Perhaps the preamble’s time has come.
The November referendum on Act 493 offers a key opportunity for Louisiana individuals to ask their person: Do I choose to be of We the People of the United States or do I want a faction to dominate? Do I want to provide impartial juries or do I want to empower crime?

The preamble’s power: mutual civic discipline rather than governance

Political regimes repress that fact that the first legal statement in the U.S. constitution is the preamble. It is legal on at least two grounds, one a federal purpose, and the other an individual choice to either collaborate according to the agreement or not.
First, the preamble states the purpose and goals of the June 1788 nine United States to replace the 1774 confederation of free and independent states, ratified in 1784. Second, it offers a civil contract for mutual self-discipline that citizens may use to both empower the nation to survive and to collaborate for civic benefits. The articles, which the preamble empowers, limits U.S. services to the people in their states. The people discipline both their individual state and the U.S. representatives and laws.
Citizens who are dissident to the preamble’s agreement have equal liberty and dignity unless they cause actual harm that is reported by the victim or observed by civic citizens. The offender may then suffer statutory law enforcement. The willing citizens behave for civic morality, and some of them, call them civic citizens, collaborate for statutory human justice, in other words, civic integrity. Eventually, statutory justice may conform to actual reality. Hopefully, the preamble empowers the people to discover and develop civic integrity.

Individual human power, energy and authority (IPEA)

The preamble tacitly asserts a revolutionary vision of the human being that seems refuted by over 400 years of European scholarship.[4] The preamble asserts that the reader may be capable to consider, commit to, and practice the agreement. That is, the reader may be an authentic human being as specified by the preamble. If not, perhaps considering the preamble’s agreement will motivate the individual to develop such authenticity. The phrase “We the People” is generic, but the modifier “of the United States” appropriately limits to citizens the opportunity that is offered.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not.[5] Honesty expresses personal opinion, while integrity requires the work to discover and comprehend the-objective-truth or actual reality. Integrity is a process: the individual considers actual evidence and discovery to continually acquire comprehension that often negates old understanding. Humankind collectively discovers the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth does not respond to human constructs such as reason, revelation, doctrine, coercion, or force. Fellow-humans reduce misery and loss by collaborating, without deceit, to discover the-objective-truth.
The signers of the 1787 Constitution nourished collaboration for individual liberty with civic morality. Recognizing but not articulating that not every person during every decade of his or her life’s journey would employ IPEA to develop integrity, the signers specified broad yet sufficient goals for the laws, institutions, and representatives.
The preamble’s unique, civic proposal is one of the most promising political statements ever written. It is a legal statement that is neutral to gender, to race, to ethnicity, to religious beliefs, and to responsible personal preferences. By “responsible” I mean civic as used herein. It offers civic agreement to the individual more than to his or her state. Therefore, the U.S. protects each person from tyranny within his or her state.[6]
The preamble is legal in that the willing people, call them civic people, collaborate to discover human injustice and amend the law so as to develop statutory justice. The civic collaboration does not diminish the citizenship of the unwilling/dissidents beyond the fact that dissidents are not expressing public preferences. Someone else is acting on the dissident’s behalf, perhaps not in the dissident’s best individual interest. Much as not attending to water can lead to dehydration, not collaborating for civic morality more than religious hope,[7] begs woe.

Louisiana’s unique past

            When nine states established the U.S. in 1788, Louisiana territory was fought over by France, England, and Spain. It was dominated by French colonization from 1724 and beyond 1803, when the U.S. bought Louisiana from France. When the U.S. admitted Louisiana to statehood in 1812,[8] only 24 years after nine states established the U.S., Louisiana’s political treatment of both slaves and free blacks was under France’s Code Noir:
Colonial officials in 1724 implemented Louis XIV of France's Code Noir, which regulated the slave trade and the institution of slavery in New France and French Caribbean colonies. This resulted in a different pattern of slavery in Louisiana . . . compared to the rest of the United States.[30] As written, the Code Noir gave some rights to slaves, including the right to marry. Although it authorized and codified cruel corporal punishment against slaves under certain conditions, it forbade slave owners to torture them or to separate married couples (or to separate young children from their mothers). It also required the owners to instruct slaves in the Catholic faith.[9]
When the thirteen Eastern seaboard colonies mostly detested anything but American factional Protestantism and English common law, Louisiana was substantially Catholic and Napoleonic law. Additionally, Louisiana is unique with its French-Catholic Cajun population: “The Acadians' migration from Canada was spurred by the Treaty of Paris (1763).” [10]  Some free-blacks owned slaves.[11] The relationships between ethnic peoples in Louisiana was unlike anywhere else in either the USA or in the former Confederate States of America after the Civil War. More than elsewhere, many Louisiana factions collaborated for la joie de vivre.

The Louisiana Constitution has French influence

Louisiana’s constitution is distinguished on two pertinent issues:  First, an excellent inclusion in Louisiana’s “freedom of expression” is responsibility for abuse. Second, a unique provision is 10:2 unanimous majority to provide impartiality[12] in non-capital criminal jury trials.[13] Oregon later provided similar impartiality. The other 48 states, requiring obsolete England’s absolutely unanimous consensus, are at a significant disadvantage, perhaps unconstitutional, in their U.S. Amendment VI compliance. I think jury unanimity is also a breach of U.S. Amendment XIV.1 regarding a civic citizen’s opportunity and duty to offer impartiality rather than absolute unanimity, with its potential to cause the wrong verdict.

How unanimous majority provides an impartial jury

            We have asserted that the U.S., through its first legal statement, the preamble, is specified for both voluntarily civic citizens and dissidents to the extent that no actual injustice happens. Offenders beg subjugation to statutory law. All citizens, each with diverse IPEA, knowingly or not, collaborate for statutory justice using actual reality rather than dominant opinion. Habitually impartial people collaborate for mutual civic discipline, and authorize officers to constrain fellow citizens who offend for reasons from ignorance to criminality and worse. Dissidents exercise their IPEA by resisting arbitrary law and law enforcement. With civic integrity, both sides are collaborating for human justice. Even the criminal who rejects arbitrary laws offers the civic citizens notice that reform is needed. David Thoreau made civil disobedience famous (1849).
The preamble’s intention is that willing citizens discover injustice and amend laws for statutory justice according to actual reality. Fellow citizens, whether passive, dissident, or criminal, develop civic integrity so that posterity approaches the totality, We the People of the United States. In other words, the intention of the agreement in the preamble is progress rather than regress.
            Yet everyone is aware of factions within the fellow citizens. It seems since 1788 the factional intensity has increased rather than lessened. The fraction of the people’s representatives who signed the 1787 Constitution were about 2/3 of delegates, leaving 1/3 dissidents to the establishment of the U.S. on June 21, 1788. The 2016 presidential election had a 51.1% popular majority between the top two candidates, leaving 48.9% dissidents. Perhaps civic collaboration has declined from 67% to 51%. How is jury impartiality possible with the unwillingness of fellow citizens to collaborate for civic morality? The need to negate crime-influence and bigotry on juries is evident, but what is possible if there is only passive dissidence?

What is the rate of jury failures?

            Including those 48 states that unconstitutionally require 12:0 jury unanimity for criminal trials, 13% of verdicts are inaccurate according to the judge.[14] A civic people’s obligations, justice, must balance defending criminals and preventing victimization---protecting the public. Learning years later that the wrong person was accused, indicted, and convicted is double victimization beyond the accused---both for the victim and for the public.

Predicting an impartial jury

            If the 12:0 jury rule is insufficient 13% of the time, what unanimous majority ought a state provide? If 2/3 or 67% of citizens are habitually impartial, and 87% of the time jury impartiality is achieved, we may compute a “courtroom influence factor” whereby passive or dissident jurors may be persuaded by awesome judicial proceedings to join the impartial majority. Thus, 67% plus 0.606 times 33% equals 87%. Alternatively, taking partiality based on the presidential election, we have 51.1% plus 0.734 times 48.9% equals 87%. Thus, the courtroom influence must be stronger when habitual impartiality is lower, 51% instead of 67%.
Also, using the courtroom influence factors we may predict required unanimous majority to accommodate bigoted jurors who slip through the other state provisions for impartiality.
The computations at 67% habitual impartiality are tabulated below:
Super
Bigoted
Expected impartiality
Impartiality
Majority
Jurors
Habitual
Influence
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
7.4
2.2
9.6
YES
8
2
6.7
2.0
8.7
YES
7
3
6.0
1.8
7.8
YES
Thus, neither 12:0 nor 11:1 majority is sufficient with no firmly biased jurors. And the unanimous impartially must be reduced by one for each bigoted juror to be accommodated. Similar numbers and identical qualitative predictions are computed with 51.1% habitual impartiality.
Recalling the civic U.S. preamble more than the theistic preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution, it seems imperative that each of the 48 states who do not provide majority verdicts among twelve jurors may benefit from a statistical study in their state. To do so, they need the data for their state:  How frequently does the jury reach the wrong verdict?
I have no idea how someone in Louisiana in 1779 derived the 9:3 unanimous majority rule, but it is brilliant. Data that is blind to race might show that Louisiana should keep its 10:2 unanimous majority for now and consider restoring its 9:3 rule. Revision to 7:5 unanimous majority may be considered and preferred. Glasser18 presents qualitative arguments for unanimous majorities in all jury functions, reasoning 11:1 for capital cases and 8:4 for civil cases.

Actually real crime affects all, but providing majority jury verdicts especially helps black victims

            I hope I have made the case that the U.S. offers opportunity and encouragement to develop integrity. The preamble, being neutral to religion is a civic rather than secular civil agreement. It also seems clear that “freedom of the press” is a fundamental flaw in the First Amendment. The press ought to develop integrity both internally and publically and if not, suffer penalties according to statutory justice. How could the press distort what is known about the use of majority jury verdicts, such as 10:2, to provide impartiality? How could the press and the 2018 Louisiana Legislature disparage Louisiana’s unique, non-British history?
Putting press issues aside for now, here are pertinent national data. The FBI report on murders in 2013 lists 3005 white victims and 2491 black victims, with black offenders numbering 409 and 2245, respectively.[15] If we apply the 13% judge dis-agreement to acquittals in these cases, then 61 and 337 black offenders, respectively, were erroneously acquitted. If so, 1.8% of white victims and 11.7% of black victims, respectively, suffered injustice. That’s 665% more injustice to black victims than to white victims. If all 398 judge dis-agreements were convictions of the innocent, black victims increased to 2889 or by 13.8%, and 398 actual murderers remain at large.
            From the above data, blacks offend each other more frequently than whites offend each other. The respective population demographic in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black.[16] Nevertheless, 45% of victims were black and 90% of their offenders were black. In other words, the importance of a state providing impartial juries is more vital to blacks than to whites, because whites don’t offend each other as frequently. Civic citizens, especially blacks, will vote to preserve Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous majority verdicts, and will discipline their state representatives to consider more use of majority verdicts to enhance impartiality.
            The judicial system may persuade blacks not to offend fellow humans regardless of skin color. When blacks read Frederick Douglass, they may consider Douglass’s warm humanity, ferocious opposition to domestic slavery, acceptance of IPEA, and approval of both the preamble and the body of the U.S. Constitution. Divisive citizens of all skin colors may decide they are human beings with IPEA and collaborate with We the People of the United States for the mutual discipline required for individual liberty with civic morality. In other words, a civic people help develop integrity without attention to skin color.

Civic integrity despite factions

            Never has it been more evident that a civic culture constrains its factions. Sound principles are a starting point, but the people may neither willfully nor indolently allow political regimes to suppress or abuse civic integrity. Largely through the use of conflicting definitions of singular terms, like “democracy”, a major faction is attacking, the republican form of government the U.S. Constitution stipulates.
            “Democracy” in America means one qualified citizen, one vote, but popular election or governance is prevented by the institutions: a vote for Senator in Wyoming is 68 times more politically influential than a vote for Senator in California. With 2 Senators per state, Wyoming’s small population cannot be directly imposed upon by California inhabitants. The purpose, to prevent the majority from abusing minorities and vice versa is discussed in Federalist 51, Federalist 9 and Federalist 10. The U.S. representative republic purposefully disrupts democracy, monarchy, and minority coalitions.

Louisiana Act 493 Violates U.S. Amendment XIV.1          

            In Federalist 10, Madison presents a civic dilemma without proposing a solution, an unforgettable yet often mimicked political failing. However, U.S. Amendment XIV, Paragraph 1 seems to cover Madison’s failure:  “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges . . . of citizens of the United States . . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Amendment VI requires citizens of a state to provide an impartial jury. I am a citizen of Louisiana, which uniquely offers impartial juries. It is unconstitutional for Louisiana to ask the people to approve an unconstitutional act by the Legislature. Act 493 is unconstitutional.
Each citizen may accept or reject the civic, legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, including the goals “establish justice” and “insure domestic tranquility.” The need for domestic justice is invoked when a citizen has actually harmed a fellow citizen---created a victim. The people intend the system that would exact justice to be impartial in actual reality rather than opinion, so that bias, bigotry, or criminal faction is not controlling. Eliminating bias is difficult to achieve without qualified jurors. However, citizens who oppose justice ought not be allowed to serve on juries, and if they happen to be admitted, their influence should be negated by the impartial majority jurors.
Elected officials in the U.S. are first citizens. There are no lords who may by opinion impose ideals that are not stipulated in the constitution, such as absolute jury concurrence when impartiality is the goal. The 2018 Louisiana Legislature passed and Gov. John Bel Edwards signed Act 493, which unconstitutionally changes the requirement 10:2 unanimous majority jury to 12:0 absolute concurrence for criminal jury trials, provided the people vote to so amend the Louisiana Constitution. This was an act of tyranny. The Legislature is responsible to, by a 70% majority in both chambers, amend the constitution to remedy injustice rather than legislate injustice to be approved by unsuspecting citizens.
The goal of impartial justice is not served when 13% of verdicts are wrong. The data, based on judge-agreement with jury-verdicts, predicts that neither 12:0 absolute consensus nor 11:1 unanimous majority offers an impartial jury when there are no bigoted jury members. When there exists 1, 2, or 3 bigoted jury members, the allowed unanimous majority must be 9, 8, or 7, respectively according to the data, to lessen the 13% failures.
            The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the 9:3 unanimous majority[17], and the U.S. Supreme court concurred in 1972. The history of judicial support for States unanimous majority provision of an impartial jury is strong.[18]

Conclusion

            Louisiana’s unanimous majority jury verdict is the state’s unique provision toward an impartial jury. It is neutral to race, gender, and religion. It is as critical to one trial as to another. For example, in black on black murder, the unanimous majority is as important as in any other trial and seems 665% more important than in black on white murder trials.
The 2018 Legislature’s betrayal of Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous majority violates the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Paragraph 1, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” I request the Attorney General, Jeff Landry, to sue the Legislature and the Governor for relief from the referendum.

Epilogue

            This work suggests some longer term changes that may improve the achievability of a better future in the USA. Citizens do not have civic rights merely because their person exists. That is, to enjoy individual liberty with civic morality, a citizen may collaborate for civic integrity.

Qualification to serve on an impartial jury

            This review brings attention to another means by which a state may help provide an impartial jury. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution divides the people: citizens who voluntarily adopt the agreement that is offered by the preamble and other citizens. A jury of peers might be drawn from citizens who can demonstrate that they collaborate to achieve the goals of the preamble.
The question is how to validate the claim. I suggest a sequential qualification beginning with a simple statement of acceptance of the preamble’s agreement by the citizen and evidence that he or she understood his or her statement. After the fifth year on the voter roll perhaps prove state income-tax filing for the past three years. After the tenth year, review the record of voting in state and federal elections for the past three years.

Qualification to vote

            No one who professes to be unwilling to collaborate for civic morality using the preamble to the U.S. Constitution should be allowed to vote in state or federal elections.

Qualification to run for elected office or hold appointed office

            Qualification for official role in government may be more stringent than qualifications for jury duty. For example, candidates for elected or appointed office may be required to explain how honesty is insufficient to integrity.

Freedom of expression

            The Louisiana Constitution already stipulates that free expression can result in liabilities to the speaker. The statement includes expression by the press.
            The Legislature to put some enforcement behind this provision, so that hometown newspapers and other media would have reason to think twice before partnering with partisan non-profits, whether local or national, to impose tyranny on the people.

Copyright©2018 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.
An essay with more detailed references is featured at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.

[1] “Civic” refers to mutual self-discipline for human justice more than attention to the city or other entity. The preamble to the U.S. constitution is falsely labeled “secular” to make it seem areligious, while it is neutral to religion (and race and gender as well). Referring to the preamble as a civic sentence expresses opposition to secular’s stigma.
[2] Online at https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_9e97a99e-32d3-11e8-a696-b72954df9722.html.
[3] In the years 1789-1791, Congress empowered politics that had been minority opinion during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia and admitted four states to the beginning ten states. The signers had framed explicit separation from England, and generations since then have left it to us to effect needed reforms.
[4] Online typical article, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-moral-molecule/201102/are-humans-good-or-evil.
[5] Ralph Waldo Emerson, in “Divinity School Address,” 1837, asserts the perfectibility of a person, which seems a step beyond using IPEA to develop integrity and fidelity. I doubt human perfectibility.
[6] U.S. Constitution, Amendement XIV, Paragraph 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
[7] A pertinent debate as to whether or not the entire U.S. Constitution is secular is online at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/the-u-s-constitution-is-100-percent-secular-or-is-it-2/.
[8] Online at http://www.datesandevents.org/american-timelines/18-louisiana-history-timeline.htm.
[9] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Louisiana and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir.
[10] Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajuns#Acadia.
[11] Online at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/free-blacks-lived-in-the-north-right/.
[12] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) that disagreement by a minority of jurors does not lessen the validity of the majority verdict. Online at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/356/case.html. Held: 1. The provisions of Louisiana law requiring less than unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases do not violate the Due Process Clause for failure to satisfy the reasonable doubt standard. Pp. 406 U. S. 359-363. (a) The mere fact that three jurors vote to acquit does not mean that the nine who vote to convict have ignored their instructions concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or that they do not honestly believe that guilt has been thus proved. Pp. 406 U. S. 360-362. (b) Want of jury unanimity does not alone establish reasonable doubt. Pp. 406 U. S. 362-363.
[14] Online at https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2006/IPR-WP-06-05.pdf.
[15] Online at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls.
[16] Online at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_by_race_(estimates)[21].
[17] Online at https://law.justia.com/cases/louisiana/supreme-court/1970/255-la-314-0.html.
[18] Phyllis B. Dolinko, Constitutional Law - Johnson v. Louisiana: State Criminal Juries Need Not Reach Unanimous Verdicts, 22 DePaul L. Rev. 635 (1973). Online at http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2860&context=law-review.

Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)