Fellow citizens may keep individual Godship private

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 individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or social institution.

A personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers mutual equality:  For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases 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, goodwill, 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 and theirs. 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 a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined people convinces me the preamble is legal. Equality is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.

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

The Advocate personnel leave themselves out this time. August 30 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_40f3c818-aa3d-11e8-adfa-c3a822ef73fc.html)

 

Louisiana citizens are aware that the State Legislature acts for legislator’s collegial benefits rather than for the people but are constrained to ask why some legislators would defy the U.S. Constitution and the unique French-colonial history with consequential diversity that Louisianans treasure. I can only speculate about perpetrators' erroneous motives.

Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts fulfill U.S. Amendment VI’s 1791 requirement that states provide impartial juries and has been confirmed as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, in 1791, the U.S. rejected England’s emotions over 12:0 verdicts dating from 1215. Louisiana could have preserved the twelve by going to 15:3 unanimous-majority verdicts but did not want the additional 25% jury expenses.

It took England 752 years to reform from the 12:0 tyranny. In 1967, they allowed 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts in order to lessen organized crime’s influence on jurors. The fact that 48 U.S. states have not reformed does not lessen Louisiana’s excellence in creating the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts in 1880, 87 years before England’s reform. This happened perhaps because Louisiana, with French-colonial heritage was not sentimental about Magna Carta or any other British tyranny over people.
 

When factions propose to regress from statutory justice, the public is constrained to ask what the proponents hope to gain.

This is the first time The Advocate personnel have raked this travesty without touting their study of the “unfairness” toward blacks from the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts. Perhaps that is because they are aware of 2013 FBI data that shows that blacks suffer 592% disproportionally from 12:0 verdicts. But I do not know The Advocate personnel’s reasons, but they remain culpable for their campaign for Act 493.

I speculate that Gene Mills expects lucrative non-profit contracts for in-prison training. Christian opportunism is another travesty.

Ed Tarpley’s speech before the press club makes him the principal in a "Christian miracle" springing from his imaginings after reading Thomas Aiello’s book, Jim Crow’s Last Stand. See Tarpley perform at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4A4eSyiyP0.

Tarpley’s resolution for the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) shamefully omits facts like U.S. Amendment VI requiring states to provide impartiality rather than unanimity, negating John Adams and James Madison’s emotions on behalf of British tyranny. See http://files.lsba.org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf.

Nevertheless, LSBA, on 6/9/2016: “Approved resolution urging Louisiana Legislature to require unanimous jury verdicts.” See http://files.lsba.org/documents/Legislation/LSBAHODPoliciesUPDATEDThruJanuary2017.pdf.
 
What do trial lawyers and judges stand to gain from denying Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts? Fees from the resulting injustices and inefficiencies?
 

How many legislators who are lawyers saw that the LSBA resolution would not pass with 2/3 votes in both chambers and therefore plotted to impose the tyranny via a people’s referendum?
 

Was there no legislator with the integrity to cite 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 . . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Act 493 would deny Louisiana citizens the constitutionally upheld 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts that improve Louisiana’s provision of impartial juries in cooperation with U.S. Amendment VI and is therefore unconstitutional respecting U.S. Amendment XIV.1. Also, the proposed 12:0 verdicts are known to disproportionally hurt back fellow citizens while increasing the coffers of lawyers, judges and other judicial system workers.

The perpetrators of Act 493’s travesty against the people have time to reverse the reckoning they invited.

An achievable dream developed in Baton Rouge library meetings. August 30 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_23ae492c-ab0a-11e8-9e33-0f82a560fa25.html)

 

The Advocate personnel’s acts on behalf of the people of Louisiana keeps me a full subscriber to The Advocate these 51 years now.

 

It seems egregious that The Advocate personnel will not publish my research that supports a Louisiana treasure: the unanimous-majority verdict. This unique, former French-colonial state added to its U.S. Amendment VI requirement for criminal jury impartiality by electing the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict in 1880, 88 years before England reformed to possible 10:2 unanimous majority verdicts (1967) in order to constrain organized crime’s influence on jurors. The other 48 states have not faced the 592% disproportionate harm to blacks in their murder data (FBI, 2013) when blacks and whites are involved.
 
Public safety is more important than saving face. Also, using popular vote to reverse Amendment VI impartiality that has been upheld by both the state supreme court (1970) and the U.S. Supreme Court (1972) jeopardizes the perpetrators respecting U.S. Amendment XIV.1.
 

Alas, we seem to be exiting a half-century when the press feels only freedom---no responsibility, even to itself.

  

An achievable dream developed in Baton Rouge library meetings August 30 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_23ae492c-ab0a-11e8-9e33-0f82a560fa25.html)

“[Deplatforming and stonewalling don’t] seem very American to us, nor is it in keeping with the best traditions of Louisiana, where live-and-let-live often defines our civic creed.”

  

This message calls to mind four library meetings in September to celebrate Constitution Day, 2018. It’s the fifth public celebration in a local tradition at EBRP libraries. See https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/calendar/?/event/8934429/53985642/5th-annual-constitution-day-celebration for information or the draft presentation at

promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.  

The five-year, leading edge of over ten library meetings is a proposed civic culture to develop individual happiness with civic integrity. This achievable dream developed in Baton Rouge, involves Louisiana uniqueness in U.S. history and is being read about throughout the world.

There’s a lot to do, but fellow citizens can do it within our lifetimes.

  

A rare word for the people August 28 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8af17b30-aa02-11e8-98de-136c33964f62.html)

“. . . many Republican and Democratic leaders, who appear intent on pandering to partisan core of their constituencies at the expense of the larger good.”

The Advocate personnel err twice.

First, those erroneous fellow citizens neglect President Donald Trump’s intentions. Tacitly, Trump states: show that you are equal under the law, and I will tentatively trust your collaboration to discover the-objective-truth. “We’ll see.” Neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats, nor the media have received Trump’s message. But a civic people have Trump’s tacit message and like it.

Second, The Advocate personnel are too psychologically young to define “the larger good” they write about or to collaborate-for something better. Yet, right here in river city, fellow-citizens, during the past five years, continually work to establish public appreciation-for and commitment-to the U.S. citizen’s opportunity to be “equal under the law.” A civic people promote accepting the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble. Joining We the People of the United States is voluntary, and dissidents to the agreement are yet fellow citizens. The work has produced, for collaboration, a statement of the U.S. “larger good” that is available to the rest of the world, too: individual happiness with civic integrity.

I commend fellow citizens who work for The Advocate to collaborate to 1) understand 400 years of erroneous European “common good” and 2) collaborate on (improve) a statement that has colonial French-Louisiana roots that are unique to the U.S. and in the world.
 
Most people, a civic people, want individual happiness with civic integrity.
  
A rare word for the people August 25 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_e7476bc0-a7ae-11e8-9e72-b72c8a1a9673.html)

“In a state that includes millions of citizens who meet the basic requirements for service . . . was Jeff Britt the best person John Bel Edwards could find? [No.]”

  

This was a rare deviation from The Advocate personnel’s constant support for social democracy. Thank you, erroneously opinionated fellow citizens.

There’s still time for The Advocate personnel to reform to collaboration for We the People of the United States---fellow citizens who earn equality under the law by committing-to the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble and working to develop civic integrity rather than conflict for dominant opinion.

The clock is ticking on The Advocate fellow-citizens’ historical opportunity to express freedom to reform from erroneous support to end Louisiana’s unique, state and U.S. constitutionally approved, unanimous-majority criminal-jury verdicts at 9:3 as well as 10:2.

The Advocate may admit, first to itself, that national data show that unanimous verdicts by criminal juries (48 states) fail 13% of the time and that black fellow citizens are disproportionally harmed by an obsolete British 12:0 absolute unanimity (reformed in 1967) rather than French-influenced Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts.

Google “fbi murder data 2013.” The population in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black. Yet among murder victims who were either black or white, 45.3% were black and 48.2% of murders were black. Thus the 13% error rate disproportionally harms blacks by 592%; 48.2/51.8*73.8/12.6*100=592%.

Black fellow citizens who assert that they are equals under the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. constitution will vote to keep Louisiana’s provision of U.S. Amendment VI jury impartiality; keep the 10:2 unanimous-majority law, denying the erroneous politicians who unconstitutionally created 2018 Act 493.

Overall, an exciting, better, future is possible by fellow citizens promoting individual equality under the law, with voluntary civic goals specified by We the People of the United States in the preamble. The preamble tacitly offers individual happiness with civic integrity. Just as a human may earn the quality of food he or she eats, he or she may earn the happiness he or she wants.

Because The Advocate personnel are indeed fellow citizens, I am counting on them to achieve this reform in opinion to protect the people from leaders of special interest factions. Perhaps Attorney General Landry is counting on The Advocate, too, but I doubt it. Landry was elected by the people to impartially defend their interests.

Letters

What is “the greater good”? (Bo Bienvenu) (ttps://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_dc9ee92c-abd8-11e8-aba2-f70d65fd51e6.html)

 

Bo, what is “the greater good”?
 
I have studied the preamble to the U.S. Constitution for a couple decades and think it’s agreement offers willing fellow citizens the opportunity to develop individual happiness with civic integrity.
 
I collaborate to discover a greater good for human beings.

I also suggest Einstein’s expressions for fellow-citizens to consider, and refer readers to his essay which may be found at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/. Einstein’s only example therein is that civic citizens do not lie to each other so as to lessen misery and loss rather than to conform to some divine law.

   

At http://iquotekit.info/top-20-albert-einstein-quotes-images/12 there’s, “The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking,” which is similar to your quote, which I did not find, which is only a consequence of my search weaknesses.

  

Time for The Advocate personnel to join We the People of the United States (Kevin Reeves) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_af3d12a6-ac6e-11e8-bdea-77171efde301.html)

 

The signers wrote the 1787 Constitution so as to empower complete separation from colonial English traditions including slavery and Canterbury. Unfortunately, the press is a victim of the first U.S. Congress, which, with only ten member states, by May 1789, reinstituted England’s constitutional, Christian-government-partnership as an unconstitutional U.S. tradition. With 14 members, the U.S., in 1791, amended the signers’ 1787 Constitution to provide unconstrained freedom of the press. Both a U.S. traditional religion and the irresponsible press break the legal commitments expressed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in Greece v Galloway (2014) calls me “niggling” to object to their tyranny.

The preamble is the first legal sentence in the U.S. Constitution. It authorizes nine states to break from the 1774 Confederation of 13 states, and nine did so on June 21, 1788, leaving four remaining free and independent states, each with particular dissonance ranging from mild to rebellious. A couple years later, all had joined. Second, it specifies the purpose and goals of the Union that is thereafter specified, with limitations on each of three branches of the Union, which serves the states under their constitutions, both managed by a civic people: those who collaborate for the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble. Fellow citizens who oppose the preamble are civil dissidents. In other words, fellow citizens divide themselves: civic citizens and civil dissidents.

Having been British colonists, the men who were elected to the first Congress knew not how to appreciate the preamble and the 1787 Constitution, so they negotiated the re-establishment of the English tyranny France had helped them revolt from. They were like a teenaged couple who gave no time to strengthen their commitment to monogamy for grandchildren but became parents knowing nothing beyond the confusion of ideas from four parent-in-laws. Congress deplatformed the preamble’s civic agreement by falsely labelling it “secular” whereas it is neutral to religion. Second, even though they well knew the 1787 Constitution constrains each of the three branches of the federal government, Congress unconstitutionally assigned the press unconstrained freedom.

Five years ago, we started conducting library meetings to promote the preamble’s agreement as a means of establishing civic morality. We had no idea that over 10 meetings with over 60 participants as well as the interim discussions would lead to a proposal to collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity. Each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. A fraction of fellow citizens may be expected to be civil dissidents, but that does not lessen the civic citizens. When this articulation has been shared more, say a year from now, the achievability of a better future will seem obvious.

We appreciate Col. Reeves' review of LSP's overall performance, despite past management corruption. We think everything that has happened had to happen to bring us to the broad, actual realities behind Col. Reeves’ statement: Most troopers are doing their civic duty “and it’s time The Advocate [personnel do] the same.”

A civic culture maintains its parks (Keith Hardie) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_125d2206-abb4-11e8-90fc-0b10bf9b6c85.html)

 

I don’t want to be seen in New Orleans anymore because 1) I think Mitch Landrieu started an international scandal (now in Canada) when he removed three controversial monuments instead of using them properly to celebrate one of the steps in the reform from slavery’s consequences: defeating erroneous religious beliefs; 2) the event showed me that New Orleans residents always viewed me as a wallet or credit card; and 3) Latrobe Park, one of my favorite spots of old has become a disgrace in neglect and bum attendance. The last time I was there, I shuttered watching innocent foreign tourists crossing through Latrobe. The rusting statue there would be green as ever in Paris, France. I don’t plan to return to New Orleans.

 

Meanwhile, in Baton Rouge, the BREC park near my home is vital to me and other parks are critical to friendships. I consider them essential and vote to pay my taxes each time.

A civic culture offers understanding and peace neither civilization nor socialization can imagine (Herman O. Kelly, Jr.) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_d9618452-abb2-11e8-b575-7f8642b8f44a.html)

 

“A civil society is one of peace and understanding.” Neither “civil” nor “society” is an adequate word respecting civic integrity, and the combination is doubly bemusing.

Frederick Douglass, in 1852, recognized the civic intentions in both the preamble to the 1787 Constitution and the articles that followed it. See https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945. He justly complained that his white fellow citizens had failed the expectations of their grandfathers.

Nearly nine generations later, some black leaders promote religious slogans. Peace: “Let it begin with me.”
 
Does the Methodist Episcopal Church represent African-American Christianity? If so, what does it offer white fellow citizens that improves on the preamble to the 1787 Constitution?

The 1787 Constitution still offers freedom from colonial British tyranny that was re-established by the first Congress, beginning in 1789. Key to the establishment was Blackstone common law with factional-Protestant partnership with Congress. Does African-American Christianity offer relief for both the U.S. and England?

I don’t think so, but bringing the discussion into the civic forum could answer Kelly’s appeal: Where’s the peace?
 
It seems to me willing fellow citizens are equal under the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and may establish peace by collaborating for human justice rather than promoting religious hopes, a private pursuit.

  

Accepting human authority rather than practicing other authority can help a person “get it right” (John Singleton) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_b57ad79e-aa24-11e8-86d4-1f2aa77d1721.html)

  

Singleton: “I’m a practicing Christian. Perhaps if I keep practicing, I might one day get it right.”

  

An alternative is to accept personal human capacity:   Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity or not. In developing integrity, the individual develops fidelity. If there is no actual harm, IPEA has been effective.

The Holy Bible is represented by some believers as God’s word. However, the Church canonized that collection of books and claim that Church Tradition overrides the literal writing. There’s a profound reason for this claim: the writing, literal or interpreted, is contradictory to actual reality, and as discovery progresses the Church can adjust Tradition, keeping some people bemused.

Singleton and all Christians do themselves a service when they accept their IPEA to maintain their devotion to the Jesus they reasoned out without demanding agreement from people who have considered the Church’s canonized psychological-construct and find it wanting if not awful.

One of the critical IPEA encounters comes in John 15, especially verses 18-24 (CJB):  "If the world hates you, understand that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would have loved its own. But because you do not belong to the world -- on the contrary, I have picked you out of the world -- therefore the world hates you. Remember what I told you, `A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you too; if they kept my word, they will keep yours too. But they will do all this to you on my account, because they don't know the One who sent me. "If I had not come and spoken to them, they wouldn't be guilty of sin; but now, they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also.” I reject the authors’ use of “hate” and “slave . . . master” in this word of God subject to Church Tradition.

I have a personal aversion to hate, but have no problem with Singleton using his IPEA to interpret my views as hate, as long as he does not physically attack me. As for attacking me with “love,” I long since looked for appreciation, which is neither mysterious nor objectionable. I appreciate Singleton sharing his struggle and hope he resolves it. I do not want to change his love for Jesus and don’t really care if he broods over my appreciation for the-objective-truth: that’s his practice, perhaps, but not mine.

However, let’s be clear about one issue he raises: “Placing our faith in Jesus” has little meaning if we refuse to show the love of Christ to everyone, not just those we can bend to our will.”

Bend? Believers help themselves when they separate civic integrity from religious belief: appreciate fellow citizens as equal under the preamble to the U.S. Constitution; accept that spiritualism is a private, adult choice. Some human beings accept IPEA to trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth rather than canonized opinion about Church-constructed mystery.

Right idea ruined by The Advocate’s caption (Stephen Faucheux) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_6e9ab5d0-aa22-11e8-bfc4-53eb918a0c89.html)

Readers have once again been subjected to The Advocate’s irresponsible freedom of the press. It is especially egregious when they use a fellow-citizen’s heartfelt expressions for their purposes.

Faucheux’s citations are factual and support his claim that Democrats falsely promote the party-politics of slavery. But the Advocate personnel, who reserve the right to write the caption, falsely claim “slavery not a partisan issue.”

The Advocate personnel were there in 2015 when Jeremiah Wright painted the view that slavery is God’s will, but masters have black skins and slaves have white skins. See nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/02/jeremiah_wright_tells_a_southe.html. The only way a white can redeem his or her soul is to help black Americans to supremacy.

Is slavery a non-partisan issue in African-American Christianity? Will England convert to African-American Christianity? Africa? Korea? The Advocate could win a Pulitzer Prize by investigating the actual reality of a partisan claim. I can’t imagine why they don’t.

Retired AMO director (Marjorie Esman) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_bc101016-aa23-11e8-ae4e-372716ead756.html)

We the People of the United States---WPUS (people who use the purpose and goals stated in the preamble in order to collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity---or live and let live) recognize Alinsky-Marxist organizers (AMO) by their application of their rules.

In this case, Esman uses ridicule (Rule No. 5) to segue to promote her erroneously managed cause for the poor.

WPUS accepts that Cohen was the victim of theretofore unused gestapo tactics: sudden invasion into his professional life and private life by the Mueller gestapo. Invasion of the attorney-client privacy privilege is gestapo indeed, and it would not happen to an attorney for the poor.

The expected judicial system is designed for impartiality, but gestapo tactics inform AMO.

I doubt Esman would take the Mueller side in this argument if the president of the U.S. was a social democrat. But I don’t know. She may prefer impartiality rather than appearances.

I never liked Esman’s viewpoints as ACLU director; she seemed to reason with emotion rather than actual reality. So far, I’ve liked her retirement views less. (I don’t want to get into her will to deny the brilliance, constitutional validity and impartiality of Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority criminal verdicts. With its French-colonial heritage, Louisiana reformed England’s American-colonial 12:0 tyranny 88 years before England did (1967) and who knows how long before the other 48 states reform. England changed to defeat AMO and other organized crime. FBI data show that the victims of 12:0 verdicts are 592% disproportionally black fellow citizens. Once again, AMO disproportionally hurts the fellow-citizens they claim to help.)
 
Kennedy’s remarks are sharp, because he has a long history of thinking, if not clearly articulating from the people’s viewpoint: the U.S. achievability of individual happiness with civic integrity.

Columns

Catholic parishioners may at least keep their Godship private. (Kathryn Jean Lopez) (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/catholic-church-abuse-scandal-faithful-must-help-heal-wounds/)

  

“Be God’s hands at work in the midst of evil.” The Advocate, Aug 31 had “We must all be God at work in the midst of evil.”

  

With that personal revelation, I no longer take a neutral stand regarding Catholics. I request you to keep your personal God in your closet and never let it out in the civic arena. The fact that you cannot perceive its evil makes you a party to the actual harm done. So, stop it; stop it; stop it. Stop the public expression of the tyranny over the minds of believers.

John Paul said Jesus helps a victim forgives the victim for being a victim . . . of a priest. Maybe some victims buy that, but I doubt many do. The pope’s resignation should be a final one: No more popes, at least none of civic importance.

  

Catholic parishioners should resign. (E.J. Dionne) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-struggle-to-stay-catholic/2018/08/26/44e15826-a7dd-11e8-a656-943eefab5daf_story.html?utm_term=.742d12668066)

“A philosopher friend who has warm feelings for the church offered an insight that Catholics cannot avoid: “Hierarchy without transparency is tyranny.”

Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Despite some individual’s desires, IPEA cannot be subrogated. That is, an individual cannot assign his or her integrity to another person.

Therefore, subjugation to a hierarchy is tyranny against self. Many people die never accepting IPEA.

Racists may join the nation anytime they want to (Lanny Keller) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/lanny_keller/)

Keller, a writer for The Advocate, divides a mysterious people into the innocent and the realists. Don’t forget aliens and dissidents to We the People of the United States.

Is Keller’s view limited to fellow citizens? Into which category do The Advocate personnel cast themselves: innocents, realist, or fellow-citizens?

Whatever happened to We the People of the United States, which holds citizens equals when they collaborate for the purpose and goals stated in the preamble? Other fellow citizens are dissidents to the agreement and, if they cause actual harm, may suffer statutory law enforcement.

The press practices irresponsibly the freedom the civic people granted them to hold government true to the preamble and the articles that follow. The press collaborates with the political regimes who have disparaged the preamble’s agreement, for example, the church-state partnership, labeling the preamble "secular" when it is neutral to religion as well as race, gender and heritage. Also, for example, some black leaders diabolically claim the preamble was never intended for blacks; civic integrity does not react to skin color.

Suppression of We the People of the United States is also a consequence of the First Congress’s irresponsibility in not maintaining the 1787 Constitution’s disengagement from Blackstone common law and Canterbury, a constitutional partnership in England. In other words, in England, the church-state partnership is the legal form of government, a tyranny the signers of the 1787 Constitution provided to terminate. However, the religion partnership is maintained in the U.S. as “tradition”, and Greece v Galloway (2014) holds me niggling to object to the tyranny.

The harm of emotional English tyranny is manifest in detail, for example, in the fact that 48 states still require unanimous criminal jury verdicts, even though England ended the practice in 1967 in order to constrain organized crime’s influence on jurors. Behold: the U.S. in 1791’s Amendment VI, requires states to provide impartial juries, ending James Madison’s wish to preserve the English tradition. French-colonial Louisiana (until 1803) had no attraction to English tyranny and in 1880 created 9:3 unanimous-majority jury verdicts in order to enhance judicial impartiality. People who were emotional about twelve-person unanimity could go to 15:3 but could not convince legislators to support the 25% extra expense. Louisiana’s Attorney General Jeff Landry takes a similar practical stance regarding preservation of Louisiana’s current 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts in order to enhance impartiality.

National data show that 12:0 juries get it wrong 13% of the time. Also, 2013 murder data involving blacks and whites shows that 12:0 verdicts 592% disproportionately hurt black fellow citizens. Fellow citizens do not support partiality much less disproportionate penalties. I hope most Louisianans will vote to preserve the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts in order to maintain the collaboration for impartiality.

Starting April 1, 2018, The Advocate personnel ran a one-sided campaign to deny a French-Louisiana triumph: Louisiana ended the 12:0 criminal jury verdict 88 years before England reformed to 10:2. So far, The Advocate uses freedom of the press to suppress my views on a historically pivotal referendum.

I hold the Legislature’s action unconstitutional, since Act 493 proposes to reverse both state and U.S. constitutional approvals. Also, it matters that the Legislature preys on the people. Do The Advocate Personnel take their actions as innocents, realists, or something Keller does not suggest: Louisiana aliens and U.S. aliens? Why do they use their freedom to suppress another view?

Anyone who favors social democracy rather than the U.S. republic is alien to the law. Some are enemies of fellow citizens.

To Julius Dooley: You seem babbling as long as you do not specify God, and I don't want any human to attempt such arrogance against the-objective-truth.

Certainly, there can be no hope in the Church’s god. Do you propose African-American Christianity's god? It seems to me Christianities are anti-Christ.

I propose to look to a civic people for civic integrity. Civic citizens collaborate on the purpose and goals that are stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Please suggest a better hope for ultimate justice.

Racists may join the nation anytime they want to (Dan Fagan) (https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/opinion/dan_fagan/)

Richmond takes the dumb side of an argument that is more than 2500 year old.

Black legislative caucus members may collaborate for civic equality under the law any time a Greek idea appeals to them. Fellow citizens may collaborate for statutory justice.

To the people’s representatives in nine states on the 1788 eastern seaboard, the agreement offered by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution offered equality according to the purpose stated therein. The preamble is an improvement on Greek justice, because it states the civic goals.

Four of thirteen states were dissidents, but one reformed before the U.S. began operating on March 4, 1789. The First Congress knew no better than to reinstitute Blackstone common law and Protestantism, and political regimes have repressed the preamble ever since.

The priest-politician-partnerships have progressed from factional Protestantism, to evangelicalism, to Judeo-Christianity, to Judeo-Catholicism in the Supreme Court, with conflict from African-American Christianity since the early 1970s. It is time for the U.S. to develop civic integrity.

To assert that the agreement offered in the preamble is not intended for black fellow citizens is to deny Frederick Douglass’s claims in 1852. See https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945.

Richmond may reform but may not. Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not.

  

News

Dissidence against We the People of the United States (John Simerman) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_528a4e4c-acb0-11e8-95ec-670289866ea5.html)

   

I’d like to influence The Advocate personnel, in this case, writer John Simerman, to join We the People of the United States, rather than voluntarily promote viewpoints that are dissident to the U.S. constitutional republic. Specifically, Simerman could wonder why dissident fellow-citizens, perhaps Miguez, are motivated into aggression.

For example, I would ask Miguez why he holds his opinions despite the facts reviewed below:

Lawyers understand that the preamble is a voluntary civic agreement, which some people reject, making themselves dissident fellow citizens. One of its goals, justice, is necessary only because some dissident fellow-citizens use their IPEA, (that’s individual power, energy, and authority) for crime. The justice system is developed so as to protect fellow citizens, both victim and offender, from crime. Therefore, fellow citizens pay the expenses of the criminal justice system including work to discover injustices.

Dissidents are nonetheless fellow-citizens, and therefore, when a crime occurs, the victim is given no favor in resolution of the offense. That is, the possibility of erroneous accusation or evidence presented by the victim is considered in the determination of guilt by the accused. The entire justice system is predicated on impartiality.

The principle of impartiality is emphasized throughout the justice process. Thus, when first responders, whether police at the scene or investigators, initially accuse a citizen, the accused is cautioned about witnessing against self. The judicial process---arrest, bail, arraignment, preliminary hearing or grand jury proceedings, pre-trial motions, trial, sentencing, and appeal---is detailed at https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/stages-of-a-criminal-case/.

In the trial proceedings, the state is required to provide an impartial jury rather than a unanimous verdict. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment. James Madison drafted Amendment VI for 1791 ratification, but the Senate changed “unanimous” to “impartial,” nulling an English tyranny dating from Magna Carta, 1215. England admitted to past tyranny when in 1967, they revised to 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts. Their purpose was to lessen organized crime’s influence on jury members. In other words, fellow citizens who are impartial toward justice are not adequately represented by 12:0 jury verdicts. If English emotionalism about twelve was predominant, impartiality could be provided at 12:2 or 12:3 unanimous majority but at 17% to 25% more jury expense.

It matters not to England that 48 U.S. states still maintain the obsolete English tyranny over impartial fellow citizens. Nor does obsolescence in other states impact impartial Louisianans. With its French-colonial origins, Louisiana had low to no emotions for English tradition and uniquely enhanced the provision of impartiality required by U.S. Amendment VI by establishing the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict. Oregon learned from Louisiana.

Criminal and bigoted factions have attacked Louisiana’s impartial unanimous-majority verdicts since 1880, and the issue came before both the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1970 and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972. Constitutionality of Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdict was affirmed in both hearings. See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/356/. The lawyer who opposes well-grounded U.S. Constitutional decision is not on promising ground.

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUED

Miguez rails about “reasonable doubt,” which is a feature of the adversarial prosecution v defense. Prosecution may discover and present evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and defense may discover and present, even emotionally impose, doubt. The jury acts as judge between the two presentations, guided by instructions from the Judge. The judicial system works hard for impartiality yet is subjected to the bigotry and criminality impartial fellow-citizens know about by experience and observation. For example, when I responded to my bigoted Sunday school teacher that non-Christian neighbors should be treated impartially, I was labeled a heretic and none of my classmates objected. I was unanimously, erroneously convicted of civic wrong in a religious forum. I employed my IPEA and left the forum. I admit, few people have been labeled “heretic,” but often, individuals may gain from another’s IPEA story as impactful as direct experience. Christian abuse comes under many cloaks.

Details about how courts create an awesome, yet vulnerable, forum for impartiality are presented at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/juryinstruct.html/ . Unfortunately, the ABA has not yet accepted that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is a legal termination of Magna Carta in the U.S., so their review must be considered controversial or unsettled by impartial fellow-citizens. Pertinent entries include, “The Jury Pool”, “Selecting the Jury,” and “Jury Deliberations.” There, “hung jury” is discussed: “If the jurors cannot agree on a verdict, a hung jury results, leading to a mistrial. The case is not decided, and it may be tried again at a later date before a new jury.” Trial lawyers, judges, and their assistants have a vested interest in increasing the rate of hung juries, charging the expenses to the people. Most egregiously offended are the fellow-citizens who are victims of crime.

U.S. Amendment XIV.1 holds all dissident fellow-citizens responsible for denying constitutional justice. The key sentence is: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Louisiana 2018 Act 493 threatens my constitutional privilege of a law enforcement system that provides impartial juries as required by U.S. Amendment VI and affirmed by Johnson v Louisiana (1972). The Louisiana Legislature erred in 2018 Act 493.

I hope I have interested readers in questioning why Miguez holds the opinions he expresses about educating the public when in fact there’s only personal, unconstitutional opinion being expressed. It would be no injury to me if I have also opened Miguez’s imagination about the cost of public error or offense.

  

More importantly, readers may ask why personnel for The Advocate would deny the impartial press’s role to educate fellow-citizens---impartial individuals, bigots, and criminals---about an issue so pivotal in Louisiana’s role as a unique, non-British colony during the eastern-seaboard states’ struggle for independence from England. While the preamble to the U.S. Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, empowering complete separation from Blackstone and Canterbury, Louisiana, part of a French territory, was purchased in 1803, and was granted statehood in 1812. No other state, much less past slave state, read U.S. Amendment VI, 1791, and took seriously the requirement of impartiality. The rest of the impartial U.S. does not want to lessen the example, especially since 87 years later England reformed to allow 10:2 unanimous majority verdicts.

  

What drives personnel for The Advocate to act under irresponsible freedom of the press rather than equal citizenship under the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution? Why does The Advocate constantly favor the egregious 12:0 criminal verdict rather than the impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict? What’s drives the bigotry? Doe The Advocate actually oppose the U.S. republic?

Second post:

Extending my earlier post (see below), I’d like to influence The Advocate personnel to join We the People of the United States, fellow citizens who trust-in and commit-to the preamble’s tacit opportunity to develop individual happiness with civic integrity.

I don’t know Scott Wilfong, but recall that name in association with concerns raised in a Kip Holden election; see https://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/post_324.html. I always felt comfortable at public events with Kip and was concerned about the attacks. This Saturday throwback provided resolution I missed at the time as well as caution about the Louisiana Republican Judiciary PAC. I do not trust them and think Miguez is in bad societies or associations.

I only know what I can learn on the Internet, and the facts convince me. For example, U.S. Amendment VI contains the phrase, “trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” and does not use the word “unanimous,” contrary to James Madison’s’ 1791 emotions for British tradition.

Any emotions Wilfong expresses through Miguez may not impress Louisiana’s impartial fellow-citizens to deny their impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts.

With only $15,000 in funds raised so far, I speculate that The Advocate personnel’s decision to place an advertisement for Wilfong as front page pseudo news exceeds Wifong’s funding. Forgetting Wilfong and Miguez, what is The Advocate personnel’s motive? Wilfong dismisses Attorney General Landry’s favor for the economy of impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts. Does Wilfong feel responsible for Louisianans’ cost of judicial proceedings? Landry does.

I think the phrase “strange bedfellows” should join the press’s list of phrases to never use. Regardless, of the press’s privations, in my opinion Sen. J.P. Morrell would do himself a favor to distance his reputation from the legislators and lawyers who support Act 493, because they reason substantially on emotions and erroneous Christianity rather than facts, like Amendment VI requiring states to provide impartiality rather than unanimity.

But what erroneous opinion inspires The Advocate personnel to oppose the impartial We the People of the United States? Surely, they are not racists? Surely, they have no incentive to redistribute money from Louisiana residents to Louisiana lawyers and judges and staffs.

Have the personnel considered the FBI’s 2013 data on murders involving black fellow citizens and white fellow citizens? It shows that 12:0 jury verdicts in the U.S. (48 states with 12:0 verdicts instead of Louisiana’s impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts) 592% disproportionally hurts black fellow citizens.

Do The Advocate personnel actually want to hurt black fellow citizens? Do The Advocate personnel actually want to increase Louisiana’s cost of judicial proceedings? Why? And why?

Every human being has the IPEA (individual power, energy, and authority) to either develop integrity or not. By their choices, individuals decide their futures. The Advocate personnel have U.S. First Amendment authority to which they can dedicate their human IPEA yet beg woe when they neglect civic integrity.

 

Third post:

Extending my earlier posts (see below), I’d like to influence The Advocate personnel to join We the People of the United States, fellow citizens who trust-in and commit-to the preamble’s tacit opportunity to develop individual happiness with civic integrity and preserve the opportunity for their children, grandchildren, and beyond (posterity).

Why did The Advocate personnel include insults from Ben Cohen’s Promise of Justice Initiative in the front-page advertising?

I don’t know Ben Cohen, but would like to know how he formed some of his opinions about Louisiana citizens. Apparently Cohen is too young to have heard a French-Louisiana child learning how to swim. The child goes through many swamp challenges---moss, moccasins, alligators---and a friend remarks, “That was a tough way to learn to swim,” and the kid responds, “Oh, I wasn’t too bad once I got outta that sack.” The story is a metaphor for how well Louisianans understand law-confused lawyers. Most Louisianans are not clueless, don’t care for racism, and don’t favor English tradition. They long since moved beyond the victory brought on by 1776, are grateful for France’s victory over England at Yorktown, VA, in 1781, and now collaborate for life sharing individual happiness with civic integrity. Cohen can stay focused on 1876, but most Louisianans are mindful of mutual, comprehensive safety and security for their lives and their children’s lives and grandchildren’s lives and beyond (posterity, as expressed in the preamble).

The Advocate personnel may consider using their IPEA to join We the People of the United States so as to collaborate for posterity.

Fourth post:

Extending my earlier posts (see below), I’d like to influence The Advocate personnel to join We the People of the United States, fellow citizens who don’t encourage or promote religious factions.

The 1787 Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, controversially (only 2/3 of delegates signed) specified a nation that could absolutely terminate the British, colonial tyranny over which the revolutionary war was fought. Both Blackstone and constitutional Canterbury partnership in Parliament may yet be terminated! However, the first Congress of ten states behaved like teenaged parents who know no more about parenting than the confusion they experienced from four parent-in-laws, and reinstituted Blackstone with factional-Protestant partnership. Congress happily felt as divine as Parliament. Greece v Galloway (2014) erroneously contends that I am niggling to object. Christianity has bemused the people since 1789 and falsely labeled the civic preamble as “secular.” But Christianity’s influence declined, and the ascent to civic integrity may have begun.

Gene Mills would “educate voters”? Are you kidding me?

I alert The Advocate personnel to mindfulness for We the People of the United States rather than religious factions.

Fifth post:

Extending my earlier posts (see below), I’d like to influence The Advocate personnel to join We the People of the United States, fellow citizens who don’t exacerbate a fellow citizen’s vulnerability.

Ed Tarpley is the second most pitiable player in this tragic charade in 2018 Louisiana. His appearance before the press club left him with a charlatan image of Christian “miracle” worker. Tarpley’s imaginings generated from reading Thomas Aiello’s book, Jim Crow’s Last Stand, created a mirage of personal glory. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4A4eSyiyP0.

The egregious act is Tarpley’s resolution for the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA). It’s “whereas” catalogue omits facts like U.S. Amendment VI requiring states to provide impartially rather than John Adam’s emotions for unanimity. It does not “whereas” the U.S. Supreme court in 1972 upholding 1880 Louisiana’s 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict. It concludes with a resolution for the Louisiana Legislature to develop the 2/3 votes in each chamber to revise the Louisiana Constitution to require 12:0 verdicts, which are known to both 1) extend the cost of law enforcement and statutory justice and 2) disproportionately hurt black fellow citizens. The LSBA approved the resolution. Shame on them. Shame on the LSBA.

Before the press, Tarpley celebrated the vote that passed, but did not share the “miracle” that the 2/3 vote in each chamber was to impose Tarpley’s dark Christianity on the people rather answer the LSBA’s resolution to the Legislature to revise the constitution. Tarpley’s possible future reminds me of the 1856 R. E. Lee (https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27) ignoring the 1852 pleas of fellow citizen Frederick Douglass (https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945). The Legislature is at fault, but the LSBA is not blameless. And U.S. Amendment XIV.1 remains enforceable.

I encourage The Advocate personnel to think and employ IPEA for integrity before they continue to promote Ed Tarpley’s vulnerability to public ridicule for trying to deny a Louisiana treasure: the impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict.

  

Legislation to keep crooks out. (Elizabeth Crisp) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_dd9cc47c-a7e9-11e8-be0b-1ba8a24dbe7d.html)

   

I will vote for the five year exclusion period.

Also, I will vote to preserve Louisiana’s unique provision of 10:2 unanimous-majority criminal jury verdicts. It was devised in French-influenced Louisiana in 1879 to conform to U.S. Amendment VI’s 1791 requirement that states provide impartial juries. In 1967, England revised its civic tyranny requiring 12:0 verdicts, dating from 1215, and their purpose was to use the 10:2 unanimous-majority to defeat organized crime’s influence on juries.

  

The imposition of Act 493, requiring the people to consider Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority criminal verdicts, is itself a constitutionally suspect event. Louisiana’s rule has been challenged continually, and in 1970, the Louisiana Supreme Court approved it. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1970 decision in 1972. Why would the Louisiana Legislature side with the factions who want to defeat impartial verdicts? What are the faction’s motives? Moreover, why would the officials entrusted with the people’s interests act against the people?

  

Ed Tarpley perceived power in Thomas Aiello’s book, “Jim Crow’s Last Stand.” See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4A4eSyiyP0&t=2s. He presented a resolution to the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA). See http://files.lsba.org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf. The resolution substitutes 12:0 unanimity for impartiality and supports obsolete British tyranny instead of French-Louisiana integrity. I have no idea if LSBA adopted the resolution, but they stand to benefit from 12:0 verdicts. The resolution calls for the Louisiana Legislature to amend the constitution “to require that all juries in criminal cases render a unanimous verdict.”

The Legislature could not arrange the 2/3 majorities in both chambers, but they arranged huge majorities to create a referendum, where 50% of perhaps 30% of registered voters might accomplish the desired tyranny. The evil that informed legislators rejected at the 67% level, might be imposed through 15% of innocent voters.

Black leaders are celebrating their power over what Tarpley calls a miracle. Tarpley may or may not be aware of Jeremiah Wright’s brand of African-American Christianity. However, FBI crime data from 2013 shows that 12:0 verdicts rather than the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts hurt black fellow citizens 592% more than white fellow citizens. Once again, black leaders would hurt black people.
 

A few opportunities for reform fall out of this historical legislative incident. First, the press ought to face penalties when it uses its freedom, intentionally or not, to hurt the people. Second, voters ought to be equal under a civic agreement, and in the U.S. the logical agreement is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Third, candidates for office ought to be accountable to uphold both the U.S. Constitution and their state constitution; additionally the people should hold them accountable to individual understanding of U.S. Amendment XIV as a defense of the representative’s personal status as a member of We the People of the United States.

The legislators who voted for 2018 Act 493 and the 2018 governor do not pass muster. Although fellow citizens, they are dissidents to the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble.

Does African-American Christianity support black policemen? (Jim Mustian) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_a39a7862-a6f1-11e8-8b81-aff24672fca9.html)

   

I heard from Jeremiah Wright, speaking at Southern University, that blacks are encouraged (erroneously) to look not to government but to God for a better future. See https://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/02/jeremiah_wright_tells_a_southe.html.

If so influenced, how can a black fellow citizen, even if he or she collaborates for civic justice according to We the People of the United States, offer to serve government’s monopoly on public force? Would he or she be an outcast in their own church?

What does African-American Christianity teach about a black fellow citizens serving as a career policeman? Does African-American Christianity endorse vigilantism as in churches taking charge of enforcing the law among their flock? Is there an African-American Christianity canon law that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution? Church is supposed to be about saving the mysterious soul for a favorable afterdeath.

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. It seems that the human condition is that each person has only one opportunity to develop integrity. It seems unwise to subjugate IPEA for mysterious afterdeath at the expense of achievable happiness in life.

Societies do not coach and encourage infants, children, adolescents, and adults to employ IPEA and to choose integrity. Perhaps publishing the idea will effect some influence, and some black fellow-citizens will choose careers in statutory human justice rather than tolerating vigilantism, whatever its motivation.

Legislation to keep crooks out. (Andrea Gallo) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_4916d8fe-a7c3-11e8-9807-6b81d6f7d004.html)

   

To Phil Stanley: I have been reading and writing for the past 4 decades to find words and phrases that invite people to appreciate each other rather than conflict for dominant opinion. Somehow, all people in mutual greeting seem to want such a way of living, but most cannot perceive how to accomplish it. I think the people are bemused by the Church, and moreover the church-state partnership that persists even 500 years after Nicolo Machiavelli warned the people in Chapter XI of The Prince. See http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm.

The leading edge of two decades study, writing, talking, and listening about the preamble has brought the public dialogue to the perception that the preamble offers willing citizens the opportunity to develop individual happiness with civic integrity. In other words, mutual appreciation among fellow citizens; or live and let live. But please reread the phrase: individual happiness with civic integrity.

A very recent discovery is the articulation: every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity or not. Most people who hear this sentence like it. While it is my writing it comes from collaboration with over sixty people in more than ten EBRRP library meetings over the past five years and other dialogues.

This way of living requires collaboration for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, which as far as I can tell does not require a person to offer for civic consideration his or her pursuit of happiness. For example, if a person is living for a favorable afterdeath, say eternal life in a spiritual world, or say reincarnation in a higher form of cognition, yet does not compromise civic integrity, his or her pursuit of happiness need not be the subject of civic collaboration. Likewise, my trust-in and commitment-to the-objective-truth need not be publically evaluated except by an individual who wants to understand it. Thank you for asking “. . . what will you actually base that "civic" integrity or morality on if not the laws of God or the laws of nature?”

A couple decades ago, I read a book that contains Albert Einstein’s speech for a 1941 conference on science and religion. The speech is available at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/. Both “science” and “religion” are words that constrain the mind, and I paraphrase Einstein’s message as:  physics and psychology have the same source. Therein, “physics” is not a scientific study but is the object of the study: energy, mass, and space-time from which everything emerges. That’s Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which became a law in 2016. See https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211.

In his speech, Einstein gave only one example to make his point. He said that civic people do not lie, so as to lessen misery and loss rather than to conform to some divine rule. In other words, the psychology of not lying derives from the experience and observation that physics eventually discloses the lie. Scholars who debate reason v nature do not consider Einstein as possessing the propriety to enter their domain. Thus, fans of scholars suffer a 400 year-old constraint. See for example, http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/08/27/all-must-be-tolerated-teresa-bejans-mere-civility-part-1 and my comments.

  

Of course, the human tendency to lie comes from the absence of discovery, or the unknown. With enough mindful experience and observation, an individual may be drawn to integrity as a means of reducing the ignorance on which fear is based. With development of integrity, he or she may be drawn to fidelity to the-objective-truth. It’s a comprehensive fidelity that extends to persons---every person, including self.

The above ideas are to answer the question, if not God or nature what, but not to demand anyone change to my trust-in and commitment-to the-objective-truth. My work is intended to promote the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as a tool for establishing a way of living that offers fellow citizens individual happiness with civic integrity. I work toward that end but do not possess it. Establishment of the preamble as a civic sentence that is neutral to religion rather than secular must be a collaboration.

To Shannon Chapman:

 Human justice is discovered in the-objective-truth.

Recall Einstein's only example was that civic people do not lie so as to lessen misery and loss.

Abraham Lincoln was egregiously obscure when he addressed the Confederate States of America in his first inaugural speech. Recall, the CSA met in February and expressed intent to conduct war. The reality of war by whites against whites had been made clear in 1856’s Bleeding Kansas. Lincoln, in March 1861, said, "Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.”

Thus, Lincoln’s obscure answer to your question is first, human justice can only come from the people and second, as long as there is no trust-in or commitment-to a civic agreement, such as the preamble, the ultimate judgement is a ”great tribunal,” or military power.

Because of his great political skills but failure to relate to We the People of the United States, Lincoln collaborated on a war that killed perhaps 8 million in proportion to today’s population.

According to Lincoln, God was in charge. Skip to the last paragraph of the letter at http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm.

  

Other fora

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/28/all-must-be-tolerated-teresa-bejans-mere-civility-part-2/  

Like a radio monologue, Mills limits collaboration: the reader may subjugate to Mills’ civility or not. I do not like Mills’ vision of life on earth.

“. . . to absolutize our own worldview and impose it onto our fellow citizens. At best, these strategies further alienate others, perpetuating the cycle of animosity. At worst, they threaten liberty and political stability.”

“. . . civility may once again offer hope for a shared vision of political life.”

Mills, at this time, has not the propriety to collaborate on the world view I hope for: a collaborative improvement on what I am now able to articulate, as stated below.

I want most people collaborating for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, call them a civic people. Further, the civic people coach and encourage fellow citizens who are dissident to the collaboration to reform. Moreover, the civic people’s practices are so favorable for an individual’s one opportunity to live, they inform by example. The civic people recognize that every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. People who use IPEA for integrity also develop fidelity to the-objective-truth. Further, some dissidents are dissident because they think dissonance, for example, crime, pays. When actual harm that criminal dissidents caused is discovered, the offender must be constrained.

Since the dissidents enjoy IPEA equal to the civic people’s IPEA, the laws cannot be arbitrary. Therefore the civic people must both self-discipline-to and manage the rule of statutory law. Fellow citizens collaborate to discover the-objective-truth and optimal behavior so as to benefit. Civic individuals do not introduce speculative or imaginary ideas into the collaboration because they are well aware that the-objective-truth does not respond to reason or other human construct. Wherein the-objective-truth has not been discovered, the civic people say so without deceit yet influence laws that conform to discovered-objective-truth. The civic people manage elected and appointed officials so as to promote and enforce the consequential statutory law. Thereby, dissident fellow citizens develop the trust that is needed for reform.

In the U.S., a civic people is specified by the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is a civic agreement that is neutral to race, religion, gender, and heritage. It is an imposition on individuals only because all actual reality develops from the-objective-truth. Both the civic people and dissidents are fellow citizens under the agreement that is offered by the preamble. It is the world’s best legal basis for individual happiness with civic integrity.

The U.S. is distinguished by the inside track to individual happiness with civic integrity, but so far, the Church has bemused the people into chaos. Spiritualism is for adults who want hope for their afterdeath rather than people who want security so their lives will be distinguished by individual happiness with civic integrity.

I doubt Mills will offer “free exchange of ideas” on civic integrity or any of the other suggestions for collaboration.

To z9z99: I admire your well-reasoned solution to Bejan’s civility void and would like to extend it with a plan for civic integrity more than civility; or to civically constrain civility to actually real safety and security.

While “civil” refers to convention, such as a civilization, society, religion, or government, “civic” refers to beyond “live and let live.” The preamble to the constitution for the U.S. offers a civic agreement---that is neutral to religion and thus not secular. The preamble’s agreement could be used to develop a culture of individual happiness with civic integrity.

Call the preamble’s opponents dissonant fellow citizens. If dissidents cause actually real harm, they may face civil constraint. Thus, the preamble is a legal agreement beyond legally changing the 1774 confederation of thirteen states to a 1788 Union of nine states.
  

Perhaps civic integrity is collaborating for discovered-objective-truths (such as each morning the earth’s rotation on its axis un-hides the sun and civic citizens don’t lie) plus the-objective-truth’s interconnecting theory on which to reason about the unknowns “that ultimately lead to human happiness.”

The-objective-truth responds to neither reason, nor opinion, nor deplatforming, but is a basis (the basis?) for civility that offers mutual, comprehensive safety and security to fellow citizens including dissidents. Thereby, each individual may responsibly pursue personal happiness rather than doctrine.

 

It seems there will always be humans who employ their individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) for dissonance to civic integrity. If so, the best that humankind can do is create civic justice that is not arbitrary, such as religion, classism, elitism, tyranny, etc. Some humans perceive justice in using their IPEA to defeat arbitrary provisions and laws.

However, if the basis of statutory justice is the-objective-truth, crime is mutually comprehended and the erroneous fellow citizens have a better chance to reform. For example, the elitists who influence government so as to civilly take the majority of GDP from most fellow citizens may reform under statutory justice based on the-objective-truth.

The path to a judicial system based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion would provide an increasing fraction of humans who experience happiness, and perhaps asymptotically approach the totality We the People of the United States if not of the world.

  

  

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/08/27/all-must-be-tolerated-teresa-bejans-mere-civility-part-1

Mr. Mills, in quoting “All must be tolerated because all were potential converts,” after the scholarly review he presented, shows that he has not yet appreciated someone who does not tolerate tolerance but rather politely terminates the discussion.

Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. A person can tell when they have embarked on the pursuit of integrity when, encountering something he or she does not know, admits to self, “I do not know.”

It took me four decades (beginning after my first decade) to admit about the existence of God, “I do not know.” Reared Southern Baptist, it took me another seven years to realize I did not know whether Jesus is more than a man, and since he did not write, a mysterious man capable of expressing “hate” at that.

When someone approaches me with Mills’ kind of tolerance, I change the subject to football, the weather, politics, or the movies (which I have not seen so can only listen). Thus, I do not brook Christian tolerance toward me. When a Catholic Monsignor to be Bishop gave me an ultimatum, I accepted it. Same with a Baptist Sunday school teacher who called me a heretic. Same with a neighbor who wants me to die in glory. And another who wants me to get a law degree.

   

I get into such scrapes by trying to convert people to the civic opportunity I perceive in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble’s civic agreement tacitly offers fellow citizens the opportunity during their lifetimes to collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity.

When someone indicates they do not want to consider my dreams for an achievable, better future, but instead insists on civic attempts to fulfill past civil hopes or eternal spiritual particulars, I accept that they are not interested in the preamble. I nonetheless appreciate them as civil fellow citizens, unless they attempt actual harm. Someone praying to their god for me does no harm, in my opinion.

  

 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.