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
Activists against fellow citizens (Carling Dinkler) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_364d36b6-d313-11e8-9f43-db668880491b.html)
The change from unanimous-majority verdicts (10:2) to absolute verdicts (12:0) would decrease impartiality, increase hung-juries, which means an additional trial, and increase costs to the victims (in their respective categories including the accused's family)
Who are the victims and victim-families? See https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers.
“Of the 13,455 cases from [2015] in which the FBI listed a victim's racial information, 7,039 victims – or 52.3 percent – were black. That compares with 5,854 cases – or 43.5 percent – in which the victim was white. [The 20% disparity in numbers is] more pronounced in [proportionality], as 2015 Census estimates suggest that whites account for 77.1 percent of the overall U.S. population of roughly 321 million, while blacks comprise 13.3 percent.” The 120% disparity in numbers is 700% disparity by proportion.
Dinkler states “Recent reports show that the advocacy effort has raised $2.3 million.” We may assume that money is coming from factions who have no concern for the victims of crime; at least, I make that assertion.
Fellow citizens, to stand up against crime and the judges, lawyers, and judicial workers who gain revenues from the victims of crime, vote “No” on Amendment 2.
News
Opinion against impartial juries founded on an easily checked lie (Gordon Russel) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_ca65d8fa-d276-11e8-a43a-e75014a9ccfb.html)
This report illustrates the poor service a civic people of Louisiana receive from some judges, lawyers, professors, and newspapers at responding to political violence. “A civic people” refers to fellow citizens who comprehend, trust-in, and commit-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution on which people may collaborate to discover and establish in this nation equal justice under law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. Fellow citizens may choose to oppose justice but may suffer statutory integrity as a consequence.
“Judge Stephen Beasley relied heavily on research by historians and legal scholars as well as an exhaustive analysis published this year by The Advocate.” Beasley could have relied on the U.S. Constitution, especially Johnson v Louisiana (1972): “The Court held that less-than-unanimous convictions did not violate the reasonable doubt standard embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.” https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/69-5035
The Advocate’s work is seems like policy based evidence gathering rather than data collection and analysis, exhaustive as the personnel’s emotions may have run.
“[Lawyer Richard] Bourke , who has challenged the split-jury law in many forums over the years [holds] that Louisiana’s majority-verdict law was deliberately introduced to discriminate against black people.” Bourke’s opinions are founded in the mendacity: “. . . in 1898, this law was introduced for racist reasons, and it still has a racist effect," when it was created in 1879 and enacted in 1880 to fulfill U.S. Amendment VI requirement that states provide impartial juries.
Among fellow citizens who qualify for jury duty there are a mixture of psychological characteristics: habitually impartial, persuadable, indecisive, bigoted, criminal, evil, and alien. The judicial system strives to limit selected jurors to the first two characteristics. However, it is a competitive process, wherein the defense is trying to establish doubt so that impartial jurors cannot reason (construct) conviction. Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdicts provide impartiality by keeping those indecisive, bigoted, criminal, evil, and alien characteristics from dominating the trial. With its French heritage, Louisiana created unanimous-majority verdicts 88 years before England lessened the influence of organized crime by allowing 10:2 verdicts.
If Bourke and Beasley are unaware of these facts, it only emphasizes their inadequacy for the people of Louisiana. Nevertheless, the claims in this report, by professors and others, bring to mind a question all the players may ask themselves: Am I among the follow citizens who, during their adult lives, collaborate for statutory justice . . . or not? I would not dare answer for anyone but do not want to sit on a jury with fellow citizens who oppose justice, whether by ignorance or intent.
This is the first time I note that The Advocate personnel report opinion from LSU’s Law Center, with whom the Louisiana Legislature holds a contract for advice. I surmised that LSU advice favors unanimous-majority verdicts for their contribution to impartial adjudication. It is encouraging that Professor Raymond Diamond cites “those who want to preserve the split-jury law,” and expresses a strategy. Anna Garcie (https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-garcie-29910b36) seems to lead the strategy in her statement, "Skewed datasets such as . . . The Advocate study cannot be the basis . . . to hold unconstitutional a statewide jury verdict scheme . . . that has been approved by the United States and Louisiana Supreme Courts." Nationwide, 12:0 verdicts 700% disproportionally hurt black fellow citizens.
Even if the voters uphold the unanimous-majority jury law, the dissidents will not be satisfied and there will always be people like Saul Alinsky, who said violence is justified when he thinks his rights have been denied (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI) or Alinsky-student Hillary who cannot be civil; https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/hillary-clinton-civility-congress-cnntv/index.html.
Nonetheless, if ever We the People of the United States, as defined by the preamble, will emerge, the time is now, the place is Louisiana, and the center of attention is Baton Rouge. We the People of the United States does not exist because too many fellow citizens erroneously believe an imagined advantage by not collaborating for statutory justice. Our generation can end the folly of political violence.
Nonetheless, if ever We the People of the United States, as defined by the preamble, will emerge, the time is now, the place is Louisiana, and the center of attention is Baton Rouge. We the People of the United States does not exist because too many fellow citizens erroneously believe an imagined advantage by not collaborating for statutory justice. Our generation can end the folly of political violence.
On November 6, vote “No” regarding Amendment 2.
DA John DeRosier supports impartial justice (Gordon Russel and John Simerman) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_d656730c-d20a-11e8-9036-cfd509895b09.html)
The Advocate personnel divested themselves of any responsibility for what they publish.
They published Gordon Russel and John Simerman’s mendacities. “Louisiana’s current law is an update to an 1898 law – conceived in a notoriously racist constitutional convention -- that allowed convictions with just nine of 12 jurors in concurrence.” Louisiana’s 9:3 law was conceived in 1880; I cite an earlier article by The Advocate staff; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_5db560ac-3a8e-11e8-b5de-874f8cdde5a5.html.
“For the first 86 years of Louisiana’s statehood, juries were required to come back with unanimous verdicts, just as they do in the rest of the states.” Not so: With statehood in 1812, and 9:3 juries in 1880, that’s 68 years under colonial British oppression like the other 38 states at the time. Two keys to Louisiana’s brilliant provision of impartial juries, as required by U.S. Amendment VI, was the fact that Louisiana had been a French rather than English colony and in 1880 had in 1877 been relieved of Union control under Reconstruction. To arbitrarily associate Louisiana’s brilliant response to Amendment VI by incorporating racist comments uttered eighteen years later is egregious mendacity. Moreover, to not share with the public that England, in 1967, reformed from its own error by enacting 10:2 verdicts is egregious by The Advocate personnel.
“Whether or not . . . in April . . . nearly all DAs opposed the change, the sentiments now appear to be running about 50-50 . . .” is fabrication with intent, as demonstrated by the rest of the coverage: the DA poll stands at 8 declared for 10:2, 9 for 12:0, and 25 other, for a total of 42. That’s perhaps 19% for 10:2, 21% for 12:0, and 60% not saying. The problem I perceive is that DAs have to work with judges and lawyers who stand to gain revenues from the people of Louisiana if 12:0 verdicts are required.
I personally regret Hillar Moore III favoring the class of lawyers who oppose equal justice under the law, or impartiality, for the sake of public perceptions, because I witnessed to my neighbors that I considered Moore an authentic man. DA John DeRosier is mild in the statement, “I do not think going to unanimous jury verdicts is going to provide more justice to anyone. And I'm concerned it could provide less justice to our victims." See the recent local case wherein a person claims not to believe in DNA evidence to justify acquittal in a rape conviction: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6354f0a4-cd9b-11e8-89c3-877571df8a47.html. The bruhaha that rogue juror has made increases the pain the rape victim has suffered now fifteen years and the myriad of other victims.
Does Moore care about that woman’s suffering from the rape? It is difficult to imagine Moore ignoring such strong evidence in favor of 10:2 verdicts; how can he face the prosecutors who work for him? I’m afraid he falls in the basket with Dan Claitor: someone I will never vote for. Claitor bore witness to his own lack of integrity decades ago and made the case that some lawyers take lack of integrity for granted. It seems many adults these days have never individually encountered integrity. When I was 29, bosses ordered me to lie to a foreign-government regulatory-authority. I did not cooperate, and the lie was not issued. I consider my experience an encounter with integrity.
I think the people of Louisiana will kill Amendment 2, but if not, when the income increases the judges and lawyers collect from hung juries move the needle of the people's costs, Moore’s stated reservations will not correct his errors published today. It is not too late for him to recant and state reform to publically recommend 10:2 verdicts. Claitor could recant, too. Courageous is the person who admits to a major mistake in time to negate its effect.
TO BE CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Even Moore's idea of reacting to “criticism of [Louisiana’s U.S. constitutional, impartial] jury system” seems erroneous and weak: simply keep acting for impartiality, because all non-criminal people ultimately want justice as the basis of equality. National data (most with 12:0 verdicts) shows 13% of the time juries get it wrong and black victims are 700% disproportionally hurt by the absolutism of 12:0 verdicts. I suppose Claitor and Moore stonewalled conversations with Attorney General Jeff Landry, who mildly says 10:2 verdicts are efficient for justice; thereby, only 17% of the cost of providing impartial juries is dedicated to negate indecisive, bigoted, or criminal fellow citizens! Landry is speaking for victims: the direct victim; his or her families and friends; the family and friends of the accused, indicted, arraigned, and on trial fellow citizen; fellow citizens who collaborate for statutory justice under the agreement to use the-objective-truth in the determination (citizens who have read, understand, trust-in, and commit-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as the rule of law under which fellow citizens are equal), and all the people of Louisiana who experience more of state revenues spent on jury trials.
The people whose future chances for personal income are lessened if the people uphold the 10:2 jury system are the judges, lawyers, and other judicial servants of the people who will process the hung juries and other inefficiencies Moore already “fears” and the inefficiencies Landry implied. It’s not too late to reform for civic integrity, and that holds for everyone who ignores the facts about a Louisiana gift to the world: the unanimous-majority felony-jury verdict.
Second post:
Hillar Moore III “fears an uptick in hung juries” as he takes action in support of a wrongful deed by the legislators who constructed and then those who voted for Act 493.
Some judges, lawyers and judicial-servants to the people, who process hung juries and other inefficiencies, backed this unconstitutional change from the start.
Ed Tarpley read a book, envisioned a miracle in the making, and constructed a fact-avoiding resolution for the Louisiana State Bar Association. Seehttp://files.lsba.org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf. It ignores both that U.S. Amendment VI (1791) requires of states impartial juries rather than the absolutely unanimous juries suggested by James Madison based on colonial British tradition. Tarpley also ignores the fact that Louisiana’s 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts withstood 92 years of factional opposition leading to US Supreme Court approval in 1972 (Johnson v Louisiana).
Ed Tarpley read a book, envisioned a miracle in the making, and constructed a fact-avoiding resolution for the Louisiana State Bar Association. Seehttp://files.lsba.org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf. It ignores both that U.S. Amendment VI (1791) requires of states impartial juries rather than the absolutely unanimous juries suggested by James Madison based on colonial British tradition. Tarpley also ignores the fact that Louisiana’s 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts withstood 92 years of factional opposition leading to US Supreme Court approval in 1972 (Johnson v Louisiana).
Egregiously, the Louisiana State Bar Association endorsed Tarpley’s resolution on June 9, 2016; http://files.lsba.org/documents/Legislation/LSBAHODPoliciesUPDATEDThruJanuary2017.pdf, entry at 6/9/2016. The resolution calls for the Louisiana Legislature to amend the Louisiana Constitution to require 12:0 felony verdicts. The 2018 Legislature could not muster the 2/3 votes in both chambers to amend the constitution, so they erroneously created an amendment for consideration by the voters.
Act 493 is unconstitutional for two reasons.
First, it regresses the provision of impartial juries by unanimous-majority, which Louisiana began using in 1880 and to which England (the source of absolute jury verdicts) reformed in 1967. Amendment VI states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . .”
Second, impartiality now provided, Act 493 empowers a faction, especially the supporting judges, lawyers, and other judicial servants, to impose injustice on fellow citizens. Note that U.S. Amendment XIV.1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
As a major proponent of Act 493, I hold The Advocate personnel responsible for their factional promotion of this injustice.
Act 493 brings into question some landmark questions under the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Can impartiality be reversed? Can a jury of peers include fellow citizens who do not believe in justice? When judges, lawyers, and legislators collaborate to deny actual justice, what recourse does We the People of the United States grant the individual? Does the First Amendment grant a local newspaper absolute power to fabricate a movement that opposes justice? Does a state have the prerogative to regress from justice? Can popular emotions reverse established justice?
I assert that the answer to the above paragraph is no, and I encourage fellow citizens to vote to preserve Louisiana’s impartial-majority jury system. Enthusiastically vote “no” so as to collaborate for 67% rejection of Amendment 2.
Third post:
Thinking on it overnight, Johnson v Louisiana (1972) establishes Louisiana’s unanimous-majority felony verdicts (created in 1879) according to the U.S. Constitution as well as the Louisiana Constitution. Further, reversing statutory justice would be a breach of both U.S. Amendment VI (1791) and U.S. Amendment XIV.1 (1868) and other provisions this chemical engineer has not discovered. All of those wonderful accomplishments happened in the nation that wages war against oppression and victimization, slavery an example.
Due process, such as 2/3 votes in both houses of the Louisiana Legislature, could regress justice for the short term, but ultimate justice of the people would restore the impartiality of the unanimous-majority felony verdicts. Most former British colonies and England itself have reformed to unanimous-majority felony verdicts. However, the Louisiana Legislation’s Act 493 is itself unconstitutional.
Due process, such as 2/3 votes in both houses of the Louisiana Legislature, could regress justice for the short term, but ultimate justice of the people would restore the impartiality of the unanimous-majority felony verdicts. Most former British colonies and England itself have reformed to unanimous-majority felony verdicts. However, the Louisiana Legislation’s Act 493 is itself unconstitutional.
I think by advocating Amendment 2’s popular vote in an attempt to reverse constitutional law, Hillar Moore III vainly (fruitlessly) breached his oath of office as a fellow citizen and as an attorney. Let the Supreme Court of Louisiana be the judge. Here's the lawyer's oath (https://www.lascba.org/Admissions.aspx?tab=oath):
“I solemnly swear or affirm
I will support the Constitution of the United States // and the Constitution of the State of Louisiana; I will maintain // the respect due to courts of justice // and judicial officers;
I will not counsel or maintain // any suit or proceeding // which shall appear to me to be unjust // nor any defense // except such // as I believe to be honestly debatable // under the law of the land;
I will employ // for the purpose of maintaining // the causes confided to me
// such means // only as are consistent with truth and honor // and will never seek
// to mislead the judge or jury // by any artifice or false statement // of fact or law;
I will maintain the confidence // and preserve inviolate // the secrets of my client // and will accept no compensation // in connection with a client's business
// except from the client // or with the client's knowledge and approval;
To opposing parties and their counsel, // I pledge fairness, // integrity, // and civility, // not only in court, // but also in all written // and oral communications; I will abstain from all offensive personality // and advance no fact // prejudicial to the honor or
reputation // of a party or witness // unless required by the justice of the cause // with which I am charged;
I will never reject // from any consideration // personal to myself // the cause of the defenseless or oppressed // or delay any person's cause // for lucre or malice.
So help me God!”
I recall Moore recusing himself when it was required by integrity. It is not too late for Moore to reverse the harm of his lame support for Amendment 2. I say “lame” because Moore “fears” an increase in hung juries at additional expense to the people of Louisiana, especially victims, if Amendment 2 passes.
I appreciate Moore and perceive I am writing as a friend first and as a fellow citizen second.
Special interest in vigilantism (Lea Skene) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_638a747a-d00e-11e8-8d30-23a5c0f4d82b.html)
I dislike the habitual behavior that attracted Urban Specialists here but liked their five-minute intro: https://vimeo.com/213077733.
I hope to collaborate. My approach is transcendent integrity using the civic and civil agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble’s agreement is neutral to religion, gender, race, wealth, and ethnicity.
Saul Alinsky, in December 1967, said he believed in violence if his equality, dignity, and justice were at stake; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI at 46:56. It’s Alinsky’s rights or violence. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pwxIxz5lEg. Alinsky-Marxist organizations (AMO) operate as vigilantes, and they dominated civil discourse since 1968 until now.
The problem is that Alinsky and his disciples do not adopt the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. In the U.S., civic individuals collaborate for justice under the law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law for a first review of "Equal justice under law."
Does a fellow citizen who does not believe in justice own equality? Is an inhabitant who does not consider these principles a citizen? Is a philanthropist who manipulates ignorance for personal or institutional gain a citizen? Do organizations that generate revenue help people outside the organization? Should a citizen who is not developing IPEA vote?
It is good to see Baton Rouge Police Chief Murphy Paul with his typical plain expressions: in my view, “snitches get stitches” is vigilante talk, and Paul is committed to changing that culture.
We’ll see how it goes, and I offer best wishes if the collaboration mentioned above is not wanted.
The Advocate, Oct 14, page 15A (https://www.unanimousjury.org/press-releases/)
Once again, black caucuses prove they strive for power for the leaders at the expense of black people. FBI data shows that absolute verdicts (12:0) hurt all citizens, 700% disproportionally hurting black fellow citizens.
FBI data from 2015, with trends from 2001, is analyzed by Matthew Cella and Alan Neuhauser in “Race and Homicide in America, by the Numbers,” USNews, September 19, 2016. The 2015 proportional rate of blacks murdered to whites murdered is 7039/5854 times 77.1/13.3 times 100% equals 697%. In 89.3% of black murders, the murder was black. In only 40% of cases the FBI has enough information to report these statistics.
The contemporary black fellow citizen has almost no incentive to recall Jim Crow days, but has every incentive to act and vote in his own best interest rather than to build political power for members of minority caucuses. Better to consider joining We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and help develop its tacit goals: individual happiness with civic integrity.
We the People of the United States is a comprehensive special interest group, and its interest is mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
Outside money behind LSBA’s push for more Louisiana revenues, Oct. 11 (Advocate Staff) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_a398df0c-cd70-11e8-b300-2fc825295fee.html)
To King Alexander: I appreciate your passions for your cause, and just as you hope I will listen to you, I hope you will consider my focus for fellow citizens: the break from British colonial oppression the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the 1787 Constitution offered the people of 1789. Freedom from British oppression was no more vital to them than to you and me in 2018. We have the opportunity to make it happen, merely because heretofore the generations have not established We the People of the United States the civic entity that as defined in the preamble. In other words, we own the opportunity to establish civic integrity.
When James Madison drafted U.S. Amendment VI, he used the British imposition “unanimous” to specify juries required of states. But the U.S. senate changed to “impartial.” Yet, led by British-empire traditionalists, states stayed with Blackstone impositions until French influenced Louisiana created impartiality with the 9:3 unanimous majority in 1879. In 1967, England followed Louisiana’s reform. Today, 48 states need to reform to unanimous-majority verdicts.
See how costly 12:0 requirement can be but how beneficial 10:2 verdicts are in today’s The Advocate; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6354f0a4-cd9b-11e8-89c3-877571df8a47.html
The Advocate personnel ignore evidence for 10:2 jury verdicts (Joe Gyan Jr.) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6354f0a4-cd9b-11e8-89c3-877571df8a47.html)
Vote to keep a Louisiana treasure: the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdict, in this case, 11:1 was essential to the victim and the people of Louisiana who collaborate for statutory justice.
A rapist was convicted by a unanimous-majority of fellow citizens. The unanimous majority numbered eleven: 8 whites and 3 blacks were opposed by one black. The principle evidence was DNA, but the black juror does not believe in DNA evidence.
The DNA misbeliever, accepting the verdict during the jury exit-interviews, now recalls racial comments between two white male jurors. The felon’s attorney claims the state did not provide an impartial jury, which is required by U.S. Amendment VI, 1791.
On alleged misbelief in DNA evidence, The Advocate personnel politically void the verdict! What kind of news reporting is that?
At stake in this dispute is 1) statutory justice for the victim, 2) profits from additional judicial proceedings to be collected from Louisianans by judges, lawyers, and other judicial workers, 3) additional pain and loss to the felon’s family, and most of all, 4) civic integrity of We the People of the United States in Louisiana.
Credibility of journalism was lost decades ago, and The Advocate personnel seem intent on making the loss permanent. I urge reform.
As usual, political “leaders” promoting 12:0 verdicts cite 1877-1950 “Jim Crow” instead of the U.S. in 1791. U.S. Constitutional Amendment VI replaced the British tyranny of absolute unanimity with impartiality. Then, in 1880 former French colony Louisiana brilliantly provided impartiality with 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts. Let Louisiana’s light shine!
Black caucus leaders would 700% disproportionately hurt black fellow citizens, substantially because, unfortunately, black fellow citizens harm each other more frequently than white fellow citizens harm each other. See Matthew Cella and Alan Neuhauser in “Race and Homicide in America, by the Numbers,” USNews, September 19, 2016.
People who think they want to vote to eliminate one Louisiana gift to the world, the unanimous-majority verdict as a means of providing impartial juries, may either consider or ignore current cases that illustrate the importance and vitality of 10:2 verdicts. However, by doing so, they pick their own pockets and may invite further misery and loss.
To Daniel Miller: What threatens human viability is judges and lawyers who would devise a system that allows such statements in a court of law. The mere claim that you don’t believe DNA evidence is a denial of commitment-to and trust-in civic collaboration to discover statutory justice. Judges and lawyers are trained in such duplicity, and some of them never discovered civic integrity.
Consider Thucydides’ assertion that humans who accept the rule of law are equal: “There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.”
Some judges and lawyers turn these words to claim that the government must guarantee equality and dignity to dissidents. Social democrats are working this falsehood so feverishly that, as Senator Graham said, “But let me talk to my Democratic friends: If this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees.”; https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/lindsey-graham-kavanaugh-ford/571558/. But it is not a new struggle.
Most of the framers of the U.S. Constitution were well aware of Chapter XI Machiavellianism, having observed, experienced, or collaborated in the British empire’s oppression of both colonists and homeland subjects using the constitutional Canterbury-Lords Parliament. The preamble to the 1787 U.S. Constitution offers relief from Chapter XI Machiavellianism, but the 1789-1793 Congress re-established Blackstone with factional-American Protestantism as surrogate for Canterbury. Regimes have nourished that American un-constitutionalism using tradition; see Greece v Galloway (2014). We the People of the United States, as defined by the preamble, may expect more misery and loss until we reform.
American tyranny has transitioned from traditional-American Protestantism to the Great Awakenings, through freethinkers, to Judeo-Christianity, African-American Christianity, and a Catholic-Judeo Supreme Court. The victim of the First Amendment’s “freedom of religion” is civic integrity.
Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdict responds to the U.S. Amendment VI’s requirement of impartiality rather than British, 12:0, absolutism. It is a 1/50th step toward civic integrity, and the other 49 states may reform, as England did in 1967, allowing 10:2 verdicts.
Second post: Joe Gayan may be restricted, but I find The Advocate egregiously at fault for not addressing the misery and loss to the victim as well as civic fellow citizens.
I re-read Gayan’s writing for The Advocate and found only the factual “. . . a black Baton Rouge man recently convicted of raping a teenager,” and “her affidavit . . . refers to the victim . . . as ‘the so-called victim’ and questions her credibility.”
Civic fellow citizens pay the cost of statutory justice only because there are criminals. The statutory justice civic citizens require delivers swift adjudication for both the actual victim and the actual perpetrator or offender. Lawyers presenting and judges allowing spurious claims like this pays only the judges, lawyers and other judicial workers. That includes the press, who profit from the rape victim’s misery. The Advocate personnel’s claim of interest in fairness does not ring true.
“The jury of eight whites and four blacks voted 11-1 to find the 43-year-old Hills guilty of forcible rape and 10-2 to convict him on another sexual assault-related charge.”
There’s no leading suggestion that Louisianans may, on November 6, preserve a Louisiana treasure, the 10:2 jury verdict in rape cases, too. With 12:0 verdicts, the juror who was awarded a seat having the will to claim dis-believing DNA evidence would prevail over the unanimous majority.
With absolutely unanimous, 12:0, juries, injustice is often the consequence, but judicial workers, especially judges and lawyers, gain money. Vote no on Amendment 2.
Other fora
One meaning of “the elite” is “In political and sociological theory, . . . a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society.” I don’t know what Professor McGinnis means by “the elite.”
A Supreme Court principle is equal justice under law. I see two aspects of this phrase. The first is justice the individual deems worthy, and the second is the discovery of that justice. Individuals who agree-to and conform-to the same laws are equal.
An opportunity to discover justice rests in acceptance of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as the agreement on which fellow citizens collaborate to discover civic integrity, leaving spiritual integrity an individual pursuit. Every society within the people may divide itself on the preamble’s opportunity: that is, some fellow citizens are civic collaborators and some fellow citizens are dissidents. Individuals who oppose justice altogether segregate themselves from the people unless and until they reform. If the preamble is not a worthy agreement, the deficiency may be amended.
Classical liberty holds that justice may be determined by reason, and reason establishes the dominant opinion. However, reason often fails the-objective-truth. As long as justices hold that the unanimous-majority can discover statutory justice they will continue to invite error, subject themselves to political pressure, and be vulnerable to factional politics. Justices need a standard higher than themselves and their spirits.
The-objective-truth can only be discovered. That is, the-objective-truth does not respond to reason, imagination, intellectual construct, elitism, party, popular opinion, or other human constructs. By using the-objective-truth as the standard and the preamble as the agreement, fellow citizens including Supreme Court justices may establish civic integrity.
Roe v Wade as viewed by the ovum is a good example. Human life begins with the viable ovum a fertile woman produces. The ovum must be fertilized by a spermatozoon supplied by a man, producing a conception. The conception has a small chance to become a human person, which from birth takes about three decades’ well-coached development. In the U.S., with about 800 million viable ova per year, there are about 4 million live births. Most viable ova perish for lack of fertilization, and unknown millions of conceptions perish because they do not attach to a womb. My estimate is that 5 million conceptions are spontaneously terminated by the physics of biology. The ultimate biological determination is the mom’s decision not to remain pregnant. By physics, the woman’s responsibility to decide whether to remain pregnant or not cannot be denied.
My estimate is that under 0.2 million abortions fall into the category MWW labeled “abortion for fun.” Reducing that practice is a matter of educating women and men to appreciate ova and not risk them to unwanted conception. The spontaneous terminations are not matters of opinion and are thus not subject to Supreme Court determination. That, I understand was the point of Roe v Wade. To refute it requires the hubris to both oppose the justice of the-objective-truth and to refute the equality and dignity of an ovum to be cared for by his or her mom and the conception to be gestated and delivered by mom with support from dad for life, with all due assurances for the couple’s grandchildren—the children’s children—and beyond (posterity). These concepts relate to the-objective-truth more than to religion.
It seems to me that conservative law professors are the most qualified to influence the people to adopt the preamble as the civic and civil agreement under which fellow citizens are either equal or not. That is, they accept equal justice under law or not. Further, by relegating tradition to its proper role as the record of reform, conservative law professors could influence the discovery of the-objective-truth as the basis for statutory justice. Often, humans must face that we do not know the-objective-truth.
The fact that conservative law professors do not take this seemingly natural role invites consideration of ulterior motives, which this fellow citizen does not pretend to know and is loath to imagine.
“Greater love has no one than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Consider an alternative to John’s idea: Greater appreciation has no one than this, that a man develop individual integrity so as to collaborate for statutory justice.
My facebook.
Also, I am motivated by Louisiana fellow citizens’ coming opportunity to vote “No” on Amendment 2.
These are times to ponder whether you are a fellow citizen or not.
If you had the chance to speak, with the President of the United States in attendance (presently Donald Trump), would you introduce yourself as "fellow citizen," as Frederick Douglass did in 1852? See https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945.
Douglass expressed a beef. But first, he praised the framers and signers of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the articles that followed. They created the framework for ending the Atlantic slave-trade with Africa and for the abolition of slavery on this soil. Nine states ratified the 1787 Constitution, establishing the United States as a nation and separating from the then four free and independent states. In 1852, former French colony Louisiana had been a state for 40 years.
Next, Douglass castigated the 3rd generation former British colonial fellow citizens who denied their ancestors’ provisions and either participated-in or tolerated the domestic slave trade. He described in visceral terms the awful midnight practices and its support by American Christianity. Douglass said slavery is acceptable as long as you are not the slave.
Robert E. Lee could have listened to both fellow-citizen Douglass and fellow-citizen Massachusetts-abolitionists who established free-soil settlements in bloody Kansas. However, Lee paid his Virginia, church-sponsored ministers to preach the slave’s atonement for sins according to Lee’s god’s schedule rather than the abolitionist’s demands. See https://leefamilyarchive.org/…/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-ann…. Lee’s folly is known and indefensible. Christianity has so debased itself that it needs to shrink into the privacy of, hearts, closets, and sympathetic assemblies, where spiritual matters belong, and where believers have their rewards yet do not impose them on others.
Athenian Greeks, over 2400 years ago gave the world the concept of equality under the law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. In the U.S., the agreement for equal justice is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Dissent if you choose.
It is time for We the People of the United States, as defined in the preamble, to establish civic integrity. It is time for every adult citizen to ask: Do I want to collaborate for statutory justice . . . or not? Do I really want equality under the law? On that agreement or none, fellow citizens divide.
Also, on November 6, I hope 2/3 of Louisianans choose to vote “No” on Amendment 2.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-need-civics
The question: Why do we need civics?
I Googled and found this: “What is civics and its importance?
civics is the study of the rights and duties of citizenship. also the duties of citizens to each other as members of a political body and to the government, ... it is importantthat we study it because it helps people understand how government works.”
I looked around and found other civilized or socialized explanations, so I think your question is appropriate for these times.
We need civics because the human being is so physically and psychologically powerful that the person who discovers the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) can do anything. He or she may develop integrity or not. If not, he or she may develop crime, evil, or worse. The infant needs encouragement to adopt IPEA and use it to develop integrity. So far, such a culture has not emerged, but I am working for it.
If a person chooses to use IPEA for integrity, he or she may discover fidelity. In developing fidelity, civic citizens collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity. Civics motivates fellow citizens to collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
I write to learn.
On my facebook
Proponents have observed that “last Jim Crow law” propaganda is not persuading many fellow citizens to want the ruinous unanimous 12:0 jury verdicts that 48 other states have rather than the impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts Louisiana has. Therefore, special-interest groups are promoting criminal “fairness.” Perhaps a current example will illustrate how criminal fairness works.
The story is related by Joe Gyan Jr. in “. . . Baton Rouge man's rape conviction”, The Advocate, Oct 13, 2018; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6354f0a4-cd9b-11e8-89c3-877571df8a47.html. Someone raped a teenaged female in 2003, victimizing many people: her, her family and friends, the rapist’s family, and the other fellow citizens of Louisiana.
Some judges, lawyers, politicians, and writers for the press erroneously assume themselves above fellow citizens; some of the-better-than-thems work to increase personal revenues from the woe inflicted by crime. I plan a future post to identify some better than fellow citizens who have been reported by The Advocate.
Some judges, lawyers, politicians, and writers for the press erroneously assume themselves above fellow citizens; some of the-better-than-thems work to increase personal revenues from the woe inflicted by crime. I plan a future post to identify some better than fellow citizens who have been reported by The Advocate.
“DNA evidence linked [the accused, who was then 28 years old] to the 2003 rape [of a teenager]” He was convicted with verdicts of 11:1 for forcible rape and 10:2 for another sexual-assault charge. The juror who voted acquittal on both charges claims misbelieving DNA evidence, and she does not seem to accept that the accused is now a convicted felon.
The DNA-misbelieving juror had no objections in the jury-exit interview, but three days later sent an affidavit to the defense lawyer claiming that two jurors had improper conversation during the jury deliberations.
The prosecutor has responded to the defense lawyer’s claims, and sentencing is scheduled for October 24.
There are many losses in this story that hurt We the People of the United States who live in Louisiana. First, how can it be that a woman and her family are put off for fifteen years before her rape case comes to trial? How does a juror who does not believe in DNA evidence get seating on any jury? Does the unanimous-majority have civic or civil complaint regarding the DNA-misbelieving juror? What motivates that juror to now try to change the conviction based on her intellectual constructs? How can a juror think so highly of jury responsibility? How can The Advocate personnel neglect these questions of fairness (let alone impartiality) toward the victims in this criminal case?
The purpose of criminal trials is to constrain criminals (not convict an innocent fellow citizen, which is doubly costly to the victims yet beneficial to the criminals, including justice workers who seek personal gain from the misery and loss). The U.S. Constitution, in Amendment VI (1791) requires states to provide impartial juries, and in 1879, Louisiana recognized that 9:3 verdicts could provide impartiality when fellow citizens have mixed psychologies regarding justice: habitually impartial, persuadable, indecisive, bigoted, and criminal. England, the originator of unanimous, 12:0 juries, reformed to 10:2 unanimous majorities in 1967 so as to reduce crime’s influence on jurors.
In the other 48 states, for this case there would be an un-convicted rapist, and the juror who does not believe in justice would prevail over the impartial-unanimous jury---the other eleven jurors.
The people of Louisiana who believe in impartial justice stand the chance of losing to criminal fairness if enough do not vote to preserve a Louisiana gift to the world: the 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdict. Fairness is fickle except when criminals control it, but impartiality knows neither religion, gender, race, nor ethnicity.
Vote “No” on Amendment 2 on November 6.
We often read that there is no organized opposition to Amendment 2. Please help make this message go viral in Louisiana; “like” it and share it as well as my earlier and perhaps future posts.
Posted on Quora: Does a human being who does not believe in justice own equality under the law?
The question: Do you see any ulterior motives behind how society has been structured?
Yes. Indolence.
Most human beings are too indolent to collaborate to discover and practice statutory justice. Therefore, most humans attempt to reject the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. The typical human attempts to assign first to church responsibility for his or her inspiration and motivation and second to government responsibility for his or her mutual, comprehensive safety and security. However, IPEA cannot be subrogated.
There are ample individuals and institutions in the endeavor of persuading factions of the population to pay for their ostensible services. For example, a church formula is that their god knows, controls, and punishes; for a percentage of your income (according to your means) the church will protect not only your afterdeath but your life; all you need do is adopt their god as your god. The politician who wants to take charge of the law in a land that is dominated by belief in that god has it easy if he or she partners with the church. Machiavelli warned humans of this jeopardy in Chapter XI of “The Prince,” 1513.
The most lucrative partnership of all is when the god of the believers is the universal God; believers don’t converse enough to comprehend that one’s God is another’s Devil. Yet the believers assiduously maintain the jeopardy of silence. No one is willing to collaborate to discover the-objective-truth regarding the actual reality of God. (I think the-objective-truth is that humans do not know if there is a God or not.)
Aware of Chapter XI Machiavellianism, the framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution designed a national government without church partnership. However, only 2/2 of the framers were signers, and among the 1/3 dissenters were Chapter XI Machiavellians, based on their reverence for England’s constitutional church-state partnership. The 1789-1793 Congress re-established English mimicking church-state partnership by 1) hiring Congressional chaplains by May 1789 and 2) ratifying freedom of religion rather than protection of integrity in the First Amendment, ratified in 1791.
During the last week or so of the 1787 Philadelphia convention, the Committee of Forms, perhaps on discovery of what had been accomplished, wrote the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps enthralled with the potential to replace a confederation under the states with a Union under the people in their states, they wrote “We the People” in large font, unfortunately obscuring the subject of the sentence: We the People of the United States.
The First Congress further lessened the preamble’s influence, falsely labeling its agreement “secular,” when it is neutral to religion as well as gender, race, and national origin.
We may claim that political regimes and factions have prevented U.S. citizens from using the preamble’s agreement to establish human equality under both civic and civil purpose and goals for 229 years. However, We the People of the United States, a transcendent special interest group, has not adopted the IPEA by which local, state, and federal governments may be managed to assure an attainable better life for our grandchildren and beyond (“our Posterity” in the agreement).
Each individual may examine his or her ulterior motive that keeps him or her from collaborating for the preamble’s tacit purpose: individual happiness with civic integrity.
Each individual may examine his or her ulterior motive that keeps him or her from collaborating for the preamble’s tacit purpose: individual happiness with civic integrity.
I think I directly answered your question, and would appreciate knowing of you think otherwise or have other comment.
Your question may someday be answered, “Yes.”
Hospitals are not required to keep a body surviving after the brain has stopped functioning, and the characterization of the non-functioning brain may take your phrase (not a human being).
I like to think of human life as comprised of body, mind, and person. This approach protects me from speculating about other people’s imaginings. In other words, I avoid denigrating someone else’s hope and dreams for their spiritual life yet am free to develop my personal trust-in and commitment to the-objective-truth.
Within my view of a human being, if the person can no longer function, whether by termination of the body or the mind, the rest of humankind is not obliged to try to preserve the person.
Already, physical failing of the brain is accepted as a time to stop supporting the person. Psychological failure is more difficult to discern and can happen with a functioning brain. However, at such time as humankind has the means to determine that an individual is no longer psychologically functioning, hospitals should not be required to maintain the body and brain.
It seems to me your question is related to the euthanasia debate. If a person perceives his or her life is too miserable to live, and his or her doctors agree, he or she with the doctors have the authority to terminate the body, mind, and person.
At this time, many governments, by force, deny IPEA. IPEA means individual power, individual energy, and individual authority, which I assert each human being may develop.
I do not pretend to have answered your question, but hope I have demonstrated that with careful consideration of the-objective-truth a civic people can and will ultimately respond. Your comments would be appreciated.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/12/liberal-activists-just-made-a-website-using-kavanaughs-name-that-could-be-illegal/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRobU5UQTNabU0zWkRkaiIsInQiOiJ6NEpTV1Frc0hVYzZSU2E3RGltakVtZmRnSlhqS0tWN0FGNFIyZWhzUVZZVkZoSm9wQWhDT1czOEpUQTg1d2VubE9CS3RrbndIWXI3MklMMzB3TzRBM0U4T2RTa1BcL2JGRmxLbTRacEJtMW5LODRkclh4dWNvcUtZZDVxY1Q5Y1AifQ%3D%3D
Someone used my name and photo to create a bogus Facebook account. The day I reported it to Facebook, Facebook took the bogus account down
The
question: When single men opt for "surrogacy" to satisfy their need to become a father, do you think they deny the newly born his right to have mother's love and care?
Human life begins when a mom ovulates. Any adult contract or none involving a viable ovum subjugates the ovum. I have not thought through them all, but the variations may be considered with the view of preserving the ovum’s dignity and equality with reference to the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion. A couple of examples should suffice to make my point.
First, the woman who does not mate during the time the extant ovum is viable has terminated the ovum’s potential for personhood. A typical woman, produces about 400 viable ova during her fertile years. If there are 65 million fertile women in the US, at 13 ova/year there might be over 800 million viable ova with about 4 million live births.
Second, Thucydides asserted that humans who accept the rule of law are equal. Since then, sophists have speculated on “accept the rule of law.” Some say it’s a matter of civic behavior. Some say it’s a human right. Most people say the sun’ll come up/out tomorrow, but it’s not so. The earth’s daily rotation on its axis will un-hide the sun again tomorrow. In the same way, humans are equal under the unfolding of physics.
I refer to physics the object of study rather than the science called “physics.” The-objective-truth seems to be: everything emerges from mass equals energy times the speed of light squared, or Einstein’s general theory of relativity. The-objective-truth is discoverable, and human speculations that have not been disproven can be the sources of enduring fiction.
It seems that if a human individual would trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, there are some obvious bases for the dignity and equality of a newborn human. First, his mom has considered him or her a potential person from mom’s early awareness that during her fertile years she might produce 400 viable ova; she has taken care of her physical and psychological well being, not only for her own sake but for those 400 possible ova.
Second, the mom knows that the human being is so physically and psychologically powerful that it takes about a quarter century for an individual to transition from newborn to adult with the comprehension, intent, and understanding to undertake a complete human life. Therefore, she knows she will need an authentic man not only to fertilize her viable ovum, but to help her nourish, encourage, and coach her children during the transition and beyond. The spouses will help each other incorporate their children in preparation for the parents’ grandchildren; that is the children’s children. Together, the family will draw from the wisdom of the extended families of four grandparents-in-law.
The principles expressed above comport to human dignity and equality under the rule of physics rather than some human construct in the form of civil laws, religious canon, or philosophical civilization.
Adult contracts that consider the above or better consideration of physics or better as the basis of human dignity and equality seem worthy of negotiation. Acceptance of such contracts by arbitrary opinion seems arrogant against the-objective-truth and direct denial of the individual dignity and equality of the child being subjected by the contract.
I do not know the-objective-truth yet strive to encourage fellow citizens to collaborate to discover the-objective-truth rather than compete for the dominant opinion. I hope this helps and would appreciate comments.
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.
