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.
Our Views
Abusing freedom of the press (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_751326e0-d858-11e8-ac99-9363337bcaab.html)
Abusing freedom of the press (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_751326e0-d858-11e8-ac99-9363337bcaab.html)
I will gladly vote to strengthen the Trump administration, even if it means voting for a Republican or libertarian candidate. I doubt I will ever vote for a Democrat but reserve the possibility of being wrong this moment.
Barack Obama’s convention speech was one of the best public speeches I ever heard. I turned to MWW and said, “Obama will be difficult to beat at the poles.”
When Obama won, I turned to MWW and said, “I’m willing for the left to have a couple of cycles to try their approaches.” By the end of the first term, I’d had enough, yet did not agree with my candidate.
I could not understand Donald Trump during the campaigns, because he seemed too much a fellow citizen and ultra-rich person to be a president. Administrator? Maybe. I did not disagree when he attacked the competition on their turf or their civil habit.
After Trump’s first year, I imagined two perspectives: 1) he is making the statement that being president does eliminate fellow citizenship and human IPEA (the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority to develop integrity or not), and 2) the president decides how to prevent liars from learning what he knows or intends; President Trump has the personal humility to practice mendacity with the best of them; I recall him making claims to that effect, for example, knowing all about bankruptcy laws---un-civic but legal.
Perhaps Trump interprets Matthew 7:6 as the instruction: dealing with mendacity requires protection of integrity with whatever means your IPEA dictates. I would not have imagined lying to protect integrity, but may have learned the possibility from Trump.
The physical and psychological violence the Democrats, social democrats, and deep state have used fruitlessly in their attempt to impede the Trump administration is amazing. And the administrator makes no pretense at being a dictator---shows absolute appreciation for the balance of powers spelled out in the 1787 U.S. Constitution and the preamble.
I have learned first-hand that The Advocate personnel cannot be trusted with civic integrity; I doubt they could explain the phrase. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution does not call for an irresponsible press nor does it grant freedom of the press. Those two provisions were created by the erroneous 1789-1793 Congress, who created and ratified the Bill of Rights with its First Amendment. It was just another attempt by a faction that wanted to preserve English traditions.
I look forward to an achievable better future wherein “freedom of the press” is replaced with the specification of “press responsibilities” or other requirements of civic integrity. I hope to cast a vote for such amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Weighing in for the judges and lawyers who benefit from judicial chaos (Mike Magner) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_a21c8776-d6d2-11e8-bd67-b72aecc10f14.html)
Mr. Magner, despite Louisiana’s constitutional provision that anyone may express themselves but is responsible for the abuse of the privilege, shamelessly reflects the mendacities in the Louisiana State Bar Association’s (LSBA) resolution requesting the Louisiana Legislature to enact absolute 12:0 juries rather than the impartial unanimous-majority verdicts now used. Obviously, judges and lawyers get more state funds and private payments when there’s more judicial chaos.
LSBA's resolution author, Ed Tarpley seems religiously zealous in his representation of the legislature’s egregious conversion of LSBA’s resolution into a popular referendum, calling it a miracle; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4A4eSyiyP0. I opine Act 493 is unconstitutional according to each U.S. Amendment VI (1791), U.S. Amendment XIV.1 (1868), and Johnson v Louisiana (1972).
And England, the originator of the 12:0 jury mimicked Louisiana’s light by reforming to 10:2 verdicts in 1967, in order to lessen organized crime’s ability to burden victims, especially the people, with more expenses for judges and lawyers (that’s my bias shining through; England claims they did it to lessen organized crime’s influence on jurors).
The point of the above two paragraphs is that first the U.S. (1791) and second French-colonial thinking Louisiana (1879) freed fellow citizens who are impartial from the colonial British imposition of absolutism (12:0) by providing impartial unanimous-majority verdicts (9-3). The issues are neutral to race, and in fact, because of unfortunate parochial vigilantism, which should be addressed separately, U.S. blacks are 700% disproportionally hurt by absolutism in felony verdicts.
Some providers of the judicial services to fellow citizens, including LSBA, who approved Tarpley’s resolution, shamelessly quote John Adams, who was a leading monarchist; for example, Adams wanted the President to serve for life on good behavior. Some proponents quote James Madison, who seemed aware of pitfalls in what he wrote but inscribed them anyway. In drafting U.S. Amendment VI, Madison recommended the royal unanimity, but the Senate revised to impartial juries. French-thinking Louisiana recognized that impartial verdicts can be provided with unanimous-majority juries and started using 9:3 verdicts in 1880. These heartfelt struggles by the U.S. to free itself from colonial-British tyranny are ongoing and neutral to religion, race, gender, and ethnicity. Imposition of African slavery was part of the English tyranny, so all improvements came through the era of slavery and its consequences.
Magner expresses, in my opinion, a lack of integrity regarding the burden of proof. By lack of integrity, I mean failure to do the work to understand the distribution of responsibilities in the judicial process. The burden of proof does not rest with individual jury members, who may make decisions with whatever understanding their individual limitations allow. If a juror is, in fact, ignorant, a bigot, or a covert criminal, their vote may be negated on discovery. The impartial majority makes that discovery, whereas when absolutism is required the errant or criminal juror prevails at the expense of all the victims.
Here’s one publically-civic chemical engineer’s view of the process. A criminal fellow citizen creates a victim, a burden to fellow citizens who collaborate for statutory justice (civic citizens) and perhaps pending regret for the criminal’s family. (In the case of murder, the predominant victim is the family of the murdered fellow citizen.)
The last thing civic citizens want is a false accusation. Therefore, the judicial process leading to jury duty after an accusation has nine steps including investigation, arrest, first arraignment, grand jury, preliminary hearing, second arraignment, discovery and motion, plea bargaining and plea, trial orders; and voir dire; https://law.lclark.edu/.../5498-what-are-some-common....
When the judge and lawyers involved conclude there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt, a trial is enacted; voir dire, guilt phase, sentencing, restitution, possible appeal, possible probation hearing, possible parole or revocation hearing, possible compensation. Thus, the system has workers in twice nine activities on behalf of the creator of the victim.
After voir dire, the judge gives the jury case-specific instructions about how to handle personal beliefs and doubt. I found this instruction: “When I tell you that a party must prove something, I mean that the party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is trying to prove is more likely to be true than not true”; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_instructions. A lawyer, who knows about such instructions, yet holds the jury responsible for his or her work---proof beyond reasonable doubt---is at best incompetent. I’ll leave it to the-objective-truth to make the most of Magner’s witness to his practices.
CONTINUED
LSBA's resolution author, Ed Tarpley seems religiously zealous in his representation of the legislature’s egregious conversion of LSBA’s resolution into a popular referendum, calling it a miracle; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4A4eSyiyP0. I opine Act 493 is unconstitutional according to each U.S. Amendment VI (1791), U.S. Amendment XIV.1 (1868), and Johnson v Louisiana (1972).
And England, the originator of the 12:0 jury mimicked Louisiana’s light by reforming to 10:2 verdicts in 1967, in order to lessen organized crime’s ability to burden victims, especially the people, with more expenses for judges and lawyers (that’s my bias shining through; England claims they did it to lessen organized crime’s influence on jurors).
The point of the above two paragraphs is that first the U.S. (1791) and second French-colonial thinking Louisiana (1879) freed fellow citizens who are impartial from the colonial British imposition of absolutism (12:0) by providing impartial unanimous-majority verdicts (9-3). The issues are neutral to race, and in fact, because of unfortunate parochial vigilantism, which should be addressed separately, U.S. blacks are 700% disproportionally hurt by absolutism in felony verdicts.
Some providers of the judicial services to fellow citizens, including LSBA, who approved Tarpley’s resolution, shamelessly quote John Adams, who was a leading monarchist; for example, Adams wanted the President to serve for life on good behavior. Some proponents quote James Madison, who seemed aware of pitfalls in what he wrote but inscribed them anyway. In drafting U.S. Amendment VI, Madison recommended the royal unanimity, but the Senate revised to impartial juries. French-thinking Louisiana recognized that impartial verdicts can be provided with unanimous-majority juries and started using 9:3 verdicts in 1880. These heartfelt struggles by the U.S. to free itself from colonial-British tyranny are ongoing and neutral to religion, race, gender, and ethnicity. Imposition of African slavery was part of the English tyranny, so all improvements came through the era of slavery and its consequences.
Magner expresses, in my opinion, a lack of integrity regarding the burden of proof. By lack of integrity, I mean failure to do the work to understand the distribution of responsibilities in the judicial process. The burden of proof does not rest with individual jury members, who may make decisions with whatever understanding their individual limitations allow. If a juror is, in fact, ignorant, a bigot, or a covert criminal, their vote may be negated on discovery. The impartial majority makes that discovery, whereas when absolutism is required the errant or criminal juror prevails at the expense of all the victims.
Here’s one publically-civic chemical engineer’s view of the process. A criminal fellow citizen creates a victim, a burden to fellow citizens who collaborate for statutory justice (civic citizens) and perhaps pending regret for the criminal’s family. (In the case of murder, the predominant victim is the family of the murdered fellow citizen.)
The last thing civic citizens want is a false accusation. Therefore, the judicial process leading to jury duty after an accusation has nine steps including investigation, arrest, first arraignment, grand jury, preliminary hearing, second arraignment, discovery and motion, plea bargaining and plea, trial orders; and voir dire; https://law.lclark.edu/.../5498-what-are-some-common....
When the judge and lawyers involved conclude there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt, a trial is enacted; voir dire, guilt phase, sentencing, restitution, possible appeal, possible probation hearing, possible parole or revocation hearing, possible compensation. Thus, the system has workers in twice nine activities on behalf of the creator of the victim.
After voir dire, the judge gives the jury case-specific instructions about how to handle personal beliefs and doubt. I found this instruction: “When I tell you that a party must prove something, I mean that the party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is trying to prove is more likely to be true than not true”; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_instructions. A lawyer, who knows about such instructions, yet holds the jury responsible for his or her work---proof beyond reasonable doubt---is at best incompetent. I’ll leave it to the-objective-truth to make the most of Magner’s witness to his practices.
CONTINUED
CONTINUATION
Lawyers and judges declare responsibility to uphold both the Louisiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, and Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdicts (9:3 in 1879 and 10:2 in 1974) are constitutional according to U.S. Amendment VI, U.S. Amendment XIV.1, and Johnson vs Louisiana.
Shame on judges and lawyers who would cajole the people of Louisiana to regress from providing impartial juries to the ruinous absolutism of 12:0 verdicts.
I encourage fellow citizens to make a statement to judges and lawyers that Louisiana wants unanimous-majority felony verdicts rather than the potentially ruinous absolutism. The perhaps obsolete 48 U.S. states may not have yet reformed to the U.S. Constitution’s demand for impartiality.
Lawyers and judges declare responsibility to uphold both the Louisiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, and Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdicts (9:3 in 1879 and 10:2 in 1974) are constitutional according to U.S. Amendment VI, U.S. Amendment XIV.1, and Johnson vs Louisiana.
Shame on judges and lawyers who would cajole the people of Louisiana to regress from providing impartial juries to the ruinous absolutism of 12:0 verdicts.
I encourage fellow citizens to make a statement to judges and lawyers that Louisiana wants unanimous-majority felony verdicts rather than the potentially ruinous absolutism. The perhaps obsolete 48 U.S. states may not have yet reformed to the U.S. Constitution’s demand for impartiality.
On November 6 or before, vote no regarding Amendment 2.
Absolutely unanimous jury rule opposes justice (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_22f32460-d613-11e8-aa97-37f6ab4e0075.html)
Fellow citizens who want justice will vote against absolutely unanimous verdicts (12:0), because unanimous-majority verdicts (10:2) provide impartiality and suppress the criminal influence on juries.
Consider the juror who disrupted justice in a rape case because she does not believe DNA science; https://www.theadvocate.com/.../article_6354f0a4-cd9b.... Did a judge and lawyer finagle her onto the panel with the intention of disrupting justice? It's unbelievable, and that's why The Advocate personnel both report it and ignore it?
Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdicts came through Jim Crow years, as the rest of history came through those decades. But the unanimous-majority verdict came from the United States’ quest for liberty from English colonial oppression. When it debated U.S. Amendment VI, the Senate changed James Madison’s requirement that states provide unanimous juries to impartial juries. In 1879, former French colonial Louisiana, considering that fellow citizens have various psychologies respecting impartiality---some habitually impartial, some persuadable for or against impartiality, some indecisive, and some bigots and criminals---authorized the 9-3 unanimous-majority verdict. Some fellow citizens opposed Louisiana’s rule and in 1972, six years after the Civil Rights Act against racial discrimination---the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana’s provision of impartiality. England reformed to 10:2 verdicts in 1967 to lessen organized crimes influence or jurors. I doubt a popular vote can undo constitutional justice (see U.S. Amendment XIV.1 as well as Amendment VI), but I hope 2/3 of Louisianans reject Amendment 2.
National statistics demonstrate that absolute unanimity disrupts justice, often as hung juries. The victims suffer: in the case of murder, the victim’s family, the accused’s family, and fellow citizens especially those who support justice. The winners are among those who endorse Amendment 2, especially the judges, lawyers and other judicial workers in the hung-jury consequences. Actual cases for black victims are 120% more than for whites at a 700% disproportionate rate (2015 FBI data), so blacks are disproportionally victims of 12:0 jury rules; that’s how it is in 48 other states. Unjust.
Fellow citizens who seek justice for all the victims involved will vote “no” on Amendment 2.
Consider the juror who disrupted justice in a rape case because she does not believe DNA science; https://www.theadvocate.com/.../article_6354f0a4-cd9b.... Did a judge and lawyer finagle her onto the panel with the intention of disrupting justice? It's unbelievable, and that's why The Advocate personnel both report it and ignore it?
Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdicts came through Jim Crow years, as the rest of history came through those decades. But the unanimous-majority verdict came from the United States’ quest for liberty from English colonial oppression. When it debated U.S. Amendment VI, the Senate changed James Madison’s requirement that states provide unanimous juries to impartial juries. In 1879, former French colonial Louisiana, considering that fellow citizens have various psychologies respecting impartiality---some habitually impartial, some persuadable for or against impartiality, some indecisive, and some bigots and criminals---authorized the 9-3 unanimous-majority verdict. Some fellow citizens opposed Louisiana’s rule and in 1972, six years after the Civil Rights Act against racial discrimination---the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana’s provision of impartiality. England reformed to 10:2 verdicts in 1967 to lessen organized crimes influence or jurors. I doubt a popular vote can undo constitutional justice (see U.S. Amendment XIV.1 as well as Amendment VI), but I hope 2/3 of Louisianans reject Amendment 2.
National statistics demonstrate that absolute unanimity disrupts justice, often as hung juries. The victims suffer: in the case of murder, the victim’s family, the accused’s family, and fellow citizens especially those who support justice. The winners are among those who endorse Amendment 2, especially the judges, lawyers and other judicial workers in the hung-jury consequences. Actual cases for black victims are 120% more than for whites at a 700% disproportionate rate (2015 FBI data), so blacks are disproportionally victims of 12:0 jury rules; that’s how it is in 48 other states. Unjust.
Fellow citizens who seek justice for all the victims involved will vote “no” on Amendment 2.
Confirm Kavanaugh October 15 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d2693f70-b2cc-11e8-bc27-0b8506ba4bd9.html)
MWW
Letters
Typically smug scholarly fantasy (J. Gerald Kennedy) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_f69bf2e4-d878-11e8-972d-8b2335f5897a.html)
Kennedy expresses typical scholarly posture: individuality better than---aloof from fellow citizens. I quote, “. . . party mania: it trumps all sense of equal justice under the law and obliterates the common loyalties we feel as Americans one and all. Restoring bipartisanship, valuing compromise, promoting reasoned debate — it all seems like a lame civics project.”
When did We the People of the United States ever articulate common loyalties? Good grief: the civic, civil, and legal sentence that states the people’s purpose and goals in authorizing and limiting the U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788, have been repressed since April-May, 1789, when Congress began re-establishing Blackstone and Canterbury tradition.
When did We the People of the United States ever articulate common loyalties? Good grief: the civic, civil, and legal sentence that states the people’s purpose and goals in authorizing and limiting the U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788, have been repressed since April-May, 1789, when Congress began re-establishing Blackstone and Canterbury tradition.
What I’m loyal to I suspect Kennedy never imagined: mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that fellow citizens may responsibly pursue the happiness each perceives for his or her individual.
What I object to most is Kennedy’s smug complaints with no proposal for equal justice. We propose the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as the agreement on which to collaborate for equal justice. It has been available for 230 years.
“Everyone” and “we must all” tout undesirable compromise (Mary Larson) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_2f9d9d20-d87b-11e8-a9a1-a7ceeb82bcb2.html)
Larson perhaps misuses many wonderful words (responsible, get along, listen, individuals, republic, challenge). I feel especially alienated by “Our Democracy,” with the capital D, as though it is a religion or god. The Advocate personnel exacerbate confusion with their caption, “Everyone has a role in divisions of country,” to interpret her “We must all [rise to the challenge].”
Unity by exclusivities such as any of the theisms or none is not possible. Listening and compromising is subjugation. This country is great because the first legal sentence in the U.S. Constitution expresses individual choice: in essence, fellow citizens may choose civic integrity or not; individuals may agree or not. The idea that anyone “must” expresses coercion or force rather than choice. Society, civilization, community, and common values each expresses coercion. I think of one exception: each individual would benefit from “mutual, comprehensive safety and security.” Unpacking that phrase requires an essay, and some essays can be found by Googling the phrase, in quotation marks.
What fellow citizens have been offered for 230 years is the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. That agreement fulfills the human person’s need for commitment to collaborate for equal justice under law. What remains is a standard by which to discover statutory justice; laws that promote mutual, comprehensive safety and security are worthy. A method of discovery is to develop civic integrity in appreciation of the-objective-truth rather than in conflict and war for a dominant opinion.
While these ideas have not gone viral, they have developed from local library meetings and other discussions among over seventy people here and abroad. A host of skaters and trick-bikers at Perkins Road Park prompted the thought that the preamble encourages self-discipline rather than the bemusing classical-liberal notion of self-government.
The development of a creative appreciation for the preamble over the last five years may be explored (preferably recent essays first) on the blog found by googling “A Civic People” and taking the first URL.
The development of a creative appreciation for the preamble over the last five years may be explored (preferably recent essays first) on the blog found by googling “A Civic People” and taking the first URL.
Larson expresses a need. The agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution suggests relief from the divisions yet maintenance of human individuality.
To Paul Spillman: I'm a fellow citizen and all set to vote for Trump/Pence the third and fourth times. That only means I think they are the best choice for me and fellow citizens.
We think you and I have in common the need for mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that we each may pursue individual happiness as each perceives it. The first civic, civil, and legal sentence in the U.S. Constitution, the preamble, offers fellow citizens the opportunity to develop individual happiness with civic integrity.
I read, write, talk, and LISTEN in order to have the chance to collaborate with fellow citizens to develop statutory justice using the above ideas. We create library meetings and meet fellow citizens so as to make statements and then LISTEN for collaboration rather than derision. When someone expresses an ultimatum or stonewalls us, we accept their decision and hope for future willingness to collaborate for civic integrity.
Alone, we cannot discover civic integrity.
Alone, we cannot discover civic integrity.
Bemused by hopes and dreams (Dr. Jeanfreau) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_b0043f86-d87c-11e8-b482-1bb9678b398e.html)
Jeanfreau seems too bemused to imagine a land of freedom-from oppression so that each citizen may have the liberty-to responsibly pursue the happiness they perceive rather than the happiness a Christian priest, minister, or politician has for them.
Jeanfreau wrote, “Even if I am wrong about America being a Christian country, we are all still Americans.”
Jeanfreau, We the People of the United States agree to struggle for freedom-from oppression so as to develop civic integrity by which each individual may responsibly pursue individual happiness rather than your image for them.
If you can’t comprehend the preamble to the U.S. Constitution's neutrality to religion, remain a dissident who promotes the Christian thing to do. On that topic, in civic integrity, Christians might consider requiring schools to require uniforms that protect child intimacy rather than titillate teachers and administrators, both male and female.
The Advocate personnel caption absolute verdicts a burden on juries (Edward Wren) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_24dd2c7e-d6e2-11e8-ac87-43d076f7ac63.html)
I overlooked the fudge factor in the study: Absolute juries, 12:0, get it wrong up to 23% of the time!!!
In captioning Edward Wren’s letter, “Supreme Court rulings are not unanimous; Why should we place a burden on Louisiana juries?” I think The Advocate personnel unintentionally showed their true belief: Absolute verdicts, 12:0, are an unjust burden to jurors. If anything, Wren was critical of the Supreme Court’s unanimous-majority opinion (5-4) . . . in Wren’s opinion, “killing millions of unborn babies.”
But Wren’s last point, “other states seem to handle [unanimous jury vote] well.” does not reflect the data. For example, the Innocence Project cites an Illinois study, “which looked at 271 cases in four areas of Illinois . . . the judge . . . [agreed with the jury] in 77 percent of cases.” In other words, in a state with absolute juries (12:0), the jury gets it wrong up to 23% of the time.
Where to go for dinner is not a grave decision for a family, but I would not want to trust fellow citizens to try my felony accusation. I know that among them are people who erroneously think I am an atheist, others a racist, others a sexist. Yesterday, I was called a known right-winger in a party atmosphere of acquaintances; the accuser was a joker course. Beyond jokers, there are among my fellow citizens innocents (ignorant chronological adults), bigots, criminals, evils, aliens. The impartial unanimous-majority verdict, preferably 9:3, but currently 10:2, protects all victims from the criminal who actually creates the victims: him or her who suffered the crime and the family, the criminal’s family, We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble, and fellow citizens.
Judges, lawyers, and the whole gamut of judicial workers make money from the losses and misery of judicial processing.
Fellow citizen Wren, please consider the recent case wherein a man was convicted of raping a teenager fifteen years ago by a unanimous-majority verdict, 11:1. The dissenter “does not believe in DNA science.” With absolutism, her erroneous opinion would have caused a hung jury and a second process, further extending the anxieties, dismay, and financial burdens to the victims; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6354f0a4-cd9b-11e8-89c3-877571df8a47.html. The errant jurist is further disrupting the judicial proceedings and perhaps added fellow jurors to the victims list; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_3b45f44a-d6f7-11e8-993a-d7afd4002af4.html.
There never was a time when 23% error by absolute juries helped provide impartial trials. Now that DNA can be used to correct past errors, it is important to keep it and other forensic improvements effective by preserving and recommending Louisiana’s gift to Western civilization: the unanimous-majority felony verdict. Statutory justice needs a graduated system, with 9:3 on lesser incarceration, 10:2 for lifetime incarceration, and 11:1 for capital cases. I’m glad to suspect The Advocate personnel actually believe absolutism is a burden.
There never was a time when 23% error by absolute juries helped provide impartial trials. Now that DNA can be used to correct past errors, it is important to keep it and other forensic improvements effective by preserving and recommending Louisiana’s gift to Western civilization: the unanimous-majority felony verdict. Statutory justice needs a graduated system, with 9:3 on lesser incarceration, 10:2 for lifetime incarceration, and 11:1 for capital cases. I’m glad to suspect The Advocate personnel actually believe absolutism is a burden.
Fellow citizen Wren, I hope you will vote no on Amendment 2.
To Phil Stanley:
Fellow citizen, I think your ado is wrong.
The unanimous-majority verdict is a wonderful example of the challenge We the People of the United States has to 1) establish that entity's civic, civil, and legal powers, 2) overcome to colonial British tyranny of Blackstone common law and factional American religious right (Chapter XI Machiavellianism), 3) fulfill the 1791 U.S. requirement that states provide not absolute juries but impartial juries (Amendment VI), 4) defend French-influenced Louisiana's 1879 brilliance in creating the 9:3 unanimous-majority felony verdict so as to provide Amendment VI impartiality, 5) recommend to the perhaps obsolete 48 U.S. states to join with Louisiana and former colonist England (reformed to 10:2 verdicts in 1967) in using the unanimous-majority verdict, and 6) in the future, progress to a graduated system with 11:1 verdict allowed in capital cases.
Furthermore, my obsession with this issue has brought to my attention "Equal justice under law." That study strengthened my stand that a jury of my peers, that is Phil Beaver's peers, trusts-in and commits-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution so as to establish their responsibility to deliver equal justice under law.
Talk about not accepting a positive suggestion (Frank Stewart) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_8cde939e-b79d-11e8-81f5-0b34b6bb2677.html)
Stewart may consider that The Advocate personnel perhaps published his letter to expose Stewart-bigotry. That’s useful in civic freedom of the press.
Stewart whines that Gill “can’t accept a positive suggestion.”
Before the Lee statue was taken down, I contacted Stewart and suggested he use his powers to get plaques placed there to inform the public that the Civil War happened because of erroneous religious beliefs. While religious beliefs can offer private comfort and hopes, individuals are well advised not to cause actual harm or start wars based on religious beliefs. Only the-objective-truth is reliable.
The seven Confederate States of America, in February 1861 issued their declaration of secession from the Union. It stated grievances and concluded: “Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” War was in the air, especially starting in 1856 in Kansas, made bloody against abolitionists there to establish “free soil”.
Politically astute but lacking the civic integrity that clarity would bring, Abraham Lincoln on March 4, 1861, responded, “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.”
Who can tell from Lincoln’s words: for 7 states to break their vow in perpetuity to stay in the Union and to attack 27 stronger states over “more erroneous religious belief” is folly: military power will prevail (or better paraphrase)?
R. E. Lee could have been smart enough to both listen to fellow citizen Frederick Douglass’s 1852 admonition that no one claims to want to be a slave and to pay attention to “bleeding Kansas,” beginning in 1856. Not so: Lee paid his church ministers to stoke erroneous religious beliefs. Abolitionists were trying to tamper with Lee’s god’s plan. See https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27. (Lee’s folly has Biblical origins. For example, see Deuteronomy 9:5.) Attending to his family, Lee could have sold everything and moved to a free state.
Lee’s story of woe and ruin on motives he fortified with erroneous religious beliefs ought to be known by every human being. When there was a Lee Circle, attachment of the story might have justified the statue. However, now that the statue is gone, the story may be bronzed on the site to preserve the human triumph of the statue’s absence.
Where Lee statues still exist, they may remain a reminder of vain (fruitless) glory, or a plaque can stand alone.
With Lee’s story, the world has an illustration of the folly of paying religious preachers to tell you what you’d like to hear when the-objective-truth is as obvious as fellow citizens’ urgent expressions.
News
“Christian faith” a divider (Terry L. Jones) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_07dfe056-d6df-11e8-b310-b7366fcc5cad.html)
Reading the Page 1 announcement on a busy Friday morning, I made arrangements to attend a seeming demonstration of civic integrity, which can only be based on the-objective-truth such as the blood in our veins; fellow citizens are human beings. Returning to the article to make certain I knew where to go, Mayor Broome’s remarks excluded me, so I canceled the arrangements.
I (annoyingly some tell me) promote the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered fellow citizens in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I think the agreement tacitly offers collaboration for mutual, comprehensive safety and security. After only a few years of equal justice under the preamble’s agreement, fellow citizens might develop statutory justice according to the-objective-truth rather than arbitrary opinion such as religion.
The-objective-truth conforms to physics (physics as the object of study rather than the discovery process). I understand that everything emerges from Einstein’s general theory of relativity, perhaps recently proven, and if so, a law: E=mC-squared. Fiction, religion, and other human constructs derive from imagination about possibilities, to be either discovered or disproven. For example, some people imagine an entity controls the unfolding of actual reality.
By all means, blood-color negates the human-construct that skin color divides fellow citizens (even though color does not completely characterize blood). And the Wiker-Welch march at first thought seemed consistent with the preamble, so I made my plans. But Broome excluded me.
“Broome said. ‘If you take a poll, most people in Baton Rouge would say they're Christians. One of the fundamental principles of Christian faith is to love one another regardless of skin color.” (BTW, love as a civic practice is overboard: appreciation or goodwill is sufficient. Often, appreciation calls for privacy.)
Everyday evidence makes it plain that Christians are a divided people, and there is no hope for mutual, comprehensive safety and security under freedom of religion. Fellow citizens may be relieved of the under-my-god burden with the replacement of U.S. Amendment I’s religion clauses in order to protect the development of civic integrity. Free institutional religion to take its own course. Admit that spiritualism is not a civic, civil, or legal prerogative among We the People of the United States, even though Canterbury Protestantism is a constitutional partnership with specified seats in England’s Parliament.
These ideas come from the leading edge of five years’ meetings at local libraries, intended to develop the use of the preamble’s agreement to promote mutual, comprehensive safety and security, or civic integrity, or statutory justice, or individual happiness with civic morality. In such a culture, every responsible religion may either flourish under believers or perish with none.
It just occurred to me that I don’t know what the march means by “racial unity” so I’m doubly glad to be here writing. Best wishes to the Christians who march today for civic integrity, as some will.
To Gary Guillot: ". . . no one knows or offers a solution."
We have been conducting meetings at local libraries and elsewhere for the past five years to promote general use of the preamble's agreement, in order to develop civic morality. We now express civic morality as mutual, comprehensive safety and security, civic integrity, statutory justice, religious privacy, and in other ways.
Over sixty people have collaborated to advance the thoughts to phrases like those used in this post. Google "A Civic People" and take the first URL. Read from last post (to first if you wish) to understand and trace the developments.
Over sixty people have collaborated to advance the thoughts to phrases like those used in this post. Google "A Civic People" and take the first URL. Read from last post (to first if you wish) to understand and trace the developments.
Realizing that fellow citizens are busy living, we are an education non-profit with no intentions of revenue generation or obligation. People participate because they want to, and we hope that with awareness of the need for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, most people will want to keep the work going and growing; developing.
To Chad Brunswick: Mr. Brunswick: Some fellow citizens collaborate for equal justice under law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law) and others never considered agreeing to justice. In the U.S. the civic, civil, and legal agreement is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble is neutral to religion, gender, race, ethnicity, and more.
On first blush, it seems most people reject the preamble's agreement for one reason or another as they struggle to live and demand their preferences rather than justice. However, when ultimate justice is required, it seems to me We the People of the United States come through. Consider the Civil War by people with erroneous religious beliefs against the abolitionists. The ultimate justice of the people prevailed.
A better future is available if at least 2/3 of the individuals in every civic faction trusts-in and commits-to the agreement that offered in the preamble.
That is, for example, if within the next six months 2/3 of Baton Rouge residents individually understood and adopted the preamble's goals for 2019 living as the individual perceives the goals, within three years, an improved culture would be sensed in Baton Rouge. Within a dozen years, statutory justice would seem evident. Within thirty years, the path to civic integrity would emerge.
Consider the goal “. . . or Posterity.” The tacit meaning is that a heterosexual couple bond for monogamous life and may decide to procreate. If so, they encourage and coach their children to help develop a family culture that anticipates the parent’s grandchildren (the children’s children) and provides for the grandchildren’s lifetime to be better. Thereby, four grandparents-in-law participate in family and the grandchildren benefit from viewpoints from four heritages.
The fact that political regimes for the past 230 years have used false labels like “secular” to distract the people to neglect the preamble, the U.S. agreement for equal justice under law, does not mean you and I must continue to suffer that tyranny over the minds of we fellow citizens.
Writers for the press ought to be journaling the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (John Simerman) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/article_f0d16d04-d7aa-11e8-8971-a7e7a4bd6f5b.html)
“The educators coalition . . . are all working with the faith-based group Together Baton Rouge.”
What distinguishes that group as someone to work with? I think it’s the AMO threat of disruption and violence. “Together Baton Rouge is part of the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the nation’s oldest and largest broad-based organizing network.”; https://www.togetherbr.org/about. “The Industrial Areas Foundation was established in 1940 by Saul David Alinsky.” http://www.industrialareasfoundation.org/content/history. Alinsky advocated violence when his rights were at stake according to Alinsky; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI.
I never voted for David Duke or Bobby Jindal and dislike being in the room with people wearing TBR warnings, because I collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity. I do not encourage teachers to associate with AMO, IAF, and TBR.
Drake says it better than I do: ““We’re going to have school, our intention is to have school, and I think that the bulk of the teachers and employees will do the right thing. We are on the same page with our employees: We want you to have more money, but there is a right way to go about doing this and this is not it.”
Drake does not get into the AMO violence being threatened, but The Advocate personnel owe it to the public to avoid hiding evil as religion. I suggest referring to TBR as an Alinsky affiliate rather than “faith-based group” so that the public understands the disruption and violence implication.
Columns
Plan to reduce debt (Cal Thomas) (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/sns-201810221239--tms--cthomastq--b-a20181023-20181023-column.html)
“Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute proposal can be found at manhattaninstitute.org.”
"Stabilize the national debt around 95 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) through spending cuts and tax increases that gradually rise to 6 percent of GDP by 2048 against a current policy baseline, which in turn saves 3.7 percent of GDP in interest costs. In that year federal spending at 23.4 percent of GDP would be attached with revenues at 20.1 percent of GDP."
Writers for The Advocate unable to think (Dan Fagan) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_7844ec32-d6cc-11e8-959a-bf74fb3762d4.html)
Perhaps I’ve been wrong about The Advocate personnel intentionally publishing mendacity. Maybe they just cannot think, as Dan Fagan demonstrates today.
Fagan seems to have made two assumptions: a state that provides impartial verdicts rather than absolute verdicts harms black offenders and the reason it harms black offenders is that they are poor.
Fagan could have found the data that refutes his claim.
Consider the demographics of poverty by the numbers, as reported in http://www.pewhispanic.org/ph_2015-03_statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states-2013_current-32/. There were 48.7 million persons in poverty among whom the breakdown in millions is 13.0 Hispanics, 21.3 whites, 10.3 blacks, and 4.1 million others. Thus, only 21.1% of the nation’s poor are black.
Consider the demographics of poverty by the numbers, as reported in http://www.pewhispanic.org/ph_2015-03_statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states-2013_current-32/. There were 48.7 million persons in poverty among whom the breakdown in millions is 13.0 Hispanics, 21.3 whites, 10.3 blacks, and 4.1 million others. Thus, only 21.1% of the nation’s poor are black.
Statutory justice is intended to prevent crime and when it happens, to defend the victim. Data on murder shows blacks are often victims, as reported in https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers. “Of the 13,455 cases from last year in which the FBI listed a victim's racial information, 7,039 victims – or 52.3 percent – were black.” Nobody wins when the murder is identified, indicted, arraigned, and tried but goes free. Among the regrets, the acute losers are the victim’s family. The misery and loss are disproportionately high for blacks since they are only 13.3% of the population. Furthermore, “Among the roughly 6,000 cases in which the race of [both] the victim and the offender were known, the number of blacks killed by blacks rose to 2,380 [of 2665] or 89.3%.” It makes no sense to play Fagan’s white race-card when both parties are black. In fact, taking Fagan’s thoughtless advice hurts blacks, and the winners are the people who process the hung juries and other inefficiencies that 12:0 verdicts incur; obviously one of the winners is writers for the press. More injustice means more print.
Anecdotally, two recent cases allow sharp focus on the statutory justice that is provided by Louisiana’s 10:2 felony verdicts. First, there’s the case of a rape fifteen years ago, wherein The Advocate personnel paid no attention to the victim in reporting that one juror did not believe DNA evidence and is still trying to disrupt the 11:1 verdict; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6354f0a4-cd9b-11e8-89c3-877571df8a47.html. Second, a woman recognized her rapist at a party, reported it, and his DNA matched the 1998 sample taken in the woman’s exam; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_dbd11016-d3b4-11e8-b640-e7d7093d8d2e.html.
The Advocate personnel have egregiously failed their opportunity to help rape victims and others by encouraging voters to 1) make certain Louisiana’s 10:2 verdicts survive this egregious November 6 referendum, and 2) charge judges, lawyers, and other judicial system workers to make certain no juror who would claim he or she does not believe DNA evidence is ever seated on a jury, even after name change or other maneuvers. In other words, once that fact is known about a fellow citizen, his or her name is removed from the jury pool. Maybe The Advocate personnel have no intent; perhaps they just can’t think.
Which brings up another urgent charge to the Louisiana Legislature: Create a law that excludes from the jury pool any citizen who will not write a statement of commitment to equal justice under law, an adornment of this country’s Supreme Court building; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. I’d like them to attest to trust-in and commitment-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. This requirement goes beyond fellow citizenship, reaching the court itself.
I urge fellow citizens to preserve a Louisiana treasure and gift to the world: the unanimous-majority felony verdict, now at 10:2 and needing reform to Louisiana’s 1879 shining light, 9:3, to restore fulfillment of U.S. Amendment VI’s requirement that states provide impartial juries.
Vote “No” on Amendment 2.
Vote “No” on Amendment 2.
Second post: Two recent cases allow sharp focus on the statutory justice that is provided by Louisiana’s 10:2 felony verdicts.
First, there’s the case of a rape fifteen years ago. The Advocate personnel paid no attention to the victim in reporting that one juror did not believe DNA evidence and is still trying to disrupt the 11:1 verdict; https://www.theadvocate.com/.../article_6354f0a4-cd9b.... How would lawyers and a judge allow input from a person who does not believe DNA evidence in the first place? But the 10:2 verdict rule may save all victims in this case.
Second, a woman recognized her rapist at a party, reported it, and his DNA matched the 1998 sample taken in the woman’s exam; https://www.theadvocate.com/.../article_dbd11016-d3b4.... His trial will come up after January 1, 2019. Who are the fellow citizens who want to subject the victims to a 12:0 verdict requirement? We already know some lawyers and judges and The Advocate personnel want it.
The Advocate personnel have egregiously failed their opportunity to help rape victims and others by encouraging voters to 1) make certain Louisiana’s 10:2 verdicts survive this egregious November 6 referendum, and 2) charge judges, lawyers, and other judicial system workers to make certain no juror who would claim he or she does not believe DNA evidence is ever seated on a jury, even after name change or other maneuvers. In other words, once that fact is known about a fellow citizen, his or her person is removed from the jury pool.
Maybe The Advocate personnel have no intent; perhaps they just can’t think.
First, there’s the case of a rape fifteen years ago. The Advocate personnel paid no attention to the victim in reporting that one juror did not believe DNA evidence and is still trying to disrupt the 11:1 verdict; https://www.theadvocate.com/.../article_6354f0a4-cd9b.... How would lawyers and a judge allow input from a person who does not believe DNA evidence in the first place? But the 10:2 verdict rule may save all victims in this case.
Second, a woman recognized her rapist at a party, reported it, and his DNA matched the 1998 sample taken in the woman’s exam; https://www.theadvocate.com/.../article_dbd11016-d3b4.... His trial will come up after January 1, 2019. Who are the fellow citizens who want to subject the victims to a 12:0 verdict requirement? We already know some lawyers and judges and The Advocate personnel want it.
The Advocate personnel have egregiously failed their opportunity to help rape victims and others by encouraging voters to 1) make certain Louisiana’s 10:2 verdicts survive this egregious November 6 referendum, and 2) charge judges, lawyers, and other judicial system workers to make certain no juror who would claim he or she does not believe DNA evidence is ever seated on a jury, even after name change or other maneuvers. In other words, once that fact is known about a fellow citizen, his or her person is removed from the jury pool.
Maybe The Advocate personnel have no intent; perhaps they just can’t think.
Other fora
My facebook
I’m writing again to encourage fellow citizens to preserve Louisiana’s 10:2 impartial unanimous-majority felony-jury verdicts. Its provision of impartiality is required by U.S. Amendment VI (1791) which revised centuries-old British imposition of absolutism: 12:0 verdicts. Louisiana brilliantly provided 9:3 verdicts in 1879, and England followed suit with 10:2 verdicts in 1967. Louisiana criminals fought the impartial unanimous-majority felony-jury verdicts ever since, and in Johnson vs Louisiana (1972), eight years after the non-discrimination Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdicts. The other 48 states may reform to impartial verdicts in their own ways and times.
The Advocate personnel report recent rape cases wherein the raped and put-off victim would face additional injustice if Louisiana required absolute, 12:0, felony jury verdicts, egregiously ignoring the importance of 10:2 felony verdicts. The two cases allow sharp focus on the statutory justice that Louisiana’s 10:2 felony verdicts provide now but may terminate on January 1 due to the referendum I believe to be unconstitutional at least three ways.
First, there’s the rape victim from fifteen years ago. The Advocate personnel paid no attention to the victims in reporting that one juror did not believe DNA evidence and is still trying to disrupt the 11:1 verdict; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6354f0a4-cd9b-11e8-89c3-877571df8a47.html. How do lawyers and a judge allow participation by a person who does not believe DNA evidence? Hopefully, the 10:2 verdict rule will save all victims (including a civic people) in this case.
Second, a woman recognized her rapist at a party, reported it, and his DNA matched the 1998 sample taken in the woman’s exam. See https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_dbd11016-d3b4-11e8-b640-e7d7093d8d2e.html. His trial will come up after January 1, 2019. Who are the fellow citizens who want to subject the victims to an absolute 12:0 verdict requirement? We already know some lawyers and judges and The Advocate personnel want it. Shame on them.
The Advocate personnel have egregiously failed their opportunity to help rape victims and others. The Advocate personnel could encourage voters to 1) make certain Louisiana’s 10:2 verdicts survive the egregious November 6 referendum.
DNA, a relatively recent forensic tool is used to exonerate innocent convicts. I charge judges, lawyers, and other judicial system workers to make certain no juror who would claim he or she does not believe DNA evidence is ever seated on a jury.
I hope the people of Louisiana reject Amendment 2 by 67% majority in order to put Louisiana Legislators who created the egregious referendum on notice to reform to civic, civil, and legal integrity.
https://www.quora.com/When-we-deny-one-class-of-citizens-its-rights-are-the-rest-of-us-impoverished?
The question: When we deny one class of citizens its rights, are the rest of us impoverished?I think Gary Peters is making a statement more than asking a question but am left in a quandary.
Who is the “we”; what rights; what classification; what kind of impoverishment? I’m bored to wait for a response to these questions so will answer to my assumptions.
A human being establishes his or her rights by agreeing to equal justice under law (1932); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. Scholars vainly debate the meaning of a 431 BC Athenian origin of the principle, many politicians trying to use it to justify their personal god, perhaps based on some scripture, or some other claim to better opinion so as to control other people.
But each human being is an expendable god facing death. That is, each person may develop the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) he or she possesses in order to discover and practice integrity . . . or not. The choice to develop criminality may not lessen IPEA yet risks constraint. Bernard Madoff would not be in jail if he had fled the country and taken an obscure identity and lifestyle. Many abusers risk their claims to “rights”.
I consider the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as the basis for equality in this country, for me and perhaps other fellow citizens. Each citizen may discipline his or her pursuit of individual happiness with civic integrity using the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the preamble. Fellow citizens may collaborate to discover and apply not a dominant opinion but the-objective-truth, the standard for statutory justice.
Fellow citizens may ignore or oppose the agreement offered in the preamble, and thereby separate themselves from We the People of the United States. If ignorance or opposition leads to actually-real harm, the dissident may suffer statutory justice.
I think people who do not use their IPEA to develop integrity deny themselves the opportunity for equality, and the agreement to collaborate for equal justice is stated in this country by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
But that’s for my conduct, for me to share, and for me to listen to fellow citizens who care to comment. With acceptance or improvements on my statements, I collaborate for an achievable better future.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-find-it-a-shame-that-in-the-year-2018-in-America-we-are-still-debating-things-such-as-womens-rights-womens-right-to-equal-pay-racism-and-things-of-this-nature?
The question: Do you find it a shame that in the year 2018 in America we are still debating things such as women's rights, women's right to equal pay, racism, and things of this nature?
I don’t think “shame” is a functional assessment and would refer to the situation as an opportunity to change the general view of responsibility. People are focused on assumed rights and many people also demand that government fulfill those rights. Many don’t understand that meeting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a personal pursuit rather than a government provision.
I think, with ulterior motives, most people reject or suppress the physical and psychological power each human being has and may develop. The motives vary from being taken care of to coercing or forcing people to submit to your care.
I can’t explain how, but the delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia, the framers of U.S. federalism, a representative republic designed to prevent democracy, produced a sentence on which a better future may be established. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is an agreement, which I paraphrase: willing individuals in our state want to live according to the purpose and goals stated herein and therefore specify a limited nation, the United States, to serve the people in their states. The preamble is an agreement that divides fellow citizens into people who agree to the statement and people who don’t.
Among the framers, 1/3 did not sign the 1787 Constitution, some because they did not approve of the preamble’s individualism and wanted “We the People of the United States” to read “We the States” naming each one. Other dissenters demanded that the British tradition of partnership with a Protestant God must be preserved.
For such reasons, the civic, civil, and legal power of the preamble has been suppressed by the church-state partnerships that have controlled American governance and by the oligarchy that competes for a dominant opinion.
The legal power of the preamble was effected when the United States was established on June 21, 1788, when the required nine states ratified the 1787 Constitution: the Union ended the 1774 confederation of states. The Union began operations with eleven member states on March 4, 1789, and has grown to fifty. The Civil War proved that secession is possible with sufficient military power.
The preamble is neutral to religion as well as gender, race, and ethnicity. As with understatement in all of the goals, the family duty to the parents’ grandchildren is specified as “our Posterity.” Some of the preamble’s civic and civil power was rendered dormant by the religion clauses in the First Amendment. I propose to replace them with constitutional protection of integrity and its development. The Supreme Court building is adorned with the phrase “Equal justice under law.” The preamble is the agreement on which fellow citizens may practice that principle.
For the preamble’s achievability to become evident, most fellow citizens may trust-in and commit-to its civic requirement: self-discipline. With widespread self-discipline respecting the few goals stated in the preamble, voting would manage elected officials so that they would also behave as fellow citizens who trust-in and commit-to the preamble.
Consider, for example, jury duty. I do not plan to be the object of a jury trial. However, if I was, I would require that a jury my peers may both declare and demonstrate that they behave according to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
I perceive you asked a broad question, and I tried to respond with a proposal to act on an opportunity. I write to learn, so I hope for comments.
My facebook page
Again, I write to persuade fellow citizens that we have a landmark opportunity to stand for ourselves and our own financial viability and to constrain the cost of statutory justice, by voting “No” on Amendment 2 on November 6.
I was shocked by The Advocate personnel’s April fool’s and Easter attack on the justice of Louisiana’s state and U.S. constitutional unanimous-majority felony verdicts. My first thought was that the U.S., let alone Louisiana, would have difficulty to provide a jury of my legal peers. My peers, for civic, civil, and legal purposes trust-in and commit-to the fellow-citizens’ agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. That may surprise many, but it ought not, even though political regimes repress the power of the preamble.
The problem is that few fellow citizens ponder beyond yeh, yeh, I know: “we, the people.” Some fellow citizens quote the agreement, at least somewhat, but few assert that they behave accordingly. Many, erroneously influenced by societies, think the preamble conflicts with associations they support. For example, some religions label the preamble “secular” when the agreement is neutral to religion as well as gender, race, and ethnicity. The preamble definitely conflicts with crime and false reporting. Albert Einstein said that civic citizens don’t lie so as to lessen misery and loss rather than to follow some “divine” law.
The tension of widespread mendacity motivated me to study the idea of justice. The 1932 U.S. Supreme Court building is adorned with the phrase “Equal justice under law”; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. A phrase like that is attributed to Pericles about Athens’ law 2,400 years ago. Scholars and politicians toy with the idea for reasons they may or may not want to explain. However, for the individual during his or her candle, the practicality is that a fellow citizen develops equality by collaborating for and practicing justice during his or her lifetime. In other words, the fellow citizen trusts-in, commits-to, and collaborates to improve the statutory law.
When fellow citizens are divided on statutory law, some collaborating for justice and some opposed to justice, a jury that includes citizens who oppose justice ought to be avoided if not prevented. Further, among citizens who favor justice, in a particular dispute between the actual victim (perhaps a murdered person’s family) and the accused, some fellow citizens are different: some are habitually impartial, some may be persuaded by courtroom excellence, some are indecisive, and some are bigots by habit more than intent. Thus, absolute verdicts, whether 3:0 or 12:0 do not serve justice. However, unanimous-majority verdicts, whether 5:4 or 7:5 favor impartiality. For Louisiana to change from 10:2 to 12:0 would be an egregious regression, since impartiality is the constitutional norm in this state.
These issues raise the question of how a state provides an impartial jury-pool according to U.S. Amendment VI. I do not expect to be the accused in a felony trial. However, if I were, I would require the state to provide a jury of fellow citizens who both declare and give evidence that they behave according to the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. This may seem shocking, but the preamble is the first legal statement in the U.S. Constitution, repressed as its legality may be.
The people of the Great State of Louisiana, part of the rest of the world, have the universal heritage of slavery, the Church’s doctrine of discovery, the Church’s “authorization” of the slave-trade with Africa, and the imposition of English tradition as Blackstone and a Canterbury mimic. After establishment 230 years ago, the U.S. has just begun to recover from British tradition. Perhaps French colonial Louisiana made the unanimous-majority felony verdict happen; in 1879. It is fitting that England adopted it, allowing 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdicts in 1967. England’s stated purpose is to lessen the influence of organized crime on the jury system.
I charge the Louisiana Legislature to amend the Louisiana Constitution so as to require each candidate for elected office, candidates for appointed office, and jurors to demonstrate that he or she agrees to the civic, civil, and legal purpose and goals stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Meanwhile, I hope voters will maintain Louisiana relief from British colonialism and perhaps a French-colonial gift to themselves by rejecting, on November 6, Amendment 2 . . . hopefully by 67% of the vote.
https://www.quora.com/If-killing-an-innocent-people-can-save-all-the-humans-lives-should-we-kill-him?
I can only answer for myself.
No one could persuade me to be the executioner.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-feel-like-far-left-ideology-and-social-justice-warriors-will-be-the-cause-of-society-falling-apart?
The question: Do you feel like far left ideology and social justice warriors will be the cause of society falling apart?
I don’t understand “society” in this context and prefer to think of the people; as “the nation.”
Fellow citizens of the United States are divided into two groups: those who more or less trust-in and commit-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as the civic, civil, and legal agreement on which fellow citizens are equal and those who don’t. I like to consider those two groups as 1) a civic people and 2) dissidents to equal justice under law. Yet they are fellow citizens. But if a dissident against justice causes actual harm, he or she may be accused, indicted, arraigned, perhaps face a jury trial, conviction, and penalties, incarceration, or worse.
Fellow citizens have in common individual desire for mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Within either of the groups, there are almost as many ways of seeking security as there are individuals. However, some individuals have similar ideas and some of them form associations and societies.
Gregarious individuals may belong to several societies. However, most fellow citizens, or the people, or the nation, or all inhabitants want security. Security is so essential many people consider it an individual responsibility and American citizens tend to take that responsibility. Civic citizens prefer to live rather than to disrupt life, and sooner or later, warriors come to understand their leaders use them to promote themselves.
I view the question as: Will the people, that is the nation, fall apart because of a divisive ideology? No.
Societies have limited value to the individual, and when the society no longer serves the individual’s interests, he or she quits. That’s because the human being is the most psychologically powerful species on earth. The individual is more powerful than a society, because he or she may choose to leave the society. However, civic people are essential to the individual, and therefore most individuals are ultimately faithful to the people. The world is so divided that this principle cannot hold worldwide, but most citizens are faithful to their nation, meaning people.
Many Americans do not understand “equal justice under law.” That’s because scholars, for ulterior motives, are unreliable in their explanation of it. The practicable phrase means that individuals who believe in justice equally collaborate to discover and observe the statutory law. In the U.S., the agreement under which citizens are equal is the preamble, civic people applying its purpose and goals for 2018 living.
Citizens today have plenty of incentive to look to the preamble’s agreement for relief from hostilities. First, life is too short to dedicate the only life an individual has to social justice warlording: one person’s social justice is another person’s tyranny.
Second, no generation in 229 years has considered, practiced, promoted, and celebrated the preamble so as to establish the civic discipline by which the people may manage their own lives and then hold elected and appointed officials in local, state, and federal offices to perform so as to fulfill the preamble’s purpose and goals.
Some of the people of 1860 allowed their state legislatures to break a perpetual vow of unity and secede from the Union. The resulting war cost perhaps 750,000 lives, equivalent to 8 million lives with today’s population. That lesson is too severe to ignore, and 2018 people enjoy better access to knowledge and communication. Therefore, 2018 people may voluntarily collaborate using the preamble and the-objective-truth to establish civic integrity. It can happen merely because the idea is being published and people want security.
I read, write, talk, and meet to promote the preamble’s agreement and hope my response helps raise interest in an individual method which may collectively achieve a better future.
My facebook page
Louisiana citizens are individually privileged to have the opportunity to uphold justice by voting a landmark “no” on Amendment 2.
It is perhaps a once in a lifetime chance to make the statement: I favor impartiality rather than popular opinion; a civic people rather than self-styled victims; today’s goodwill rather than yesterday’s failures; fellow citizens for justice rather than extant offenders; the people rather than the service faction (that is citizens for justice more than workers in the system for adjudication).
Let me bore you with the “chance of a lifetime” details.
Unfortunately, the political regimes do not encourage and coach fellow citizens to ponder the big questions (like, am I a person?) with the intent to resolve the questions for individual benefit. Fellow citizens who are in leadership positions perceive individual advantage by not collaborating for mutual, comprehensive safety and security. In other words, leaders do not overcome personal, ulterior motives enough to collaborate with fellow citizens. Many leaders do not even think of themselves as fellow citizens. Even scholars work to promulgate rather than resolve these questions. Such “leaders” are commonly referred to as “the elites,” and fellow citizens erroneously expect the elites to discipline themselves even though individuals do not so discipline themselves. These circularly ruinous politics have brought the U.S. to a possible abyss. The possibility for ascension to begin in 2019 rests on the individual fellow-citizen.
Some individuals discover that their life is a mere whisper in the overall journey of both humankind and the evolution of physics. By physics, I mean the object of study rather than the study. I comprehend that everything emerges from the relationship E=mC2 and assert that there’s a better understanding. Even fiction emerges from physics as plausible imagination built on what is unknown. The fictions labeled “romance” or “religion” can be even more imaginative, because they do not need to conform to actual reality; they can be otherworldly.
The amount of knowledge humankind possesses in all categories of each fiction and non-fiction is unfathomable to a human individual. Therefore, the meaning of a human life depends upon the choices the person makes and the interests he or she pursues. The individual who nourishes banal appetite is not likely to enjoy a complete human life.
If the person knew the individual he or she would like to be just before death, decisions made from earliest awareness, perhaps age 3 to 7, might be made to enhance self-discovery and assure the path to individually preferred psychological maturity. In a culture that encouraged and coached the individual to take charge of his or her life, humankind’s progress toward mutual, comprehensive safety and security might accelerate due to the collective actions of individuals.
For a positive outcome, children would be encouraged and coached progressively into goodwill yet self-reliance; collaborative civic morality; civic integrity; freedom from external constraints and internal harm; liberty to live responsibly; action on thought more than emotions; and responsible individual happiness. The family would know that parents and children develop so as to enhance the lives of the parent’s grandchildren so that each person has the equality and dignity to receive constructive ideas from four grand-parents-in-law or a close equivalent provision.
By age 30 or more, the individual would know that career is for needed service, self-development, and wealth-building so as not to burden the children and grandchildren. Most people would know that the human being is like a god facing death: he or she has the individual power, the individual integrity, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either establish integrity or not. The person who chooses criminality has no less IPEA, but may encounter statutory justice.
So far, political regimes known in history have one goal: power by which they may control the people. I know of one constitutional nation that is predicated on the people authorizing elected and appointed officials to fulfill a purpose with specified goals. However, the nation so authorized has yet to emerge, because most citizens do not accept the IPEA even though they cannot avoid IPEA. Many persons work hard to subrogate their IPEA to some other party; a religion, a government, an activist group that opposes civic integrity, or an alien cause.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution, in my paraphrase, asserts: fellow citizens in our state unite with civic people in other willing states to authorize the United States to serve us according to the purpose and goals stated herein. A key provision is methods to amend the constitution so as to correct both known injustices yet to be resolved and provisions---laws and institutions---whose harm is to be discovered. For example, "freedom of religion" needs to be reformed to freedom to pursue integrity. Freedom of the press needs to reformed to the responsibility of the press, much like Congress' responsibilities are specified.
Many developments within humankind converged as the opportunity the preamble offers fellow citizens. Regarding temporal unknowns as mysteries (that is, holding current unknowns to be mysteries), led to religions, theisms, monotheisms, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other divisive hopes and comforts. Slavery, taken for granted in the Code of Hammurabi was practiced with exceptional cruelty by the Athenian democracy that expressed the principle equality under law. The Church canonized a New Testament with the affirmation of arrogant slave-beating in 1 Peter 2:18-25. Further, fifteenth-century papal bulls “authorized” the African slave-trade to help first Portugal then Spain colonize the Americas. We the People of the United States reject mystery as civic morality, beating humans, slavery, and colonization.
Both Christianity and slavery are issues used by “the elites” to bemuse fellow citizens and keep them from trusting-in and committing-to the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble. In other words, to keep the people from collaborating with each other for civic integrity. Meanwhile, the elites build their wealth at the expense of the people.
I have been reading, writing, talking, and LISTENING to the few who will speak for the last four decades, now mid-way in my eighth decade. The ideas I have shared, above, are not favored by scholars, law professors, politicians, clergy, historians, the elites, and therefore, most people never encountered them. Most fellow citizens admit to IPEA but can’t imagine actually developing integrity.
Integrity is a process and a practice: given a concern, do the work to understand if the concern is imaginary like a mirage; do the work to understand the cause of concern, its core driver, and how to benefit from the understanding; behave to benefit from the understanding; share the reasons for your behavior with fellow citizens and LISTEN to their reactions; if they offer an improvement, help develop it; if discovery demands a new understanding, take advantage of the discovery as fast as possible.
The attack on Louisiana’s unique gift to the world, the unanimous-majority jury verdict, arose from the leading edge of 139 years’ opposition. It came from a book that exploits the Jim Crow age that ensued from at least 3800 years of slavery, competition over “chosen” people, and 1482 years with a canonized New Testament. The exploiting book became the idol for personal fame by one religious Louisiana lawyer, who developed a resolution by the Louisiana State Bar Association. The resolution obfuscates Louisiana's 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict's origins in U.S. law. The 1787 U.S. Constitution was deliberately designed to free Americans from British colonial oppression. U.S. Amendment VI rejected British traditional “unanimous” in favor of “impartial” juries required in the states; former French colony, then state in 1812, Louisiana provided impartiality with 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts; both Louisiana and the US Supreme Courts affirmed the 9:3 verdicts in 1972. To denigrate justice on the basis of a scholarly book is wrongful more than error.
Fellow citizens in this country have never had unity but do have individuality if the person wants it; thank goodness. Statutory justice is not easy; it conforms to the-objective-truth rather than popular opinion.
Louisiana citizens have a landmark opportunity to vote for statutory justice by voting “No” on Amendment 2 on November 6.
I hope the vote is 67% “No,” reflecting that ultimate justice of the people does not require absolutism.
For example, among the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional convention in Philadelphia, the framers of the U.S., 2/3 were signers, making the preamble available to fellow citizens who want equal justice under law.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-dislike-your-nationality-Why?
Fellow citizens recognize injustice wherever they are. Civic fellow citizens collaborate during every moment of adult living to increase statutory justice in their country.
The Athenian Greeks, 2400 years ago, expressed the principle equal justice under law. Scholars debate support for ulterior motives for that principle today.
However, in my country, the U.S., an equalizing agreement is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is both a civic and a civil (legal) agreement.
Citizens are in a myriad of psychological postures. Some reject the agreement. Some reject justice. However, they remain fellow citizens and equals as long as their behavior does not cause actual harm. If so, they may answer to the laws that are developed using the preamble’s purpose and goals.
I work to bring the preamble to fellow-citizens’ attention and think the preamble promises an achievable better future.
I feel fortunate to have been born in America, in Knoxville, TN, to have met MWW in Baton Rouge, LA, and to have friendships/acquaintance with people from over forty ethnic backgrounds.
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.
