Erroneously thinking black skin represents the body, mind, and person

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 preamble, the USA Constitution’s most neglected legal statement:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrase to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: We the willing citizens of the United States collaborate for self-discipline regarding integrity, justice, defense, prosperity, liberty, and children and by this amendable constitution limit the U.S.'s service to the people in their states. I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase. I 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 discipline by disciplined 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 many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies children. “Freedom of religion,” which civic citizens cannot discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.

Our Views

Aug 2 the wolf appeals to emotions to set trap (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_0cac0a44-95ab-11e8-aeab-a79839155968.html)

The Advocate personnel continually work against statutory justice.

For example, yesterday, disrespecting Ed Brock’s horrific, gruesome loss by overlaying online graphic defense of murders against the justice system, “Death Sentences Rarely Hold Up” in all caps; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_c75ce782-94de-11e8-9daa-a3816ef018b0.html. It is difficult for me to recover from The Advocate’s offense against Brock. They could remove the graph and swallow their opinion.

Moreover, The Advocate personnel could admit that unanimous juries is an obsolete English obsession that John Adams championed along with monarchy. The First Congress rejected Adams’ emotions and in U.S. Amendment VI required that states provide impartial juries rather than unanimous juries.

Louisiana, not part of the eastern seaboard states, came up French. France more than America was key to the 1781 joint victory at Yorktown, VA, which won independence for the thirteen eastern seaboard colonies. Therefore, there was no British sentiment when, in 1879, a Louisiana person calculated that a 9:3 majority verdict offers the impartiality required by U.S. Amendment VI. The calculation was made after Reconstruction, but I have no idea about the brilliance behind it. No other defeated slave-state created the 9:3 majority verdict.

Louisiana is not among the 48 states that yet suffer obsolete British tyranny. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana’s 9:3 majority verdict in 1972. England had ended unanimous juries in 1967, to protect the people from gangster influence; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/13/enacted.

However, statistics show that 13% of the time juries fail (whether the verdict is guilty or innocent). With a demographic of habitually impartial citizens and some who may be influenced, neither 12:0 nor 11:1 majority predicts impartiality: the allowable majority must be 10:2. With one bigoted juror, the allowable majority must be 9:3.

The Advocate may reasonably lobby for Louisiana to update to 10:2 majority juries for capital punishment and to tighten the appeal process when modern forensics such as DNA and surveillance cameras eliminate doubt concerning eye-witness testimony. By all means, ending the death penalty would merely encourage crime such as ruined Ed Brock’s life and the lives of other family members.

The judicial system exists only because there are criminals. The first purpose is to discourage crime. The second purpose is to defend victims of crime. The third purpose is to protect the victim from false accusation and indictment of innocent citizens. The fourth purpose is to protect civic citizens from vigilante justice. The fifth purpose is to deliver justice in convictions.

The Advocate seems intent to make money regardless of statutory justice. Freedom of the press needs tweaking to require civic integrity.

When justice exists, legislating injustice is unconstitutional according to U.S. Amendment XIV.1.

To Thomas Warn-Varnas: I appreciate your views and think you implied that "fair for everybody" in the case of Brock's daughter and son-in-law means without delay the murderer should be rendered incapable of a second chance at murder: promptly executed. If justice takes 9 indefinite years and millions of dollars, nobody experiences fairness.

Your good read suggests one additional problem: law enforcers, especially lawyers and judges get rich on the current system, with often concocted appeals. We the People of the United States may discipline them by requiring efficiency in accusations, indictments, convictions, and execution of any sentence. We the People of the United States need judicial reform perhaps more than prison reform.

July 29 Wolf dressed as a wolf (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_2d6a0052-901e-11e8-bb64-7312d75382ca.html)

The Advocate continually starts conversations purposed to pick the people’s pockets, never guessing that readers understand the bid for every citizen’s hard earned money. If The Advocate personnel would look in the mirror, they’d see the wolves.

What's needed is 2/3 of the people collaborating for civic integrity rather than tolerating the special-interests’ oligarchs’ conflicts for dominant opinion.

To BRFMV: In today’s announcement that Attorney Ed Tarpley will speak Monday at the Press Club of Baton Rouge, we learned he wrote a resolution adopted by the Louisiana State Bar Association in June 2016, calling for the Legislature to restore unanimous jury verdicts in Louisiana.

I found Tarpley's resolution online at http://files.lsba. org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf. Here is a list of omissions from the LSBA resolution, as grounds for interesting questions for Mr. Tarpley’s appearance:

1. Magna Carta is English, constitutional imposition of church-state partnership, potentially negated in this country by the American Revolutionary War, the 1784 ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and the 1788 preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

a. The war victory was directly aided by France in their strategy and military might at Yorktown, VA in September, 1781.

b. Louisiana politics is dominated by Napoleonic law and la joie de vivre more than Southern states’ Jim Crow law, and owes no allegiance to Magna Carta, despite what it means to the American Bar Association.

c. Therefore, Louisiana resists English tradition, such as unanimous juries, more readily than any other state.

d. The Louisiana Legislature owes it to the people to honor the state's actually real history rather than the fabrications of national non-profit organizations and local special interest groups.

2. U.S. Amendment VI (1791) requires that states provide impartial rather than unanimous juries.

a. John Adams’s jury-emotions are not unlike his desire for U.S. monarchy.

b. Besides, unanimous juries are no longer required in England.

3. Someone in Louisiana in about 1879, perhaps using statistics available to him or her, convinced Louisiana that a 9:3 majority verdict was impartial; respects US Amendment VI. (I have tried to learn this story but so far know nothing beyond the enactment of 9:3 majority.)

4. The Louisiana Supreme court in 1970 upheld the majority jury verdict at 9:3.

5. The U.S. Supreme court upheld majority verdicts in 1972. There’s lots of supporting scholarly study.

6. U.S. Amendment XIV.1 (1868) “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

a. Once a state establishes the impartiality of majority jury verdicts, reversal would seem a move toward partiality toward offenders and crime organizations.

b. A civic citizen is slighted if a special interest group, such as LSBA, actually manages to reverses established justice.

7. England ended its unanimous juries in 1967 to protect the public from gangster influences.

8. Studies show that the judge disagrees with unanimous juries 13% of the time.

9. With 12 jurors, only 10:2 majority verdict predicts impartiality when there is no bigoted juror. With one bigoted juror, 9:3 empowers impartiality; with 2, 8:4; with 3, 7:5.

10. FBI data on 5496 black-on-black and black-on-white murders in 2013 show that unanimous juries disadvantage black victims 625% more than white victims when the guilty is acquitted. Black victimization increases when an innocent-accused is convicted.
 

The 2018 Louisiana Legislature could not get the 2/3 votes in both chambers to fulfill the LBA’s resolution and therefore, unconstitutionally (U.S.) created a LA constitutional amendment for popular vote. If, the State of Louisiana, conducts the referendum, it seems in violation of U.S. Amendment XIV.1, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

There are many details in my Facebook post yesterday, but then I was not aware of the LSBA actions.

 To Elaine O Coyle: The problem with day care is that it treats humans like animals rather than potential gods facing death.

Letters

Administrator Trump (Ed Brock) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_c75ce782-94de-11e8-9daa-a3816ef018b0.html)

Civic citizens appreciate Ed Brock for sharing his horrifically ruined life: Thank you, Ed Brock, and I want to see civic reform in your favor.

A priest or social worker might tell Brock that forgiveness will heal the wound, and that may be true. However, the ruin cannot be undone. Brock’s life is ruined. The same is true for the rest of the several families of the victims. Also, the civic culture is, through these murders, ruined and the people cannot undo the past.

But Brock’s appeal is to We the People of the United States---those people who use the preamble to the U.S. constitution for civic self-discipline, call them “civic citizens.” To “establish Justice,” the civic citizens must discipline both state and federal governments.

When a special interest, such as the judicial system, is not functioning, the civic citizens must use the preamble to effect change. For example, the preamble is served by U.S. Amendment XIV.1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

The civic citizens my discipline the judicial system to efficiently deter murderers and deliver swift executions when justice demands it.

To Thomas Winn:

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers each citizen an agreement on which to establish individual liberty with civic morality; in other words, civic self-discipline. On the preamble’s agreement, the people divide themselves, civic citizens and dissidents.

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and individual authority (IPEA) to either establish integrity or not. Using Chapter XI Machiavellianism, such as England’s constitutional Canterbury partnership, political regimes persuade willing people to abdicate their IPEA to god and government.

The civic people may discipline both their state and the federal government any time the majority accepts IPEA.

Administrator Trump (Robert Hebert) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_c07f95dc-94d3-11e8-b9fc-8f8cc2a7df1e.html)

As usual, economist Hebert out-journals writers for the press. Except, his conclusion seems wasted. “. . . the attacks on Trump . . . are mostly ideological . . .  in the eyes of his supporters.” I see no reason to react to Trump detractors.

I’m on deck to vote for Trump-Pence the third time. I need no more than the inaugural address to keep my hope and dream alive. For example, on Hebert’s topic, here’s only one Trump quote: “What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.”

Yet now, we have two years' demonstration: Trump is an administrator. He is attentive to the people, fires staff who don't get it, pressures the other two branches to serve the people, demands that the media look beyond freedom to responsibility to the people, treats foreign leaders as aware and sovereign adults, and is quick to change when he perceives error.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers citizens the agreement to collaborate for specific, enumerated civic goals. Those who adopt the agreement are thereby “We the People of the United States.” Those who reject the agreement are dissidents and, if criminally offensive, may face statutory law enforcement if accused. Thus, the preamble’s agreement is tacitly, personally civil---legal---as well as civic.

People who approach Donald Trump with integrity are appreciated on par with We the People of the United States. Others receive the dialogue they offer. If they offer tentative integrity, Trump says, “We’ll see.” President Trump seems a master at both letting the guilty decide when to flee and choosing humility rather than speaking truth to liars.

Hebert gets it.

To Greg Thibeaux:

“Trump is a racist (too), to his ability to pit one segment of the population against another.”

The first sentence of the U.S. Constitution allows citizens to divide themselves: civic collaborators and dissidents. Citizens who adopt the preamble’s agreement are thereby “We the People of the United States.” Dissidents remain citizens and free as long as they observe statutory law.

If someone approaches Trump with the attitude, “I am first a [skin color] American and therefore have demands beyond We the People of the United States,” Trump responds and accepts the reaction.

I respond with an appeal for civic collaboration and accept the reaction.

In this debate, I offer a standard dilemma: it takes condescension to accuse someone of being condescending.

Erroneously thinking the skin represents the body, mind, and person (Ernest L. Johnson and Mike McLanahan) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_923c1b98-9409-11e8-8858-bbb1fbc14320.html)

I urge citizens to consider the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is neutral to skin color, ethnicity, gender, and religious practices with human justice and civic integrity.

To Paul Kimball: Is he also a leader in the AMO group, Together Baton Rouge, the local IAF affiliate?

Childhood dental health (Nicolette Marak) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_6413b092-9417-11e8-a982-ebdf9aade75c.html)

Marak commendably speaks for posterity, leaving it to We the People of the United States to develop civic integrity, especially parental appreciation-of and care-for their children.

Some citizens don’t understand that “posterity” means children. Each child is owed the equality and dignity of being responsibly reared by the man and woman who conceived him or her rather than by adult contracts. Every child has the potential to be a god facing death.

In a civic culture most adults understand that every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. When most adults are encouraging and coaching each child to acquire the understanding and intent to live a full life, use of IPEA to develop integrity may increase at the expense of banality, crime, evil, child abuse, and other infidelity.

Today, America seems to have a culture of adult satisfaction wherein subjecting a child to adult contracts is taken for granted. Perhaps too many people do not grasp the preamble’s promise: “secure the Blessings to . . . our Posterity.”

Second post: Phil Beaver

I recently discovered a person who claims environmental interest, but within the website advocates attention to "posterity" as the nation's children: http://conlaw. org/. He seems to think concentration on adult satisfaction is erroneous.

 

Columns

Christopher Simon "listen more and talk less" (https://issuu.com/richlandcentershoppingnews/docs/oo0301, Page 6)

Simon expresses the cognitive form of Christian enslavement. It’s the psychological rather than physical emphasis on 1 Peter 2:18-21.

The placental animal species is replete with a hierarchy of consumption, with vicious death a constant threat to the weak. Human kind is distinguished by conservatism. However, human values must be learned by each person. The transition from feral infant to young adult with the understanding and intent to live a full human life takes about three decades. With encouragement and coaching, the individual may discover and develop integrity and if so, develop fidelity to the-objective-truth.

Each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Choosing not to develop integrity does not necessarily diminish IPEA. Some of the most successful humans employ IPEA to develop wealth, crime, power, and other egocentric goals. Such success is measured as consumption. In conservation, the individual collaborates to lessen misery and loss.

Because of IPEA, the human demographic is at all times in a state of development. Even though there has been some 8 trillion man years of experience leading to humankind’s astounding accomplishments and knowledge, no single entity contains that knowledge in a form that can be used by every individual. Furthermore, not all of the knowledge can be acquired by any individual during one lifespan of some eighty years, and during those years the knowledge exponentially increases. Consequently, exchanging information is essential to the person who would live at the leading edge of collaboration to lessen misery and loss.

If the person who knows something new may only listen, there is no way to communicate. I think Simon is too dogmatic or doctrinaire. An individual may 1) do the work to understand the-objective-truth, 2) behave so as to benefit from it, 3) share the understanding, 4) listen to public response so as to consider improvement on private comprehension, and 5) remain alert for new discovery that changes the understanding. When each individual in the dialogue is personally at Step 4, mutual understanding of an old discovery can occur.

When a person speaks only on reaching Step 3, people who are serene in their individual integrity listen, consider and respond. The response is either “I agree,” or a suggested improvement in comprehension. If so, the speaker may agree and modify his or her behavior so as to increase benefits. With open communication, both parties may live at the leading edge of morality. In this way, Proverbs 18:2 may stay as is, but a new saying may prevail: Humans find abundant benefit in understanding and delight in collaborating so as to improve.

An example might help. A person may ask, “Does God exist?” The responder might say, “I don’t know. A person has to consider what is meant by ‘God.’ I have yet to discover a worthy definition. Confronted with such mystery, I can only respond that I neither know nor have an opinion.” Then, the responder may listen for any suggestions from the questioner, and address the suggestion.

Perhaps that is what has happened here. Simon spoke. I listened and responded with understanding. Perhaps he will either improve my understanding or express agreement.

Typical Vitter (Stephanie Grace) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/stephanie_grace/article_a26e47a0-9668-11e8-8a00-3f5c285c6bef.html)

I wrote that I regret my vote for John Bel Edwards but did no regret my “no” to Vitter. I said that the experience teaches me to consider not voting.

This news convinces me to always vote according to my best judgment and weather the results.

I never voted for Jindal and I'll never vote for a Vitter.  

To Elaine O. Coyle: I remember our dialogue before the election.

I hope you recall my mantra: I do not know the-objective-truth (or think anyone else does).

News

Pope risks excommunication (Nicole Winfield, AP) (https://www.chron.com/news/education/article/Pope-shifts-church-on-death-penalty-now-13125680.php) 

Can a pope need and receive canon medicine? http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/10/12/could-a-pope-ever-be-excommunicated-excommunication-defined/

In my 7/21 weekly at cipbr.blogspot. com, I wrote, “The pope heads a business that is such a dramatic failure on abuse of children, parents, and other adults that he ought to resign once and for all time. With his resignation, perhaps publicity about his record of ova-abuse might be avoided. It is indeed a visceral topic.”

On August 2, Francis terminated the death penalty, negating 1700 years of papal wisdom. Nicole Winfield’s report includes another person with my concern. "Coming in the midst of the sex abuse revelations, the timing is curious... and more fury is not what the Church needs at this moment," noted Raymond Arroyo, host of the Catholic broadcaster EWTN. Tacitly condoning intentional murder by removing the disincentive, death, is both uncivic and uncivil for living.

Regardless, I may vote for a candidate who proclaims he or she is Catholic. It’s OK for a member of We the People of the United States to be a Catholic, but their civic claims must be: 1) I choose to trust-in and commit-to the civic agreement stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and 2) I understand that honest opinion is insufficient to civic integrity. Religion is for private happiness regarding the unknown, whether actual or constructed. For example, grace-filled fear of death and the promise of everlasting favorable life is a belief system. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution intends civic integrity for living by willing citizens. Without the overriding claim to be of We the People of the United States, I will not vote for someone who merely expresses his or her religion.

I do not want anyone to do as I do, but I hope eventually the majority of citizens willingly practice the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Citizens who would help victims, especially those who are black, will vote to keep the 10:2 majority jury (Elizabeth Crisp) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_8dc6c46c-9429-11e8-af2e-3f443ad416db.html) 

FBI data on murders, by race, in 2013 affirms the value of the 10:2 jury majority in Louisiana’s U.S. Constitutional (Amendment VI) provision of impartial juries. With 5496 cases, 1908 were black offender on black victim, and 348 were black on white. Thus, blacks were involved in 40% of cases, even though the black demographic in 2013 was 12.8%. The U.S. requires of states impartial verdicts rather than unanimous verdicts.

In America, where 48 states still brook the obsolete English colonialism, judges disagree with the jury 13% of the time. Assuming most citizens are habitually impartial, but some may be influenced, that 13% looms large against predicting impartial verdicts. However, 10:2 makes impartiality possible. With one bigoted or criminal juror, a 9:3 majority can yield impartiality; with 2 bigots it’s 8:4; with 3 bigots 7:5. Based on the 13% data, unanimous jury requirement would lessen justice for blacks 625% more than for whites, using the FBI data presented above.

Both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the impartiality of 9:3 and 10:2 majority verdicts. Therefore, special interest groups that want to overturn Louisiana and U.S. constitutions are breaching both U.S. Amendment VI and U.S. Amendment XIV.1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Attorney Ed Tarpley represents the Louisiana Bar Association as a special interest where honest emotionalism may prevail over integrity. His 2016 resolution harps on John Adams, the American monarchist drooling over England unanimous juries. It's a tyranny England ended in 1967 with 11:1 and 10:2 majority verdicts to save victims and the court from gangster influence.
 
Moreover, Louisiana is unique in its French heritage. France’s will to defeat England’s tyranny was predominant at Yorktown, VA in September 1781 and in the Louisiana legislature in 1880 when someone brilliantly calculated that a 9:3 majority verdict met Louisiana’s obligation to U.S. Amendment VI.
 

Tarpley’s resolution is embarrassing to the Great State of Louisiana; http://files.lsba. org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf. If the LSBA stands by the unconstitutional resolution, their willfulness helps explain the people’s burden and identifies one of the constitutionally offending special interest groups.

To Thomas Winn: Not only that, but most eastern seaboard states struggled, in 1787, to overcome British colonial tyranny; only to suffer 1791 Congressional restoration of much of Blackstone but partnering with factional American Protestantism rather than Canterbury. For two more decades, Louisiana, the territory was dominated by France. The 1781 American victory at Yorktown, VA was a strategic battle in France's Second Hundred Years war against England! I don’t think 1880 Louisiana hesitated to provide impartial 9:3 majority juries regardless of England’s unjust unanimous tradition.

Louisiana is unique among the fifty states in that its laws were and are dominated by la joie de vivre more than Jim Crow. Louisiana has long been racially diverse and collaborative, even though it struggled with what England had imposed on the eastern seaboard.

One of my great memories from my 1967 discovery of my bride was being in Cajun country and having a black man help us get my car started. His phonics were pure Cajun and he invited me to speak French, but I did not know a word.

Several decades later MWW and I danced from late evening to early morning to Geno Delafose and french rockin boogie. It was his first gig at Whiskey River Landing! I asked a woman to teach me zydeco; she was Geno's sister. I just don't have that rhythm. I mentioned it to MWW this morning, and she said, "Let's bring back those days."

There is too much Louisiana joy to yield to special interests. I think Baton Rouge showed the world its preference for la joie de vivre when it rejected the bids by national non-profits for rioting, suffering and loss during the summer of 2016. Too bad the Louisiana Legislature does not understand the people of Louisiana. I guess too few of them try civic collaboration rather than conflict for more erroneous opinion.

Second post: I gave up on The Advocate's report of the Press Club presentation, but found the video at https://www.pbs.org/video/unanimous-jury-advocate-ed-tarpley-073018-press-club-oxapel/. Tarpley plays the religious zealot and erroneous charismatic whose self-imagined day has come: He overlooks too many facts.

My interpretation of Tarpley's presentation is that Dr. Aiello's book, "Jim Crow's Last Stand," inspired and bemused him. I read the book, and it is informative about Louisiana events after Reconstruction, yet narrow to Louisiana’s brilliant 1879 reform from English unanimous-jury-tyranny 88 years before England reformed by adopting majority jury verdicts (1967). The fact that 48 states have not reformed slights neither the Louisiana Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme court in Johnson v Louisiana (1972). Oregon adds nothing to Louisiana’s 1879 impartial brilliance. Interestingly, Tarpley said Louisiana had unanimity from 1803 until 1879. Neither France nor Spain utilized juries in their colonies, so Louisianians did not cherish English unanimous verdicts, let alone juries.

Tarpley traces his enthusiasm to English tradition from the Magna Carta, but he does not acknowledge that England did away with the unanimous requirement after 752 years of injustice. Tarpley revises U.S. Amendment VI to guarantee unanimity, whereas it requires states to provide impartiality. The 1791 politicians who wanted unanimity lost to impartiality. Louisiana and Oregon, with their majority jury verdicts are the only two states who offer impartiality. Impartiality is the reason the U.S. Supreme Court upheld majority verdicts.

Tarpley perhaps becomes overconfident when at about 48 minutes he makes the claim that Louisiana does not need the US Supreme Court. He may find that once a state legislates impartiality it cannot impose obsolete English tyranny. Justice marches forward and does not go back to before.

The approximately twelve press questions involved no challenges to the religion Tarpley preached.

Because of so much passionate mendacity, Tarpley’s and the Louisiana Legislature’s 2018 campaign for unanimous juries seems to beg woe.

The people suffer administrative ruin on top of flooding (Caroline Grueskin) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_9fcc2698-940b-11e8-a2e1-67e1d85f2c1d.html)

   

John Bel Edwards may resign in shame over the mistreatment of 2016 flood victims and the people of Louisiana.

For $1,300 million homeowner assistance “fewer people have applied and been deemed eligible.” Of 53,598 short survey applicants, 13,071 have been offered $354 million in grants. Will the $946 million be returned to the fed to pay down the national debt? How much management fee has been paid and is due?

It’s been so long since the intense reporting, but I recall: “FEMA . . . received a total of 153,407 applications for individual assistance for the August flood from Baton Rouge, Lafayette and the 20 other parishes included in the disaster declaration. Of the 57,923 households with the worst categories of damage from both floods, more than 63 percent were not covered by flood insurance. ” theadvocate. com/louisiana_flood_2016/article_66d26396-7974-11e7-ba41-83143d6dfef1.html

It’s approaching two years since the August 16, 2016 floods here. FEMA, a year later, reported $5,000 million dollars spent in Louisiana; https://www.fema.gov/disaster/updates/one-year-later-5-billion-assists-louisiana-flood-recovery-0.

Padding teachers’ retirement (Charles Lussier) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/article_0de81f26-9022-11e8-a3e7-274a9c8a8337.html)

   

Lussier and The Advocate are remiss in not pointing out that the overpayment of experienced teachers (12%) has double cost to students 1) being presented information by people with less in common and 2) greatly loading up the teacher-retirement benefits the students must eventually pay. The student is better off with younger teachers.

The legislature may address this problem before bankruptcy rather than during the experience. I will vote against taxation for teacher pay.

I hold The Advocate responsible for giving voice to Together Baton Rouge, an AMO agent of IAF. And just look at the mess the church makes of human bonding and civic integrity.

This is not England, where the church-state-partnership is constitutional. The time for separating from English tradition has long since passed. But citizens may catch up any time they decide to exercise human potential. Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Letting someone else manage your freedom means you lose opportunity.

“Bernie has only made things murkier by defining his brand of socialism in terms hardly indistinguishable from New Deal liberalism.

  

Other fora

https://www.facebook.com/groups/classicalsociologicaltheory/?multi_permalinks=2084678411859041&notif_id=1533409970667669&notif_t=group_highlights

The human species is the only one with the awareness to behave so as to lessen misery and loss. Also, each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. If not, anything goes until an irresistible force stops what's going. If integrity, IPEA is used to constrain the lesser human powers: appetites (banality), societies or civilization (coercion), and governments (force). Choices are made to benefit from the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered rather than constructed.

 

The efficient provision of a family is through heterosexual monogamy. The couple intends fidelity to children, grandchildren and beyond. The offspring enjoy the experience of a monogamous, faithful family, with all its challenges and successes.

 

Homosexual monogamy may be chosen. However, it may be accompanied with the commitment to remain without children. Otherwise, there would be nothing genetically wrong with one of the partners falling in love with the child and divorcing in order to partner with the child. Fidelity to the partner did not survive. This is only one example of increased chances for misery and loss.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Socrates-drink-the-hemlock/answer/Phil-Beaver-1/comment/69521442?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=3042766308

Socrates participated fully in his trial and defended himself against the charge. He hoped the jury would acquit him, but, in order to collaborate with the rule of law, accepted their verdict.

Friends wanted him to take the alternative sentence of exile, but he chose death. I like to think “Just as Christ died for believers, Socrates died for the law, but neither one of them wrote.” I prefer Agathon’s message: Neither initiate nor tolerate actual harm to or from anyone.

As to your question, the jury was embarrassed, throughout their individual adulthoods, by Socrates’ fidelity to the-objective-truth, which did not serve their ambitions.

Ed Tarpley at Press Club 7/30/18 (Holly Duchmann) (https://www.businessreport.com/article/former-district-attorney-advocates-public-vote-yes-end-split-verdicts)

Calling it a “marvelous day” when the Louisiana Legislature agreed to send to voters a measure requiring a unanimous jury verdict for a felony conviction, former Grant Parish District Attorney Ed Tarpley says work still must be done if it’s going to pass during the November election.

The current law—requiring 10 guilty votes on a 12-person jury for a conviction—dates back to 1880, 15 years after the Civil War ended and three years after the Reconstruction period. Earlier this year, it was reported that 40% of jury trials in Louisiana end in a split jury verdict. “Once you know the history of the law, you have to vote to appeal it.”

The law is a break from mainstream legal tradition in the country. Louisiana is one of two states that allows for a felony conviction on a split-jury vote. 

Oregon, with a similar law, requires 11 guilty votes for a conviction. It’s a law many people in the state aren’t aware of—including attorneys who don’t specialize in criminal law or jurors until they serve on a trial, according to Tarpley.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-personal-social-influence-so-important

I prefer civic collaboration (including rejection of my ideas) to social influence.

For “social influence,” Google writes, “occurs when a person's emotions, opinions, or behaviors are affected by others.” The modifier “social” constrains the consideration to associates or society members. The question can be broadened by considering “civic influence,” but Google search imposes “civic participation influence,” and I continued to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_engagement and focus on “public values.” That’s chaos.

Social influence beyond sympathy upon tragedy is made possible by individual insecurity, infidelity, or immorality. I long since decided I cannot be secure, practice fidelity or morality, and be happy through social motives. I seek values derived from the-objective-truth.

First, I use “civic” to represent the work to establish mutual, comprehensive safety and security with the people in my life’s connections and transactions. When I encounter hostility or physical threat, I leave the scene, talking friendly but always moving away from the threat. Thus, I continue a connection or transaction only when there is an exchange of appreciation. I call this activity civic citizenship, and it applies to the two parties more than to their physical or psychological circumstances. Civic citizens practice mutual appreciation whether they are in the city, the woods, in space, and whether in emergency or tranquility. Each party is practicing individual liberty with civic morality, in other words, civic integrity.

Every human being, aware or not, has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. If the person discovers and develops integrity, he or she may develop fidelity to the-objective-truth. It is a comprehensive fidelity that extends to self, family, and the other people, including non-civic citizens. Non-civic citizens, depending on behavior, may beg subjugation to statutory justice. (Erroneously, IPEA may be used for crime.)

The individual who is developing fidelity uses IPEA to discipline the lesser powers: appetites (banality), associations (coercion), and government (force). He or she coaches and encourages the members of his or her societies to collaborate in developing fidelity to the-objective-truth. In collaboration, no one subjugates-to or cooperates-with dominant opinion; each party works to discover and use the-objective truth

.

The question: “Why is personal social influence so important?” The answer: It is important to use IPEA to choose associations and influence them to collaborate to discover the-objective-truth.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/07/31/the-ideological-blinders-of-court-packing-proponents/   

First, I try avoid the Washington Post, and the links about Supreme Court history are perhaps better served at http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/the-first-court-packing-plan/.

But I want to cite a couple more profound ideological blinders.

First, the 1787 Constitution starts with a legal sentence that offers a clean break from English colonial tyranny. Only 2/3 of delegates from only 12/13 of 1784’s free and independent states signed the preamble and the articles that make its purpose and goals achievable. The most critical provision is amendment by the people, which as far as I can tell has been unconstitutionally nulled by Congressional rules.

The preamble is neutral to gender, race, and religion and thus is a civic agreement more than a civil contract. However, the human justice the agreement begs, if not drives, is individual liberty with civic morality. The preamble promises civic integrity. Reference to “founders” beyond the 1787 signers is an attempt to impose opinion rather than the essence of the 1718 Constitution. The U.S. Union of nine states under their people’s representatives terminated the U.S. Confederation of States on June 21, 1788.

Second, operations began with ten states on March 4, 1789, and by May, Congress had begun to re-establish British tyranny under Blackstone but with American factional Protestant ministers as surrogates for Canterbury. Congress, perhaps inventing political correctness, would unconstitutionally mimic England’s constitutional priest-politician-partnership, which I call Chapter XI Machiavellianism. More egregiously, with fourteen states, the U.S. ratified the Bill of Rights, with phrases that defend religion, a business institution, rather than integrity, a human opportunity.

Religion is an adult, private pursuit that many citizens find harmful to the human condition. Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. He or she may or may not find comfort and hope in religion, spiritualism, or philosophy. But there is no incentive to negotiate private beliefs to collaborate for civic justice. To do so is a breach of civic integrity.

Developing integrity is a process of discovering the-objective-truth, understanding how to benefit, behaving accordingly, civically sharing so as to respond to improvements heard, and remaining open-minded to new discovery that demands change.

So far, this country’s ideology has changed from Canterbury, to American factional-Protestantism, to Judeo-Christianity, and, observing the Supreme Court, Judeo-Catholicism. African-American Christianity vies for dominant opinion. Civic integrity seems attractive for people who have discovered IPEA and would like to use it for fidelity.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-your-country-view-Britain  

The question: how does your country view Britain?

As a civic citizen I can speak for my country. No government that is or ever was here represents this country’s promise, and both states and the union of states are still trying to recover from British colonization of the eastern seaboard of America.

By “civic” I mean a citizen who adopts the legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is a civic agreement that is neutral to race, gender, and religion or other social association on constitutional behavior. Sooner or later the collection of civic citizens, or We the People of the United States, the subject of the preamble, disciplines their state as well as the union of states to develop and ultimately conform-to integrity. At this point, too many citizens do not consider the preamble’s offer of individual civic discipline so that the majority may discipline the federal republic. Yet I think most of the agreement is in most citizens’ genes and memes, even though they may not articulate it.

Only 2/3 of the delegates from only 12 of the 13 free and independent states signed the preamble and the supporting articles of the 1787 Constitution. The Union was established by nine states on June 21, 1788, and one state joined a month later. The USA began operating with ten states on March 4, 1789. One state remained a rebel for 23 months: Rhode Island joined the union on May 29, 1970.

The 1/3 and 1/12 who did not sign the preamble and the rest of 1787 Constitution were dissidents with followings. Many of the people were accustomed to British common law and factional American Protestantism. Therefore, they took it for granted when, by May 1789, Congress made factional Protestant ministers officials of Congress---chaplains to give Congress the appearance of divinity on par with Parliament. Parliament is constitutionally a priest-politician-partnership that practices Chapter XI Machiavellianism. This is just one British scourge that casts shadows over America’s potential. In Greece v Galloway (2014) the U.S. Supreme Court opines that I am niggling to object to legislative prayer and “divinity.”

However, not all territories on this continent came up under English rule. I am a citizen in Louisiana, which was colonized dominantly by France. Law here still have Napoleonic influence. Race relations have long been better here because of joie de vivre.

This is doubly significant because victory in America’s war for independence was also a battle in France’s second 100 years’ war with England. Trapping Cornwallis at Yorktown was French Strategy and they supplied 30,000 military personnel while America supplied 11,000. The thirteen free and independent states ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris in 1784. Louisiana was then a French colony and became a state in 1812. Louisiana reformed unanimous jury verdicts to 9:3 majority in 1780, whereas England made that reform with 10:2 majority in 1967 (to lessen gangster influence in jury trials). In the US, 9:3 is still the preferred majority but was replaced by 10:2. Other states are still under the influence of British colonization or use unjust unanimous juries.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not intended by the 1787 signers. The signers wrote a document that empowered complete separation from England. The First Congress re-instituted Blackstone common law but with American factional-Protestant ministers rather than Canterbury. This was done by dissidents who did not sign the preamble and friends. Most egregiously, the First Amendment protects religion, a business institution, rather than integrity, a human obligation.

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. When American effects separation from British colonization, it may encourage and coach citizens to use IPEA to develop civic integrity.

Speaking for Louisiana and the USA, the British are not held in high esteem yet are considered allies.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july-august-2018/the-socialist-network/ 

“Membership in the Democratic Socialists of America . . . since 1982, has grown from about 5,000 to 35,000 since November 2016. Michael Harrington, one of the founders of the DSA . . . writes on the first page of his 1989 book, Socialism: Past and Future, that socialism is “the hope for human freedom and justice.” I hope for individual liberty with civic morality.

“Bernie [seems] hardly indistinguishable from New Deal liberalism. “I don’t believe the government should own the corner drugstore or the means of production,” . . . at a speech at Georgetown University, “but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.” The consumer must pay the cost of wise entrepreneurship; foolish entrepreneurs must fail.

Elizabeth “Bruenig, the Post columnist, is perhaps the most prominently placed of a small but increasingly visible group of young writers unabashedly advocating for democratic socialism. They’ve got a double challenge. The first is to convince skeptical Americans that . . . socialism doesn’t have to mean Stalinism, . . . the gulags of Soviet Russia or the starvation of Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela. The second . . . explain how their version of socialism fits, or doesn’t, into the American political system while showing how, specifically, it is distinct from traditional Democratic Party liberalism. In other words, they must not only defend socialism in the twenty-first century; they must define it.” What about European socialism’s failures?

“Nathan Robinson [Current Affairs, a one-person show] . . . discovered the writings of anarchistic socialists like Mikhail Bakunin and Noam Chomsky. Sanders . . . was “not asking for public ownership of the major sectors of the economy,” but merely calling for expanded welfare and regulations. Robinson [has] extraordinary writing talent—especially his knack for composing viral takedowns of conservative intellectual hucksters like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.” “‘Socialism,’ . . . should less be used to describe a state-owned or collectively owned economy, and more used to describe a very strong commitment to a certain fundamental set of principles . . . to describe the position that is horrified by solvable economic depravations, rather than a very specific and narrow way of ordering the economic system.” Huh? “It’s therefore deeply shameful to be rich. It’s not a morally defensible thing to be.”

“Bernie is an anvil dropped in the middle: whichever side you’re lying on, gravity pulls you a little closer to him.” The phrase “you’re lying on” is a wonderful pun, especially for the topic: opinionated socialism.

“Consider Jacobin magazine, the leading publication of the Millennial far left. It’s a magazine that wears its Marxist affections on its sleeve, with the tagline ‘Reason in Revolt.’” Bern dropped the use of ”Marx” from 40 to 12. Bhaskar Sunkara in 2011 as undergrad at Geo. W. U. published Ashely Smith, featured Jeremy Corbyn, British Labour Party. “while Sanders “may share some of the same policy goals as progressives like Elizabeth Warren,” the difference is his “confrontational vision of social change,” which involves calling out “the millionaires and billionaires” who are hoarding too much wealth.”

“Fredrik deBoer [in] Current Affairs, “seem to be falling . . . rightward as we talk about a reinvigorated left, slouching towards liberalism.” Socialism means moving sectors of the economy into communal ownership—not merely expanding the welfare state, which is social democracy, or perhaps social insurance, but not democratic socialism. It’s a more humane, more nurturing liberal capitalist state.”

“Sanders: by defining socialism in an especially capacious and inviting way . . . pulled in people who might otherwise still identify as liberal or progressive. “What Roosevelt was stating in 1944, what Martin Luther King Jr. stated in similar terms twenty years later, and what I believe today, is that true freedom does not occur without economic security,” he said in his Georgetown speech in November 2015. “Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy.” I agree with “create an economy that works for all.”

Briahna Gray, Current Affairs . . . a Harvard Law School–educated lawyer [is] a leftist, Sanders-supporting black woman [attests that Bernie is] attuned to racial or gender issues. The term “liberal” has come to represent an intolerably unimaginative posture toward politics: less “Yes we can” than “Not so fast.” Still, the worldview Gray sketched out—“where socialism is used to mitigate the negative effects of capitalism”—sounded like good old Keynesian liberalism. Sean Wilentz, a historian and longtime friend of the Clintons, captured some of this frustration in a recent essay in the Democracy journal.

 “[T]here is something essentially dishonest about trying to assimilate the New Deal legacy as ‘socialism,’ ” he wrote, referring to the speech in which Sanders tied himself to Franklin Roosevelt. “Part of it is just a rhetorical claim,” said Ryan Cooper, the Week,  a democratic socialist. He said that the core aspects of his political agenda are creating a “complete welfare state” and reducing inequality by democratizing ownership of capital. Why use a term as loaded as socialism to describe those ideals?” Nathan Robinson echoed . . . “I used to call myself ‘progressive,’” (It must be said, too, that “liberal” is an unfortunate term. [A] “classical liberal” is really a free-market conservative. [E]ven more awful “neoliberal” . . . has two meanings: Reagan-Thatcher laissez-faire capitalism [or] . . . the “New Democrat” philosophy of Bill Clinton. Clinton added financial deregulation to the agenda.)

“a report by the St. Louis Federal Reserve recently warned that households headed by ’80s babies have 34 percent less wealth than expected based on earlier generations at that age, and are thus “at greatest risk of becoming a ‘lost generation’ for wealth accumulation.”

“Ask not what you can do for your ideology; ask what your ideology can do for you.”

“David Brooks: The idea that capitalism is inherently flawed, he wrote, has “been rejected by most on the left.” Nonetheless, today’s progressive left, drunk on populism and identity politics, “seems likely to bring us the economic authoritarianism of a North American version of Hugo Chávez.”

“At the heart of the split between liberals and socialists, at least in theory, is the question of what to do about capitalism. Liberals tend to see it as something that needs to be fixed. Socialists see it as something to be defeated.”

There’s more, and I reserve the opportunity to return for it.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/07/30/a-bicentennial-reflection-the-effectual-truth-of-marxism-and-marx/

I congratulate Professor Mahoney on such civic writing by a religious representative. Thank you.

“Marx continues to merit attentive reading leavened by alertness to the dogmatism, revolutionary impatience, and the quest for “metaphysical rebellion” that ultimately makes his thought dangerous and untenable.” I wonder if Mahoney would apply this sentence to Saul Alinsky for his 1) dogmatic claim to rights according to him, 2) his will for violence when his rights seem violated in his opinion, and 3) his Bible interpretation that castigates human beings who are not poor (perhaps and black-skinned). Perhaps Marx influenced the appearance, about in 1968, of an African-American Christianity (https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778) that envisions chosen people based on skin-color.

“A . . . conservative liberal can [think] the goods of life must not be unduly eroded if the liberal order is to have meaningful ‘contents of life’ that it can truly protect and ‘represent.’” My view of this idea is individual liberty with civic morality, where “civic” implies citizens mutually preserving comprehensive safety and security regardless of subordinate associations such as religion, society, civilization, or philosophy. An individual may civically be non-religious, not own property or equities, and pursue personal happiness; in other words, without offending other people.

I like the phrase “the truth of things,” and wonder if it is similar to or a synonym of a favorite expression, “the-objective-truth,” which can only be discovered rather than reasoned.

I appreciate knowing the “four abolitions” and in future will point out that my work to promote civic integrity using the preamble to the U.S. Constitution opposes the abolitions. The work already makes those claims without delineating the four.

It’s harsh, but I appreciate the statement, “Marxism has become the last refuge for assorted fools, frauds, and scoundrels, and apologists for totalitarianism in the academy.” It verifies my will to accept ultimatums such as “I am a Marxist and do not want to hear your ideas anymore.” Both atheism and theism are leaps of faith I cannot take.

“Marx thus cannot provide the intellectual foundations of a decent, moderate, or responsible Left in our democratic societies.” Democratic societies are subordinate to We the People of the United States. Citizens divide themselves on the agreement that is offered in the preamble: civic citizens who adopt the agreement and dissidents. It is a legal agreement in that civic citizens collaborate for human justice during their cognitive decades. Thus, they are alert to civil injustices and discipline legislators to legislate corrective laws and institutions. The dissidents who are lawful depend on civic citizens to notice their needs and collaborate for them. Dissidents who are unlawful risk constraint. None of the subordinate societies can be democratic, because they must conform to the representative republic that they live in or We the People of the United States. The preamble’s agreement created an ineluctable march toward civic integrity.

Once an individual discovers the possibility of civic integrity, “Rousseau’s self-restraint and republican virtue, social equity, and the civic common good, and class struggle in the name of justice and the common good” fall to fidelity to the-objective-truth. It is a comprehensive fidelity that extends to self, family, and the people. The common good is mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Civic justice accepts the human being as he or she is. Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Whereas honesty involves freely sharing opinion, integrity involves the work to understand discovery, behave accordingly, share the understanding to listen to ideas for improvement, and alertness to new discovery that requires change. Social equity is a private affair, and civic equity is appreciation for each person’s IPEA. Humans who do not develop integrity possess civic equity, but criminals, evils, and other offenders may suffer statutory justice.

Could “Marxism” be defined as “fear and loathing” against “the liberal capitalist order”? How about: social or communitarian resistance to the-objective-truth?

I hope civic citizens will encourage people, especially children, to consider IPEA and consider developing integrity. The agreement offered in the preamble and collaboration to discover and use the-objective-truth are two approaches I try to discuss and improve.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/07/27/the-truth-about-happiness/

I don’t recall a bolder title but expected the-subjective-truth and metaphysics, whereas human beings answer to the-objective-truth.

“Those who fail have generally chosen the wrong ends—usually the autonomous self—whereas those who succeed have learned the value of community and friendship.” Like it or not, every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not; to offer goodwill or not; to develop fidelity or not.

“. . . a soul will only live as happy when conformed to reality. Under the ancients, this conformity meant a life of reason and habits of virtue.”

I am disappointed that Professor Wilson did not address Flannery O’Connor’s non-fiction in “Mystery and Manners,” especially the statement on Page 81: “The artist uses his reason to discover an answering reason in everything he sees. For him, to be reasonable is to . . .  intrude upon the timeless, and that is only done by the violence of a single minded respect for the truth.”
 
As usual with writers, I have no idea what O’Connor, a Catholic, means by the truth. I specify the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The-objective-truth does not respond to reason, metaphysics, or violence. A friend suggested that O’Connor used “violence” to reach beyond “passion.” The-objective-truth does not respond to passion, either. Human connections may be changed by passion, but the consequences follow the-objective-truth.

I think classical literature offers an opportunity to explore IPEA in developing integrity and its use to control the lesser authorities: appetites (banality); religion, philosophy and civilization (coercion), government (force), and mutual appreciation (civic collaboration).
 
However, classical literature can be life-consuming, and at some point during the life, the person may employ IPEA. If to develop integrity, fidelity may follow. If so, happiness may be discovered.

 

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-we-are-unofficially-being-governed-by-a-secret-group-or-society?

The question: Do you think we are unofficially being governed by a secret group or society?

Not secret, yet not publicized, I think the governance of the USA is a matter of competition of oligarchies. Oligarchy competition prevails because the majority of the people deny their human power, preferring to look to higher powers. Thereby, they subjugate personal opportunity to the opinions of people who accept the power. In other words, they yield to the plan someone else has for their living and cumulatively their life. By not accepting human authority, they miss their life’s opportunity.

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Most people think they are so busy living they do not take the time to understand that honesty stems from opinion but integrity is discovered on the hard work of understanding and behaving with fidelity to the discovery. Albert Einstein expressed this idea, in my paraphrase: civic people do not lie so as to lessen shared loss and misery; https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.

The individual who accepts IPEA, manages the lesser authorities: government (force); religion, philosophy, or civilization (coercion), and appetites (banality). If IPEA is used for crime, only discovery threatens constraint. If IPEA is used to discover integrity, the individual may then develop fidelity to the-objective-truth, which yields to no human construct.

The human being is so cognitive that it takes three decades for an individual to develop the understanding and intent to live a full life. It takes about three more decades to begin to develop psychological maturity, if maturity will happen. Many people live a full life never passing adolescent maturity; H.A. Overstreet, “The Mature Mind,” 1949. This tragic human condition need not continue. We can stop the pain by encouraging and coaching children to develop civic integrity.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is a civic agreement that is offered to every citizen. It tacitly asserts that the citizen has the IPEA with which to either adopt the agreement or not. The agreement proposes mutual self-control and collective discipline of both state and federal governments.

The agreement has current legal power, first, because it stated the purpose and goals of the laws and institutions that were stated on June 21, 1788, when nine states withdrew from both the 1774 Confederation of States and the 1784 ratification of their global status as free and independent states. Second, extant citizens may discipline legislators to amend the constitution to first eliminate discovered injustice and second establish justice.

The authors of the preamble from May 27 until September 17, 1787, discovered many opportunities for human justice. They crafted a constitution that made it possible for future generations to resolve what 55 delegates of 12 states could not negotiate in less than four months’ discussion. For example, the 1787 Constitution cannot be construed to condone slavery, whereas the Holy Bible clearly does so in 1 Peter 2:18-21, for example. Only 39 delegates, or 2/3 of the thirteen states’ representatives signed the 1787 Constitution. Nine states established the nation on June 21, 1788 with the commitment, primarily led by Massachusetts and Virginia, that a bill of rights, rejected before September 17, 1787, would be added by the first Congress. Ironically, Virginia was not among the nine establishing states, but they joined the USA a month later, and the first Congress began with ten states on March 4, 1789.

Unfortunately, the First Congress deified themselves in competition with Parliament, which is a constitutional partnership with Canterbury, by hiring American, factional Protestant ministers to serve Congress at the people’s expense; by expense I do not mean dollars. With 99% of free citizens being factional Protestants, little attention was paid to subrogation of IPEA to the church.

Since 1791 and ratification by representatives of 14 states, the people have been repressed by the First Amendment’s religion clauses, which protect an arbitrary social institution. What the people need is encouragement and coaching in the development of civic integrity so that the people may develop fidelity to the-objective-truth.
 

America’s oligarchy continuously maintains the church-state-partnership or Chapter XI Machiavellianism. It has evolved from factional Protestantism to Judeo-Christianity to Judeo-Catholicism. Socialism struggles to usurp republicanism, and infidelity is rampant, basically because citizens do not consider the preamble.

With individual civic discipline perhaps 2/3 of the people may embrace IPEA and use it to develop integrity. With 1/3 or less tolerating infidelity, the world’s greatest political sentence, the preamble, may start to influence an achievable, better future. A mutually self-disciplined people may then discipline politicians and elected officials, leaving church as a private choice for believers.
 

In summary, the citizens of America are being overtly governed by oligarchies that control the church-state-partnership. It is the world’s greatest tragedy, but it can be constitutionally reversed.

Comments would be appreciated.

   

 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.