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 society.
Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens 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 grandchildren 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 fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equality in opportunity and outcome 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 grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.
Letters
Dominant opportunist (Andy Johnson) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_cd0aa89e-b771-11e8-9da6-4b91ed2aa6fd.html)
Quoting fellow citizen Hayden Mouton, people cite their god to gain a liberty. Given the chance, 100 Senators will demonstrate for their god, each one claiming they speak for God.
The same principle applies to country and mother. Politicians cite them for advantage. Thus, the tradition mother, god, and country is egocentric; insincere. Same with the mystics, like soul.
I don’t pretend to understand President Trump. However, he instructed me on a humble application of Matthew 7:6, which I paraphrase: As president of the United States, it is your duty to protect U.S. integrity no matter what it takes. By all means, if you know you are in the presence of liars, don’t be so stupid as to reveal the-objective-truth: If necessary, be humble enough to publically lie and let the world wonder about you. I never would have imagined such humility without perceiving I have been informed to the possibility.
Sympathetic at his passing, I never trusted John McCain’s sincere, populist grandstanding.
Consider flag burning. In the spirit of Paul Revere’s notice that the enemy is within attacking distance, I think my neighbor should be able to burn the flag he owns as an expression to me: “Phil, get your guns, because the enemy is at our doorsteps.” Hard to imagine, I admit, but I always fly the flag I own.
I was amazed that John McCain (Arizona) wrote to this Louisiana fellow U.S. citizen a two page letter expressing his 2006 intent to support a flag desecration amendment. It was heartfelt, popular pride that did not respond to my concern. It was like I am not a fellow citizen at all.
I look forward to voting for Trump/Pence two more times and am not impressed with Johnson’s knowledge of soul.
Different channels, same mind (James Bollinger) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_08f288f2-b143-11e8-baea-ab3d184d3a87.html)
Bollinger illustrates that privation of the civic integrity to think and understand can produce contradictory channels running in the same mind.
He reminds me of the acquaintance who said, “I don’t intend to be accused of a crime, but if I faced a criminal jury I’d want a unanimous verdict.”
I asked, “Do you mean to say you’d want one bigot or criminal juror to prevent your acquittal? How about a unanimous-majority so that an impartial verdict could relieve you of the accusation once and for all? No hung jury!”
Then, I said: "Vote to preserve Louisiana’s 10:2 impartial, unanimous-majority criminal-verdict rule."
He said, “I will, and I’ll tell my friends.”
Considering the Supreme Court’s unanimous-majority rule helped defend my intention to help preserve a Louisiana treasure: the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict. All Supreme Court “decisions” are unanimous-majority opinions.
When original originalism is clear, the majority is 9:0. When opinion about “founders” muddies originalism, the majority may be 5:4. However, the majority is not determined by blind vote. Opinions are debated to hear the case and beyond the initially reported outcome. In other words, a Supreme Court justice can change his or her vote up until the time the case is finalized for recordation. In other words, Supreme Court justices are qualified to discover and defend original originalism, despite scholarly pleas about what “founding fathers” though. Most justices observe the rules of their nine-person panel. There are exceptions, but Brett Kavanaugh seems to be capable of original (1788) originalism.
On June 21, 1788, representatives of nine of the thirteen eastern seaboard states, former British colonies and separate from French, Spanish, and Mexican territories in the rest of the country, established the U.S. Union. By the time the divisive Bill of Rights was added, there were fourteen states. Now there are fifty states in the Union, and only superior military power could overthrow the U.S. republic.
During the First Congress, James Madison authored and negotiated much of the Bill of Rights' mischief. For U.S. Amendment VI, Madison proposed to continue British tyranny by requiring states to provide absolute, unanimous criminal verdicts. The Senate changed “unanimous” to “impartial,” opening the possibility for states to enhance justice. Only Louisiana had the wisdom to act on the opportunity and only Oregon and England followed the lead.
In 1880, former French-colonial Louisiana had the wisdom to increase impartiality by creating and adopting the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict. England reformed to allow 10:2 verdicts in 1967. Both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme court had thoroughly examined the 9:3 rule and approved it in 1972.
FBI crime data from 2013 indicates that 12:0 verdicts 592% disproportionately hurt black fellow citizens. Blacks tend to offend blacks, and fellow citizens in the judicial system, especially lawyers, judges and the press, disproportionately make money from black fellow citizens. Factions, perhaps ones Bollinger associates with, have always opposed the impartiality of the unanimous-majority rule, and at least one group seems to think racism will help the Louisiana Legislature (for Act 493 voting-legislator’s reasons) impose injustice on the people of Louisiana. Reform to a civic culture is possible if most fellow citizens hold themselves to be equal under the purpose and goals stated in the U.S. Constitution's preamble. There, think of "posterity" as grandchildren and beyond.
If it were practical, public votes would follow rules to assure voters vote for their own best interests, for example, their grandchildren, rather than serving the purpose of a society they’d like to approve. For example, fellow-citizens are equal if they trust-in and collaborate for the purpose and goals that are stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. If so, juries could be fashioned like the Supreme Court. Reducing the panel to 9 instead of 12 would save 25% of present costs. Allowing 5:4 decisions would accommodate 2 bigots or criminals on the impartial-majority panel. With the low qualifications to vote, the public is better off with a 9:3 allowance, and it is important on November 6 to go vote and once there defend the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict.
I doubt Bollinger will consider the qualifications of voters in Supreme Court decisions rather than proposing that they revise to the tyranny of unanimous decisions. But I hope he votes to preserve Louisiana's 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts and goes on to lobby for 9:3 or better.
He reminds me of the acquaintance who said, “I don’t intend to be accused of a crime, but if I faced a criminal jury I’d want a unanimous verdict.”
I asked, “Do you mean to say you’d want one bigot or criminal juror to prevent your acquittal? How about a unanimous-majority so that an impartial verdict could relieve you of the accusation once and for all? No hung jury!”
Then, I said: "Vote to preserve Louisiana’s 10:2 impartial, unanimous-majority criminal-verdict rule."
He said, “I will, and I’ll tell my friends.”
Considering the Supreme Court’s unanimous-majority rule helped defend my intention to help preserve a Louisiana treasure: the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict. All Supreme Court “decisions” are unanimous-majority opinions.
When original originalism is clear, the majority is 9:0. When opinion about “founders” muddies originalism, the majority may be 5:4. However, the majority is not determined by blind vote. Opinions are debated to hear the case and beyond the initially reported outcome. In other words, a Supreme Court justice can change his or her vote up until the time the case is finalized for recordation. In other words, Supreme Court justices are qualified to discover and defend original originalism, despite scholarly pleas about what “founding fathers” though. Most justices observe the rules of their nine-person panel. There are exceptions, but Brett Kavanaugh seems to be capable of original (1788) originalism.
On June 21, 1788, representatives of nine of the thirteen eastern seaboard states, former British colonies and separate from French, Spanish, and Mexican territories in the rest of the country, established the U.S. Union. By the time the divisive Bill of Rights was added, there were fourteen states. Now there are fifty states in the Union, and only superior military power could overthrow the U.S. republic.
During the First Congress, James Madison authored and negotiated much of the Bill of Rights' mischief. For U.S. Amendment VI, Madison proposed to continue British tyranny by requiring states to provide absolute, unanimous criminal verdicts. The Senate changed “unanimous” to “impartial,” opening the possibility for states to enhance justice. Only Louisiana had the wisdom to act on the opportunity and only Oregon and England followed the lead.
In 1880, former French-colonial Louisiana had the wisdom to increase impartiality by creating and adopting the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict. England reformed to allow 10:2 verdicts in 1967. Both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme court had thoroughly examined the 9:3 rule and approved it in 1972.
FBI crime data from 2013 indicates that 12:0 verdicts 592% disproportionately hurt black fellow citizens. Blacks tend to offend blacks, and fellow citizens in the judicial system, especially lawyers, judges and the press, disproportionately make money from black fellow citizens. Factions, perhaps ones Bollinger associates with, have always opposed the impartiality of the unanimous-majority rule, and at least one group seems to think racism will help the Louisiana Legislature (for Act 493 voting-legislator’s reasons) impose injustice on the people of Louisiana. Reform to a civic culture is possible if most fellow citizens hold themselves to be equal under the purpose and goals stated in the U.S. Constitution's preamble. There, think of "posterity" as grandchildren and beyond.
If it were practical, public votes would follow rules to assure voters vote for their own best interests, for example, their grandchildren, rather than serving the purpose of a society they’d like to approve. For example, fellow-citizens are equal if they trust-in and collaborate for the purpose and goals that are stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. If so, juries could be fashioned like the Supreme Court. Reducing the panel to 9 instead of 12 would save 25% of present costs. Allowing 5:4 decisions would accommodate 2 bigots or criminals on the impartial-majority panel. With the low qualifications to vote, the public is better off with a 9:3 allowance, and it is important on November 6 to go vote and once there defend the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict.
I doubt Bollinger will consider the qualifications of voters in Supreme Court decisions rather than proposing that they revise to the tyranny of unanimous decisions. But I hope he votes to preserve Louisiana's 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts and goes on to lobby for 9:3 or better.
Addressing my concerns (Wade Perrin) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_8966c7b2-b14f-11e8-b31b-13a21d9a1a4c.html)
Perrin has not touched my concerns: the gods that individuals construct and maintain.
I will not subscribe to a god who says, “. . . kill your son . . . as a sacrifice for me.” Genesis 22:2.
I will not condone pretense like, “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.” 1 Peter 2:18-20
I will not be a disciple to one who employs the word “hate” to compete with family relationships, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26
I will not encourage a fellow-citizen to impose the word “hate” to avoid collaboration for civic integrity: “Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father.” John 15:23-24.
I don’t know how or why believers would put up with such bad ideas coming from the Church that chose the books on which canonize the Holy Bible. The New Testament was canonized in 405 CE. The priests have had 1613 years to reform. Why haven’t they? I think the answer comes in Chapter XI of Machiavelli’s The Prince, 1513. As long as believers cling to the god the Church constructed, the Church will continue its abuses.
Practically, a civic people may require the Church to conform to statutory law based on the-objective-truth rather than religious opinion. The first action I’d like to see is school dress codes that protect girls from intimate thoughts by priests and other officials. Perhaps priests could get degrees in social work.
Also, I’d prefer social workers to be re-cast as civic practitioners, because so many of them erroneously use Christianity or alternate spirituality to bemuse civic integrity. Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Some persons think crime pays. Some persons think priesthood pays. I prefer fidelity to the-objective-truth.
I often do not know the-objective-truth. I doubt it, but do not know if an individual can secure favor in the afterdeath---that vast time after body, mind, and person have stopped functioning; that is, beyond his or accomplishments or collaborations in life. (For example, I appreciate Albert Einstein’s assertion that civic citizens do not lie to each other so as to lessen misery and loss rather than to follow some “divine” rule, even though Einstein no longer lives.) Therefore, I do not want to change anyone’s responsible pursuit of favorable afterdeath.
However, believers may collaborate for civic integrity as diligently as other fellow citizens; in other words, without deceit.
Columns
The preamble is a legal, civic agreement (Walter Williams, “It’s Our Constitution --- no Kavanaugh, https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams)
In both “our” in the title and in elaboration on the statement, “The Constitution's preamble contains the phrase "promote the general Welfare," and Article 1, Section 8 contains the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" Williams does not appreciate the legal agreement that is offered in the preamble.
We the People of the Unites States (WPUS) is the subject of the legal founding of the US. The representatives of the people in nine of thirteen states established the U.S. on June 21, 1788, leaving four represented peoples who were either dissident or undecided.
Perhaps those peoples remained members of the otherwise dissolved 1774 confederation of states, but according to the 1783 Treaty of Paris, ratified by the thirteen states on January 14, 1784, each of the four peoples was free and independent. The peoples in their states whose conventions eventually joined the U.S. are Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. Rhode Island was perhaps a rebel, since they had not sent delegates to the Philadelphia convention.
In 2018, there are fifty states, and not one of those peoples can claim that a majority, much less 2/3 of the people, commit-to and trust-in the agreement that is offered in the preamble. I work for Louisiana to once again be a leader, by being first to adopt the civic integrity that is proposed in the preamble’s agreement. After five years collaboration for EBRP library meetings, we now perceive that collaboration using the preamble tacitly intends ultimate individual happiness with civic integrity for both willing fellow citizens and dissident fellow citizens.
Returning to Williams’s statement, the fellow-citizens’ agreement that is offered by the preamble states a purpose and goals, then takes the action of specifying a limited U.S. government that leaves unspecified powers to the people in their state. Willing fellow citizens behave so as to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility [and] promote the general Welfare.” Fellow citizens who misbehave suffer, and no one is obliged to correct their behavior, except if actual harm (injustice, breaking the peace, or reducing prosperity) they caused is discovered. Congress is charged to legislate action when misbehavior causes actual harm. Thus, the preamble is a civic agreement that authorizes legislation to respond to misbehavior and thereby has legal power, energy and authority (LPEA).
Also, Williams’ opinion does not seem like signer’s originalism, in, “If confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh will bring to the U.S. Supreme Court a vision closer to that of the Framers than the vision of those who believe that the Constitution is a "living document." The signers of the 1787 Constitution had every intent to correct injustices, both unnegotiable known errors and injustices yet to discover. Therefore, they provided for amendment, and so far there have been 27 amendments, two of which---18 and 22---establishing that erroneous amendment can be corrected. I speculate that Kavanaugh can favor intentions of the signers over preferences of any “founder.”
First, anyone who capitalizes “Framers” is trying to fabricate authority, not necessarily their own. Writers may represent the framers as leaders from colonial revolt against England starting against taxation in 1765 to the liberation of Worcester, MA in 1774 to the 1793 end of George Washington’s first presidency, a span of 28 years. A more appropriate time span is September 17, 1787 to June 21, 1788, the date that 2/3 of the states’ delegates signed the document conceived Union of states plus the duration of states ratifying conventions reaching the required nine.
Patrick Henry wanted to change the preamble to make the subject the states, naming all thirteen, rather than WPUA and therefore is more a dissident than a founder. Also, James Madison, a signer, thought like an English colonial and, as a member of the first U.S. Congress, aided the re-establishment of English traditions. Madison’s tyranny against the preamble has reigned since April-May, 1789, when Congress unconstitutionally hired Congressional Chaplains to start the tradition that Congress’s conventions are as divine as the English Parliament’s constitutional partnership with Canterbury. Thus, even the signers are not authorities worthy of trying to usurp the IPEA of fellow citizens.
IPEA is the acronym for the individual power, the individual energy and the individual authority that distinguishes human beings from the other species. Just as a human cannot subrogate his or her IPEA, a fellow citizen cannot deny another’s IPEA. For example, a parent cannot subrogate a child’s safety to the clergy, and a clergyperson or social worker cannot subrogate personal integrity to his or her god. Each person employs IPEA either for integrity or for immoral liberty.
I hope my comments are interpreted as collaborating with Walter Williams’ original thoughts, without which my thoughts and hopes for Kavanaugh’s excellence and future leadership would not have surfaced. In other words, my hope that Kavanaugh will help free the U.S. from residual British traditions, an unpopular message, was easily articulated in the context of Williams' opinion piece.
To Rick Marinez:
Brevity is often effective to question. I'll try to respond with brevity.
About 2400 years ago the Greeks discovered the articulation that humans are equal under the law. Maybe they meant that people who accept the law are equal. It seems Socrates died to uphold that principle, even when the jury errs. However, some murders assert that their life is more precious than their victim's life, and some fellow citizens passionately agree with murders.
In the U.S., constitutional law begins with an agreement. Accordingly, fellow citizens are equal if they trust-in and commit-to the preamble in order to collaborate for civic integrity. The articles of the U.S. Constitution either comport to the preamble or ultimately get amended by the people.
Amendment is a provision of the constitution. If an amendment does not comport to the preamble it will not stand; example, 18 and 22 on prohibition of alcohol consumption.
However, activist judges attempt to impose personal opinion on the people. For example, Justice Kennedy may have retired because it dawned on him that his supremacy on dignity and equality had overlooked the ovum's dignity to stay with his or her mom and the conception's dignity to stay with his or her mom and dad. It's an unfathomable oversight, but one that awaits reversal.
The U.S. Constitution lives for the people more than the past but not for judges, legislators, administrators or appointed department-officials above fellow citizens. By all means, the press is an irresponsible agent that toys with fellow citizens. The First Amendment needs amendment so as to hold the press responsible for publishing known lies.
However, activist judges attempt to impose personal opinion on the people. For example, Justice Kennedy may have retired because it dawned on him that his supremacy on dignity and equality had overlooked the ovum's dignity to stay with his or her mom and the conception's dignity to stay with his or her mom and dad. It's an unfathomable oversight, but one that awaits reversal.
The U.S. Constitution lives for the people more than the past but not for judges, legislators, administrators or appointed department-officials above fellow citizens. By all means, the press is an irresponsible agent that toys with fellow citizens. The First Amendment needs amendment so as to hold the press responsible for publishing known lies.
News
Deplatforming the U.S. Constituion (Bryn Stole) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_0371c10a-b2e1-11e8-b206-f7abcfecd285.html)
Black caucuses don’t seem to realize how vulnerable they are. The reality they imagine is, perhaps intentionally, not explicitly stated. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party may decide they disagree, based on fellow citizenship under the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Volunteering to collaborate for the civic integrity that is ultimately required by We the People of the United States has never hinged on race, gender, religion, or continental origin. The benefit of the preamble’s purpose and goals is available to all fellow citizens, even criminals, who first need to reform. It seems to me that most (not all) Supreme Court justices collaborate under the preamble and that Brett Kavanaugh behaves under the preamble. Fellow citizens are equal under the preamble.
Thanks substantially to the English, constitutional partnership with Canterbury Protestantism, the U.S. remains bemused by Christianity. I think every state constitution proclaims Christianity, directly or not, and all three branches of the U.S. Union impose theism; more or less Christianity. Greece v Galloway (2014) erroneously whines that Phil Beaver is niggling to object to the imposition of “traditional” legislative prayer and Parliament-mimicking “divinity.”
When the Church canonized the New Testament in 405 CE, Frederick Douglass’s 1852 claim was obviously so: “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him”; https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945. In other words, the Church never should have condoned slavery, as in 1 Peter 2:18-20. Likewise, the U.S. should not condone the Holy Bible.
Yet in 1856, R. E. Lee begged woe when he wrote to his wife that African slaves would not be relieved until they were Christians; https://leefamilyarchive.org/.../339-robert-e-lee-to-mary.... Lee’s complaint was against white abolitionists, for example, in “bleeding Kansas,” earlier that year. Lee was egregiously influenced by his church ministers, but nevertheless had IPEA, like every human being. Lee, by believing his ministers’ god, begged the woe that was delivered by equal citizens under the preamble rather than by a god. In other words, ultimate justice was delivered by the military power of We the People of the United States.
Likewise, individuals who mislead fellow citizens beg woe. Cornel West and Robert P. George recently wrote about African-American Christianity; https://www.wsj.com/.../dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision.... I have been trying to learn what that exclusive term may mean, but cannot imagine that it represents fellow citizens who want to collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
I’ve written it before in this forum: The years since 1968 have been an age when black caucuses flourished without helping black fellow citizens. It is time for the leaders to express plainly that IPEA (individual power, individual energy, and individual authority) does not spring from special interest groups. U.S. special interest beyond mutual, comprehensive safety and security among fellow citizens is an attempt to deny individual equality under the preamble.
Cedric Richmond and the others may, like Frederick Douglass in 1852, claim fellow citizenship under the preamble to collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity; or not.
Volunteering to collaborate for the civic integrity that is ultimately required by We the People of the United States has never hinged on race, gender, religion, or continental origin. The benefit of the preamble’s purpose and goals is available to all fellow citizens, even criminals, who first need to reform. It seems to me that most (not all) Supreme Court justices collaborate under the preamble and that Brett Kavanaugh behaves under the preamble. Fellow citizens are equal under the preamble.
Thanks substantially to the English, constitutional partnership with Canterbury Protestantism, the U.S. remains bemused by Christianity. I think every state constitution proclaims Christianity, directly or not, and all three branches of the U.S. Union impose theism; more or less Christianity. Greece v Galloway (2014) erroneously whines that Phil Beaver is niggling to object to the imposition of “traditional” legislative prayer and Parliament-mimicking “divinity.”
When the Church canonized the New Testament in 405 CE, Frederick Douglass’s 1852 claim was obviously so: “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him”; https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945. In other words, the Church never should have condoned slavery, as in 1 Peter 2:18-20. Likewise, the U.S. should not condone the Holy Bible.
Yet in 1856, R. E. Lee begged woe when he wrote to his wife that African slaves would not be relieved until they were Christians; https://leefamilyarchive.org/.../339-robert-e-lee-to-mary.... Lee’s complaint was against white abolitionists, for example, in “bleeding Kansas,” earlier that year. Lee was egregiously influenced by his church ministers, but nevertheless had IPEA, like every human being. Lee, by believing his ministers’ god, begged the woe that was delivered by equal citizens under the preamble rather than by a god. In other words, ultimate justice was delivered by the military power of We the People of the United States.
Likewise, individuals who mislead fellow citizens beg woe. Cornel West and Robert P. George recently wrote about African-American Christianity; https://www.wsj.com/.../dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision.... I have been trying to learn what that exclusive term may mean, but cannot imagine that it represents fellow citizens who want to collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
I’ve written it before in this forum: The years since 1968 have been an age when black caucuses flourished without helping black fellow citizens. It is time for the leaders to express plainly that IPEA (individual power, individual energy, and individual authority) does not spring from special interest groups. U.S. special interest beyond mutual, comprehensive safety and security among fellow citizens is an attempt to deny individual equality under the preamble.
Cedric Richmond and the others may, like Frederick Douglass in 1852, claim fellow citizenship under the preamble to collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity; or not.
The Advocate ought not deplatform the preamble (Andrea Gallo) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_7af6cfb4-b2db-11e8-82b6-17e92d064332.html)
Each member of the Metro-Council, is a fellow citizen along with the rest of us. Each has a historic opportunity to help establish We the People of the United States; or not. If not, they’ll be leaving the opportunity for other fellow citizens, perhaps in the immediate future. These are not ordinary pivotal times, not only because of the Internet, but because most fellow citizens want mutual, comprehensive safety and security rather than conflict for a dominant race.
At Ethyl Corporation starting in 1966 and spin-off, Albemarle Corporation until 2001, I worked with people from I guess 40 ethnic backgrounds.
At about 20 of 35 years in chemical engineering, I started reading, writing and talking to try to understand: With so many wonderful people in the world, why is there so much conflict? At perhaps 30 years, my study shifted to: With such a promising constitution, why has the U.S. become so conflicted? In retirement, the work continued, but with a focus on the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. More than one fellow citizen has given me an ultimatum to cease and desist from preambling, and some think they belittle a 230 year old neglected dream.
Five years ago, five of us started library meetings to promote consideration of the preamble’s agreement. There have been over ten library meetings with collaboration by over sixty people and more attendance. My ignorance reduction started in conversation with Woody: the font does not express the subject of the civic sentence: It’s not “we, the people,” it’s We the People of the United States.
But few participants know the library progress, because the next meeting has not occurred: The leading edge of our collaboration is that the preamble’s agreement offers willing citizens the opportunity to develop INDIVIDUAL HAPPINESS WITH CIVIC INTEGRITY---five words. There’s a complete theory that supports an achievable future.
We have not been quiet about this development, and find surprising opposition. Some people say the preamble is a dream that never was true. That’s not too far from our claim that since its legal establishment on June 21, 1788, the preamble has been both 2) suppressed as “secular” by the church-state-partnership. The partnership is constitutional in England (required by law) and traditional according to the three branches of U.S. government. The preamble is neglected by fellow U.S. citizens. But Frederick Douglass, in 1852, called himself a fellow citizen and praised the preamble. Why did Douglas express such individual authority?
TO BE CONTINUED
CONTINUATION
The human being is so powerful that it takes about three decades for an infant to develop into a young adult with understanding and intent to live a complete life. By then, he or she knows that he or she must either 1) earn the quality and quantity of sustenance he or she needs or wants or 2) thank a fellow citizen. By then, he or she knows religious faith is about comfort and hope regarding the afterdeath---that vast individual time when body, mind, and person have stopped functioning: civic integrity is up to living people. By then, he or she is not likely to have noticed, but every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Society works hard to keep fellow citizens from discovering IPEA.
Some fellow citizens think crime pays and develop criminal integrity, unless harm he or she did is discovered and he or she involuntarily suffers statutory law enforcement. The fact that he or she chose crime rather than integrity did not diminish his or her IPEA, until a crime brought woe.
Everything that had happened before had to happen; before 39 of the 55 delegates out of the 70 representatives that 12 states sent to the Philadelphia convention (to strengthen the 1777 Articles of Confederation) attended from around May 25 until September 17, 1787. The 39 signed the September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution. (The signers were 2/3 of convention delegates and 51.4% of Continental Congressional representatives, accounting for the rebel state.) In about six weeks, the officers and institutions on which a Union to serve the people in their states had been specified. The 39 signers signed, making the U.S. Union possible.
The required 9 states, in their state-ratifying conventions voted “yes”; another state joined the Union a month later; and about 6 months later, the U.S. Union of 10 states began operating. The other states resisted ending the Confederation of States, or ending the church-state partnership, or for other reasons. Nearly 23 months later yet, the 13 former British colonies had ratified the U.S. Constitution, after erroneous amendment by Congress. (The claim “erroneously” objects to reinstituting British traditions and invokes a set of books, like Leonard W. Levy’s “The Establishment Clause,” 1986.)
Everything that happened had to happen. Abraham Lincoln had to express erroneous views for politics’ sake, for example that the Declaration of Independence constrains the U.S. Constitution; or Lincoln’s thought that freed slaves ought to be returned to an African location.
Moreover, Lincoln’s attempt at Gettysburg to invoke the preamble spoke of governance rather than self-discipline. No citizen wants to govern fellow-citizens, except to prevent/constrain actually-real harm. The preamble’s agreement offers willing fellow citizens the self-discipline by which a civic people may constrain their local, state, and national governments in order to develop personal liberty with civic morality, in other words, individual happiness with civic integrity. Preamblers get arrested only occasionally, under mistake. Lincoln was mistaken to repeat the failed idea for the people, “self-governance” rather than self-discipline.
Fellow citizens like Mike McClanahan (this news article) and Cedric Richmond (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_0371c10a-b2e1-11e8-b206-f7abcfecd285.html) foolishly strive for political skills on par with Abraham Lincoln when they assert that civic integrity takes into account skin color. McClanahan and Richmond misrepresent black fellow citizens who want individual happiness with civic integrity. Both men forsake their own fellow citizenship.
We the People of the United States is a voluntary special-interest group that knows neither race, religion, gender, national origins, nor preferred IPEA development by fellow-citizens. The special interest is mutual, comprehensive safety and security for all, including reform for criminal fellow citizens.
The Metro-Council fellow citizens have the inside advantage to help establish We the People of the United States, because focus on civic integrity came from the library meetings that have been held in EBR over the last five years. They were begun in 2014 to help make it possible to for Baton Rouge to resolve the St.-George-City motivations.
To James Finney: Finney, forgive me for not detecting sarcasm or something kinky in your posts heretofore.
Parish residents who do not live in Baton Rouge vote for President of EBR Parish and have since 1947; https://www.brla.gov/faq.aspx?qid=337. Maybe you are a latecomer, but I am too, having moved here in 1967.
Other fora
On my facebook page
May God, with integrity, practice infidelity and abuse?
For my facebook page
I exercise and walk in city parks. Everywhere, I see trees of green; red roses too. I see happy faces; some express, “I prefer privacy”; others say, “I appreciate you.”
But in civic forums, I often observe fellow-citizens’ silence, stonewalling, and deplatforming. Earless heads compete for dominant opinion: democracy v republic; order v disruption; factional-theism v theism-or-none; skin-color v humanity; nationalism v cosmopolitanism; collectivism v individuality; elitism v populism. Fellow citizens compete over human reasoning.
Fellow citizens may defeat fascination with rage by adopting a 230 years’ repressed entity: We the People of the United States. I sing to express bravery for an outcome: civic integrity, both as wholeness and as understanding. A wonderful world may be dawning as we meet.
The National Anthem sung accordingly.
The question: What are the obstacles to equality of opportunity in the United States?
It takes about a quarter century for a human infant to acquire the understanding and intent to live a complete human life; that is, to achieve self-discovery. A few more years are needed for experiences and observations to persuade an individual to consider developing integrity. Some do and some don’t. Some individuals think conflict, crime, or evil pays.
Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Societies, intentionally or not, attempt to persuade the individual not to accept IPEA---to submit to appetites (banality), associations (coercion), and governments (force). With IPEA, a person may humbly manage the lesser powers.
The individual who chooses to develop integrity may discover and develop fidelity. It’s a comprehensive fidelity that starts with the-objective-truth and extends to fellow citizens. The person who has discovered fidelity recognizes that civic integrity requires acceptance of an agreement. About 2400 years ago, the Greeks asserted that all men are equal under the law; today, we take that to mean all persons are equal under the law.
In this country, all persons are equal under the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is a legal sentence upon which citizens’ state conventions, on June 21, 1788, legally terminated the 1774 Confederation of States and replaced it with the Union of nine states, leaving four states still free and independent. About 23 months later, the dissident states had joined the Union, three of them several months after U.S. operations began with only ten states.
The First Congress, not understanding and perhaps 48.6% opposing the individual self-discipline the preamble promotes, labeled it “secular” even though it is neutral to religion as well as gender, and national origin. All fellow citizens may be equal as We the People of the United States and collaborate for civic integrity.
From Greek times until today, some people choose not to be equal under the law. Equality is a choice.
I hope this responded to your question and would be glad to dialogue about it so as to learn from your viewpoint.
I hope this responded to your question and would be glad to dialogue about it so as to learn from your viewpoint.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-bigots-cling-to-the-past-Why-dont-they-move-forward-and-accept-the-fact-that-women-are-equal-to-men-and-that-people-of-color-deserve-the-same-rights-as-everyone-else
I don’t think you understand enough to be specific about bigots, the past, women, men, people of color, and rights. In short, I do not find your question sincere.
The Greeks asserted that all human beings are equal under the law. That is, if bigotry does not confine you to men as human beings. In 1788, the U.S. Union asserted that all human beings are equal under the agreement that is stated by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. That is, unless you assert that the preamble is secular rather than neutral to religion as well as gender, race, and continental origins; then the agreement is only offered. That is, you are unequal under the preamble.
Fundamentally, a human being starts as an ovum, and no ovum is equal to another: each is unique. The ovum must be fertilized by a spermatozoon, and the consequential cell is more unique than it was before conception. If the conception is female and typical, the gestated, delivered and surviving infant may, during fertile years supply perhaps 400 viable ova. Thus, the fertile female is a potential crowd.
The male who develops integrity knows a fertile woman is potentially two persons, and in manhood takes utmost care for her wellbeing and that of her viable ova. If he knows he is a criminal, he would not dare impregnate her. If so, he is probably equal under either the law (Greeks 2500 years ago) or the preamble (U.S. fellow citizens).
Every human being has the opportunity to develop integrity or not. But society does everything it can to keep each person from discovering that he or she has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not.
Those who chose to develop integrity may discover fidelity to the-objective-truth rather than subjugation to the lesser powers: appetites (banality), society (coercion), and governments (force). Fidelity is used to manage the lesser authorities. I think fidelity leads to individual happiness with civic integrity.
I think these ideas are valid, but do not know them to be the-objective-truth. Therefore, I would not impose them on anyone. However, I oppose imposition of conflicting opinion onto my life and governance.
I read, write, and converse so as to learn, and hope to learn from dialogue on my response to your question.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment