Writers for the press could journal the Church’s path to integrity

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

Women for Catholic bishops October 4 (https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_078f20f0-c814-11e8-ab13-479d673df940.html)

As typical, Catholic Tradition usurps Jesus’ message: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's,” from Matthew 22:21, CJB.

The article they wrote makes a good case for women in the priesthood. In either a democracy or the American republic at least 3 to 4 of the seven Louisiana bishops would be women.

Kennedy wrong, October 4 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_f5a66b96-c732-11e8-9280-bbe51fc44351.html)

Kennedy’s quips are often backed by sharp understanding, but not in two Kavanaugh instances. My next vote for Kennedy is in question, but Edwards’s direct opposition would remove doubt.

In this minor case, Senator Flake, exercised unique power when, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a Senator, voted to forward the nomination out of the committee with the caveat that his vote in the Senate would be “No” if the FBI report was not given him. The public already witnessed the sworn testimony from Ford and Kavanaugh and the FBI report either brings new light or not. Either way, the Senate vote can be taken and Kavanaugh confirmed or denied.

In question is the competition between a democratic form of government (chaos) and a representative republic (civic integrity) provided We the People of the United States has the discipline to elect qualified representatives. In practice, We the People of the United States, mindfully or not, gravitates between maybe 48% to 67% of citizens, and resident aliens may be sympathetic. With more self-discipline---to personally behave, read and evaluate the news with personal intent, suspect special interest group leaders such as Alinsky’s AMO and Obama’s OFA, and messaging elected officials---future voting options would improve and an achievable better future would obtain.

When Kennedy tried to make Flake’s responsibility a public responsibility, he expressed a failure to understand representative government. More egregiously, Kennedy behaved unconstitutionally when he presented to Kavanaugh a religious oath in a federal job interview. If Kavanugh had denied the religious challenge, Kennedy would have been obliged to vote “No” on advancing the nomination out of committee.

Quoting the U.S. Constitution: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

I have, in public library meetings, received the question, “Phil, do you believe in God?” I answer, “I trust in and am committed to the-objective-truth.” I expect fellow citizens including elected and appointed officials to appreciate my response, regardless of their intentions.

Furthermore, I do not approve of the unconstitutional political correctness that the Supreme Court Justice employs on administering the presidential oath of office. He ends the constitutional oath with “. . . so help you God?” It’s an outrageous defiance of We the People of the United States, the entity that needs to self-discipline to vote against unconstitutional administration, legislation, and adjudication.

We the People of the United States may amend the First Amendment so as to both promote integrity rather than religion and to promote journalism instead of the irresponsible press, The Advocate included.

To Gary Guillot: I need all the help I can get to encourage The Advocate personnel to be responsible, and imagine you appreciate civic help too.

I recall that The Advocate personnel endorsed Kavanaugh before the California-Democrats’ months old sinister plot using Dr. Ford surfaced; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d2693f70-b2cc-11e8-bc27-0b8506ba4bd9.html. When the Democrats’ scheme surfaced, The Advocate personnel called for noble conduct: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_4be54434-bb65-11e8-b175-67ed6794b2a5.html.

Of course, The Advocate personnel may have had inside information and a plot of their own. However, I plea for a responsible hometown newspaper and delight when I think the personnel have exercised integrity---work beyond honesty. Their endorsement seemed sincere four days before the leftist activity intensified.

 
Kavanaugh vs the Democrats, September 28 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_300a1036-c29b-11e8-bec0-dfbe8e1e5ad4.html)

To Jim Devillier again:

A person who offers his or her life for public service relinquishes neither his or her humanity nor his or her trust-in and commitment-to the rule of law.

President Trump has demonstrated that the President of the United States yields to Congress their powers, to the Courts their powers, but yields neither to the press, nor yields his or her citizenship, nor his or individual freedom of expression. Kavanaugh expresses equality under the agreement that is expressed in the preamble to the U.S. constitution.

You may review the 2400 year old principles, at http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/thucydides.html. Nobel as you seem, I'm sure you have opinions about them.

But that was for the Greeks. The signers of the 1787 Constitution for the U.S. created the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble: the opportunity to collaborate for civil laws in order to accomplish statutory justice. In other words, the preamble is both a civic and a legal agreement. Shame on citizens who neglect the preamble’s civic and civil powers; legal powers.

Judge Kavanaugh seems an accomplished collaborator for statutory justice, whereas the Democrats seem professional destroyers. Their performance draws MWW's rebuke; she does not respond with emotions.

And MWW seems to find Dr. Ford an unfortunate product of the nanny-state; a person who will not take responsibility for any of her actions. Nanny-state honesty often collapses when integrity is required.

What mindful girl at age 15 would disobey mom and dad's guidance and climb a stair to the bedroom part of the house to drink beer with two boys? Isn’t that suggestive? How does that behavior reflect on the family's understanding of the preamble's goals for "our Posterity"? Isn't a family's "posterity" the parents' grandchildren and the child's child? Doesn’t a civic family protect its daughters’ viable ova from unwanted conception? No wonder Dr. Ford did not discuss the situation with her parents.

That's the vital lesson that impacts all inhabitants: citizens and resident aliens. The preamble is a civic agreement that proposes individual happiness with civic integrity, ultimately “our posterity.” Citizens are free to reject the opportunity, but may face the consequences.

We'll see how this pivotal struggle turns out.

Letters

Amazing mendacity from college professors (Robert Azzarello) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_98dc0a7c-c761-11e8-90c5-b30f5dc55c46.html)

People, especially college professors, publish heartfelt lies with abandon. It’s like they perceive their power over students (bargaining grades for student-evalutation approval) extends to the public.
 
The Advocate personnel accurately captioned the professors’ false claim: “Fagan . . . reveals ignorance.”

Humankind has long known that associating with immorality breeds and nourishes infidelity to self, often destroying the associate’s one chance at human living, let alone integrity.

The kind professor speaks of “empathy and compassion, a route of openness and friendliness”:  It would be good for him to be friendly toward fellow-citizens who oppose infidelity and collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity. Transgenders extol transgenderism much as criminals passionately think crime pays.

There are many studies about psychic epidemics. “Reports online indicate that a young person's coming out as transgender is often preceded by increased social media use and/or having one or more peers also come out as transgender.” See https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00332925.2017.1350804.

Public-library exclusion of marketers of self-destructive lifestyles is both a civic and a civil responsibility. I’m open minded toward people who think promoting collaboration on the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution---promoting We the People of the United States to discover and practice the leading edge of responsible living---ought to be censored.

  

Bigoted writing for the press (Bryn Stole) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_98dc0a7c-c761-11e8-90c5-b30f5dc55c46.html)

Stole displays personal bias it seems The Advocate editors approve. Maybe its just erroneous editing.

"Kennedy has alleged . . . that Democrats have manipulated the allegations against Kavanaugh for political purposes and turned the confirmation process into “an intergalactic freakshow."

"Christine Blasey Ford [alleged] Kavanaugh . . . pinned her to a bed, groped her and muzzled her screams at a high school gathering in the 1980s."

To Hidalgo Fountainbleux: Here’s wisdom I imagined Almighty integrity (not anything I could master): “Don’t give to dogs what is holy, and don’t throw your pearls to the pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, then turn and attack you.”

President Trump lends practical perspective: 1) demonstrates uncanny, acquired ability to detect “dogs” and “pigs” by their public or private discourse, 2) demonstrates that the presidency does not deny Trump citizenship, 3) keeps the press from controlling Trump by speaking directly to the people, and 4) is not too proud to lie, mock, or cajole to defend the presidency. Clown? I don’t think so.
 

If he meets an unknown enemy, President Trump is humble and gratuitous until the enemy speaks. We’ve seen it time and time again, but the barks and squeals just keep coming.

I hope to vote for him (and Pence) two more times. If so, I hope you will vote for Trump, too.

 

News

Writers for the press could journal the quest by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (Bryn Stole) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_d80e67c6-c8f1-11e8-b5bc-b771a5be117d.html)

Senator Kennedy disappoints again with his common-law-grounded perception.

“If our founders could have envisioned what just went on the last couple of months, I think some of them would’ve just stuck with (British) King George (III).”

Some of our founding fathers were so passionate about their opinions they shot other founding fathers dead. And the American Bar Association extols Magna Carta (1215) and routinely refers to Blackstone (1765). Furthermore, the 1789-1793 Congress substantially re-instituted Blackstone, resuming the tradition of British oppress of We the People of the United States.
 
I want to call attention to the framers of the 1787 Constitution, especially the 39 delegates (2/3 majority) who signed it, and most preciously the few, perhaps the committee of five who assembled the document and made the subject of the Constitution the entity We the People of the United States rather than “We the States, naming the 13 eastern seaboard countries made so by the 1783 treaty of Paris. I promote civic and civil collaboration that is guided by the signer’s work: the preamble to the constitution for the U.S.

Collaborating with almost 100 fellow citizens in local library meetings over the past five years, I have come to realize that the gift of being a citizen of the U.S. is the opportunity to trust-in and commit-to the agreement that is presented in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In this land, fellow citizens are free to oppose an agreement that is both civic (responsibly living his or her contemporary years in this location so as not to prevent a fellow citizen’s pursuit of individual happiness) and civil (collaborating for statutory integrity that every civic citizen may approve so as to constrain dissidents who cause actual harm and encourage them to reform).
  

To Susan De: A responsible press does the research to inform the public, including adolescents, about civic duty to self.

Perhaps 40 years ago, my employer trained all employees about abuse in the workplace. The most useful concept I learned is that if a fellow citizens says, “What you just expressed abused me,” more talk is needed. First, the accused needs to ask, “What specific expression are you referring to?” With clarification, the accused may express, “I am committed: that will never happen again.” It might be appropriate to add, “I did not intend abuse of any kind.” It’s doubtful that, “Also, I do not agree that the expression you cite was in fact abuse.”

When a girl climbs a stairway to the bedroom to be with beer-drinking boys, the boys are well advised to either politely exit or make a statement: “By coming here, your expression is sexual abuse; please return to the party downstairs.”

That would be consistent with the training I had four decades ago. A person who wants to make the most of his or her chance at human life heeds such advice whether from mom and dad, from employer, or from the press.

Writers for the press could journal the quest by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (John Simerman) (https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_078f20f0-c814-11e8-ab13-479d673df940.html)

When mendacity becomes the norm it . . . well, mendacity is the norm.

“Louisiana was the first . . . to adopt split verdicts in serious felony cases, dispensing with centuries of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition.”

Simerman perhaps invokes Magna Carta, 1215. But England reformed to 10:2 verdicts in 1967; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/13/enacted. “This was designed to make it more difficult for jury tampering to succeed.” ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#England_and_Wales_2. Scotland has 8:7 verdicts, but the larger pool adds 25% jury cost.

England and most former English colonies have reformed nearly a century after Louisiana, a former French colony read the U.S. Constitution and took seriously that Amendment VI (1791) requires states to provide impartial juries. Consequently, Louisiana devised the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict in 1879, exemplifying reform in America 88 years before England reformed.

If voters erroneously bid to end the provision of impartiality with 10:2 juries, Louisiana will become the first state to so increase the chance for jury tampering to succeed. I doubt that the U.S. Constitution allows a state to reduce its citizens’ safety and security. See Amendment XIV.1.

I have never observed so much hometown newspaper mendacity in my life.

  

Writers for the press could journal the quest by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (John Simerman) (https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/politics/article_bfd491e2-bcfa-11e8-8564-5f492a3d65bd.html)

Give Sheriff Craig Webre the benefit of doubt:  He was ignorant, rather than straw-man lying IF he said, “The Founding Fathers believed that the unanimous jury decision was essential to the protection of justice.” Some “founders” were British sympathizers, and their influence yet prevents human justice: individual happiness with civic integrity. Webre volunteered individual will to accept the word of an organizer. In other words, Webre has authority in his personal choices.
 
In actual reality, influenced by English common law or Blackstone, James Madison drafted Amendment VI so as to require states to provide unanimity, but the 1791 U.S. Senate, insisting on U.S. constitutional law, rejected unanimity in favor of impartiality. A powerful faction of the first Congress was busy restoring Blackstone, or English common law with traditional church-state partnership they had grown accustomed to as English colonists. In other words, the first Congress was busy undoing the legal separation from English tradition that the 1787 Constitution offered. All the while, Louisiana was a traditional French colony, and the French were the bitter enemies of England who took charge of the American revolutionary war and the deciding battle at Yorktown, VA, September, 1781.

In 1967, the source of both Blackstone common law and dissident American “founders”, England, reformed to 10:2 criminal jury verdicts with the express purpose of providing impartial juries. Experience and data informed England that organized crime had too much power over juries and that its influence could be lessened with majority verdicts rather than unanimous verdicts. Citizens in the 48 U.S. states who have not reformed might consider what other former English colonies have done; see online at https://www.revolvy.com/page/Hung-jury.

I think and hope fellow citizens will soundly defeat a national AMO bid to undo a Louisiana treasure: the 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdict.

Second post:

France sold Louisiana to the U.S. in 1803, and this part of the territory gained statehood in 1812. Detailed history by one view is online at https://prezi.com/hvp0w9wc9n6b/louisianas-reconstruction-era/. “In 1868, Louisiana wrote the new constitution required by the 1867 Reconstruction Act. This constitution protected the freedmen's civil rights and gave the right to vote to all males over the age of twenty one. The former slaves now had the right to vote. This was also the first Louisiana constitution to have the bill of rights. This constitution was ratified by voters who had taken the new loyalty oath.”

“. . . the Unification Movement, met in New Orleans in 1873. Former Confederate General P. G. T. Bueauregard, who had led the troops that fired on Fort Sumter was the chairman of this group. One of the influential free men of color who also joined was Homer Plessy, who later became famous because of his Supreme Court case against the Jim Crow laws. The group planned to push for the right to vote for freedmen and to develop some arrangement between whites and blacks for sharing political offices.”

“The North turned its attention to its own states--rebuilding railroads and western expansion.
Carpetbaggers and scalawags developed other interests and many of them left the South.
The Conservative Democratic Party gradually began to regain power in the South.
Northerners wanted to reestablish trade with the South. A deal was made in the election of 1876 to end Reconstruction.”

Another insight to the end of Reconstruction is presented with the beginning of the Jim Crow era, online at http://www.theacru.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ACRU-the-truth-about-jim-crow_v2.pdf. “The Reconstruction era ended with the Compromise of 1877, which resolved the disputed 1876 presidential election. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, which gave them the power to prevent the inauguration of the new president. The Democrats agreed to allow Republican Rutherford B. Hayes to enter the White House in return for the withdrawal of the Federal troops still occupying the South. The troops were the principal guardians of the safety of the Republican governments in Southern states, and when they departed, many white Republicans left the South as well. The South was left in the hands of the Democratic Party, which considered itself the “party of the white man.” Democrats established so-called “redeemer governments” throughout the region, and began to reassert white supremacy by passing laws that infringed upon the rights of blacks and enforced strict segregation. Black legal and political rights quickly deteriorated.”

Free at last, Louisiana, perhaps influence by the 1873 Unification Movement brilliantly conformed to U.S. Amendment VI’s requirement of impartial juries by creating, in 1879, the 9:3 majority verdict. The impartial majority unanimously negates the stubborn, bigoted, or criminal minority numbering zero to three. Thus, Louisiana improved its laws toward impartiality 88 years before England reformed. It is not the 2018 Louisiana Legislature’s prerogative to regress toward injustice.

Fellow citizens own justice once it is discovered, and ultimately, justice cannot be undone by popular vote. The US is a republic under the rule of law, not a democracy, despite wishes of some personnel for The Advocate.

I think and hope fellow citizens will soundly defeat a national AMO bid to undo a Louisiana treasure: the 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdict.

Third post:

A civic people (both fellow citizens and visitors in America) are constrained to ask: Why would a writer for The Advocate create propaganda for a seeming AMO group, like the Unanimous Jury Coalition, as pseudo-news? And why would editors for The Advocate risk appreciation that gains respect by supporting regression from civic integrity? Louisiana’s unanimous-majority jury verdict is not only constitutional according to both the Louisiana Supreme Court (1970) and the U.S. Supreme Court (1972). Have The Advocate personnel considered what it means to rebuke U.S. Amendment VI (1791)? What about Amendment IV.1 (1868)?

I speculate that from the beginning, the 1791 ratification of the English-mimicking Bill of Rights, the press ignored the responsibility part of freedom of the press. The 1787 U.S. Constitution deliberately limited the three powers of the U.S., reserving unspecified powers for the people, who would manage their states and amend the U.S. Constitution so as to fulfill the preamble’s civic agreement.

This provision, legally stated in the preamble, held with neither the ten-state Congress that was seated in 1789 nor with the fourteen-state Congress of 1791. They substantially restored Blackstone with theism.

Incidentally, “the fourth branch”, the press has absolute power, and thereby corrupted itself.

At this point, only a civic people (citizens and aliens) may require the press to conform to civic integrity. However, amendment of the First Amendment so as to 1) require the media to adopt, promote, publicize, and celebrate the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (as well as discover improvements) and 2) create means of penalty if opposition to civic integrity is a particular media agent’s actual reality, whether individual person or media-business purported to be more than arts and entertainment.

Fourth post:

The Advocate’s statistics work seems too small, incomplete within its body of incidents, suspiciously limited, and seems of biased intent. Their support for unanimous jury verdicts victimizes black fellow citizens. I have no idea why The Advocate personnel seem willing to hurt fellow citizens. Working for The Advocate does not require loss of membership in We the People of the United States.

FBI data on crime by race shows that black fellow citizens 575% disproportionately suffer from 12:0 verdicts. See https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls . Among 5496 victims, 3005 were white and 2491 black. There were 2698 white offenders and 2654 black, with 5352 total; 2.6% of the time, the offender was of another race. Whites were victimized by whites in 83.5% of cases and black by black in 90.1% of incidents. Thus, most offenses stay within the racial group.



In 2013 the population was 73.7% white and 12.6% black or 86.3% white and black. Extrapolating to equal population, there would be [73.7/12.6 times 2654 equals 15,524] black offenders with the 2,698 white offenders, or 575% more black offenses than white offenses.



Thus FBI data informs that the justice system 575% disproportionally addresses black offenses because blacks offend each other more frequently than whites offend each other.



The national and local AMO groups who are promoting the demise of Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority impartial verdicts, are not acting for Louisiana residents, especially blacks. Blacks have 575% disproportionate incentives to vote for the 10:2 verdicts. Let the other 48 states address their modern obeisance to obsolete English colonization of the eastern seaboard of America.



I am acutely concerned that The Advocate personnel leave it to me to research and discover the facts that would help black fellow citizens avoid voting against their own best interests. I have written to them these facts, and they deny my freedom to use letters to the editor or an op-ed column to share facts anyone can discover. What is wrong with the training writers for the media receive from so-called journalism schools? What is distorted about The Advocate’s business plan?
 
When I was a senior in chemical engineering, at the University of Tennessee, a major topic of senior seminar was professional integrity. Those sessions instilled in me a responsibility that prevented me from accepting the risk that a vessel I was designing could blow up. No way would I cite prior work or authority beyond mine to justify acceptance of failure. I received like instruction in chemical engineering courses I took at LSU. Writers for the press take for granted publishing falsehoods. Is mendacity to gain influence what their schools and their bosses require?

Reply to Phil Beaver comment (my own):

Quoting Simerman’s opinion piece or pseudo-news, “A year-long investigation by The Advocate found that 40 percent of convictions by 12-member juries in Louisiana come with at least one juror unconvinced. The newspaper’s review also found that black defendants were 30 percent more likely than white ones to be convicted by split juries, and that the verdict rule serves to silence black jurors more than white ones.”

If we assume that 40% of the time, the requirement of 12:0 verdict would mean that at least one unconvinced juror could prevent a verdict, using the FBI data, black victims would be frustrated 996 times and white victims 1202 times. A civic people would suffer hung juries and the expense of  a new trial 2198 times. Lawyers, judges, and the rest of the judicial system get bigger budgets to cover the cost of re-trials.

Applying the demographic proportionality, the proportionate number of white victims would be [12.6/73.7 times 1202 equals 206] white victims with the 996 black victims. In other words, 483% disproportionate harm to black victims.

Why do The Advocate personnel sponsor such injustice? I can see why lawyers and judges are for victimizing black fellow citizens: money. But it does not make sense for The Advocate to take such apparent risk. What’s in it for them?

Fifth post:

In my birth town, I was a “paper boy,” riding my bike and throwing Knoxville New Sentinels rolled and tucked into the end column-width. There was only one black family on my route, and when I quit, Mr. Thomas said, “I hate to see that. You’ve been the best on the block.”

My person did not articulate to my brain how civic Baton Rouge black fellow citizens are, until I began to ponder the divide that motivates formation of St. George City. To make a long story short, I became a “preambler”. Over the past couple years, I came to realize my quest is to convince America’s elites to adopt the agreement that is stated in the preamble. Thus, I consider myself a political ally of fellow citizens who are oppressed by the way things are in America. The leading articulation after five years’ work is that the reform from English colonialism that was intended by the signers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution was put on hold by the 1789-1793 or first Congress. They re-established Blackstone and Canterbury, and political regimes have maintained the church-state-partnership ever since.

In Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech in Rochester NY. He introduced himself as “fellow citizen,” and soon praised the US Constitution and its preamble as representing him. He chastises American Christianity. The rest of his speech is a scathing demand that 64 years later, white Americans stop conducting domestic slave-trade with its brutal disregard for black families and individuals.
 
I think my newspaper-delivery customer, Mr. Thomas, perceived me a fellow citizen, and I have never behaved otherwise. Along the way, I have tried to use humor to offset potential altercation, primarily white on white, but have never perpetrated or encouraged violence.

Saturday, after last week’s sixth library meeting to celebrate Constitution Day (September 17), I attended a meeting hosted by the Unanimous Jury Coalition (UJC). I wanted to speak to fellow citizens about the importance of the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts, coming from unique, Louisiana, French-colonial political leadership.

England and many of its former colonies reformed from unanimous verdicts nearly a century after Louisiana adopted an impartial 9:3 unanimous-majority rule in order to fulfill U.S. Amendment VI stipulation against unanimous juries. (I write “against,” because English-traditionalist James Madison wrote “unanimous” but the U.S. Senate required “impartial.”) See https://www.revolvy.com/page/Hung-jury.

Key ideas I heard Saturday include: 1) the Unanimous Jury Coalition (see https://www.unanimousjury.org/) developed from Louisianans for Prison Alternatives (LPA), confirmed at https://www.klfy.com/news/local/state-leaders-and-community-organizations-to-hold-public-forum-on-unanimous-jury-amendment/1388050851; 2) the host, whose name I did not catch, related a hypothetical of a man who repeatedly commits minor offenses and pleads guilty in order to receive lighter penalties until just when he decides to reform, he has established a felony record, without regard for childhood with coaching and encouragement toward civic integrity; 3) he said that DAs don’t care about people and want to build budgets; 4) he displayed the Jim Crow quote from 1898 but said that it is not playing well in the state---only in NBR and New Orleans, for example; 5) he said that other than emphasizing that Oregon is the only other state with 10:2 verdicts and they “will” end it next year, the Unanimous Jury Coalition is not educating voters; 6) opposing points are that unanimity holds up the judicial process and some DAs assert that plea bargains will reduce; and 7) there is no organized opposition. They reported voter registration deadlines.

I think and hope that the Unanimous Jury Coalition is mistaken to think that there is no organized opposition. I think a civic people of Louisiana is organized by the agreement that is offered every U.S. citizen and civic-resident in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble is a tacit agreement to collaborate for civic integrity, and it appeals to every individual. There is no further organization required. The power of the preamble is what kept radical national organizations, AMO, from inciting property damage and injury during Baton Rouge’s dreadful summer of 2016. AMO stands for Alinsky-Marxist organization, which opines that justice is appropriate whenever “my” human rights are denied. Justice never obtains from personal opinion about human rights.

During the Q&A, with assistance by Jennifer Harding, I asked how unanimity would improve Louisiana’s provision of U.S. Amendment VI’s required impartiality. Mostly from a citizen in the crowd, the impressive response was that impartiality is not the point: its unanimity. Secondly, I pointed out that England, who gave us the traditions of unanimity and twelve-person juries had reformed to 10:2 verdicts in 1967, so as to offset bigotry and criminal influence. Again, mostly from the crowd, the response was that ignorance is of more concern than bigotry; given the chance, I would agree. Someone read a quote from Oregon about the unconstitutional status of the 10:2 verdicts, and I responded that Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdict was affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1970 and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, and is thereby constitutional.

I was there to express warm opposition to perhaps influence fellow citizens to consider the Louisiana, global leadership manifest in its 1879 decision to enact 9:3 criminal jury verdicts; to conform to U.S. Amendment VI’s demand that states provide impartial juries. The source of unanimous 12:0 verdicts, England, reformed its laws in 1967, eighty-eight years after Louisiana had done so. It matters not that 48 U.S. states remain loyal to an obsolete English tyranny over citizens; the other states may reform on their own schedule. However, Louisiana voters may preserve the impartiality they now provide with the 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts.

Sixth post:

Assuming that the editors collaborated on the caption, which I paraphrase---the radical movement needs more law enforcement official to advocate for unanimous juries---this reader is constrained to ask why do The Advocate personnel so desperately want to harm Louisiana citizens? Why create an article that points to “slim list” of support if not to publish propaganda?
 
Simerman’s language is “half a dozen,” and he cites numbers like 42 DAs and 64 sheriffs or 106 individuals. Louisiana has 348 law enforcement agencies; https://en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_law_enforcement.... Are the opinions of six officials out of 348 or 1.72% an indication that the Unanimous Jury Coalition (UJC) ought to forget about official endorsements or that The Advocate personnel wants to excite UJC to get out the opinions? Why does The Advocate publish pseudo-news that may hurt the people of Louisiana?
 
Some of Simerman’s words and chosen quotes are simply false. First, “120-year-old rule” cites 1798, and the 9:3 unanimous-majority rule was enacted by Louisiana in 1879. Second, the amendment asks voters to approve the amendment of Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts, that are intended to conform to U.S. Amendment VI’s requirement that states provide impartial juries, to 12:0 verdicts, which in no way enhance impartiality. Third, some “founding fathers” were loyal to the British crown but lost their arguments; both John Adams and James Madison wanted unanimous verdicts, but the U.S. Senate voted to require states to provide impartial verdicts. Opinion from a respected judge is no substitute for a sheriff’s independent power, independent energy, and independent authority. Why give Ben Cohen the mysterious voice for DAs who want speak.
 
Last Saturday’s joke of the day was that the powerful DAs can’t reach unanimity! We’ve seen the quip before on theadvocate.com.
 
In my fifty years with Baton Rouge my home town, I have never seen so few risk their reputations for so little special interest. But some of the risk takers are heavyweights.
 
Gov. John Bel Edwards erroneously said Louisiana ought to join the 48-state folly, perhaps ignorantly supporting colonial-England’s 12:0 verdicts when England reformed to 10:2 verdicts in 1967. England didn't quite mimic Louisiana’s 1879 excellence with 9:3 verdicts, prompted by U.S. Amendment VI, 1791. Perhaps Gov. Edwards opposes the U.S. Constitution.
 
Some members of the Louisiana Legislature concocted Act 493 when they perceived they did not have the votes to amend the constitution per the resolve of the Louisiana State Bar Association. I won't vote for them in future.
 
Personnel for The Advocate spent a year on a social-science statistical ploy to deny FBI data that shows 12:0 verdicts 575% disproportionally hurts black fellow citizens. The Louisiana State Bar Association who were taken by Ed Tarpley’s religious zeal to help everyone see the light about Jim Crow law rather than notice the constitutionality of Louisiana’s 10:2 or even 9:3 unanimous-majority rule to help provide impartial results. I think they also overlooked U.S. Amendment XIV.1.
 
Some of the players I do not want to mention, hoping they will disappear from the quest for civic integrity. That, so far, is the greatest failure of the 1781 victory in war for independence from England: the U.S. has not separated church from state. Many fellow citizens do not realize that the Canterbury-government-partnership is guaranteed by the English constitution, yet in America, the analog is maintained by tradition. See Greece v Galloway (2014).
 
I hope Louisiana voters will preserve one of their treasures for both justice and economy: the 10:2 unanimous-majority criminal jury verdict, adopted in 1879 to help meet U.S. Amendment VI requirement that states provide impartial juries.

Seventh post:

Why did The Advocate spend a year on policy-directed statistics for their 12:0 promotion project?

A look at the Unanimous Jury Coalition website, https://www.unanimousjury. org/, shows that a lot of national organizations support the imposition of 12:0 juries on Louisiana citizens, who now benefit from 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts and the protection from bigotry and criminal influences England sought when they reformed to 10:2 in 1967.

Why would The Advocate personnel spend a year generating statistically constructed propaganda for national organizations so as to impose injustice on Louisiana?

In the nation, FBI data for murders involving black fellow citizens and white fellow citizens, shows harm to blacks and whites, 575% disproportionately to black fellow citizens. It is not surprising that jury trials are more likely to involve black fellow citizens, because blacks tend to exercise vigilantism against each other more frequently than whites injure each other. The Advocate personnel came up with 30% more likely with 10:2 verdicts, when the national number is 575% with mostly 12:0 verdicts. There seems to be evidence that 10:2 verdicts disproportionately benefits black Louisianans. The beneficiaries are both black victims and Louisianans who pay the bills for the judicial system here (almost all of us). When black fellow citizens are 575% disproportionally involved, errant black jurors are encountered more frequently.

The above evidence for efficient impartiality has been cited by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, and he has left it to the individual citizen to discover and understand the details. Avoiding hung juries is one point. A second point addresses another obsolete English passion: conviction by 12. A unanimous-majority of 12 with aid toward impartiality may be obtained with 12:2 or 12:3 verdict, but the jury costs increase 17% or 25%, respectively. Landry has done what John Bel Edwards claims to do: prioritize the people of Louisiana.

So what if 40% of the time one or more juror cannot reach unanimity with the majority of ten? Were the negated jurors stupid, bigoted or criminal? Were they individuals who just cannot follow a judge’s instructions about the law and juror responsibility? Their opposition does not mean the other ten were not excellent performers in the jury duty.

Some reports have the number of cases that would be changed by 12:0 rule as under 20 a year. If so, and if it is a move away from impartiality, why do The Advocate personnel expend so much for it? And 20 a year does not seem significant to Louisiana’s incarceration rate, especially if injustice is being served---criminals turned lose by innocents, bigots, and criminals. Also, criminals make plea deals because their lawyer thinks it is beneficial to the criminal rather than the DA.

I know why I work against 12:0 verdicts. My study shows it is a move away from civic integrity; see “Unanimous verdicts” at promotethepreamble.blgospot. com at a time when you could read a book; I am also trying to promote fellow citizens to collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity by using the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

The Advocate personnel can claim that they are entitled to an opinion. However, I assert that opinion is for the unknowns. Civic integrity requires the work to discover the-objective-truth, the work to discover how to benefit from the-objective-truth, behavior so as to benefit, public declaration of the discovery and expected benefits and alertness to change if new discovery demands it. U.S. impartiality rather than English unanimity was specified in 1791 in U.S. Amendment VI, so in this case there is not much to discover.

What does civic integrity say about The Advocate’s claim to freedom of the press? Where’s the responsibility?

 (Posted on the site.)

Columns

Columnists could coach the quest by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (George Will) (https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2018/10/jeff-flake-let-gop-served-nation/)

Will, over the last few years, continually disappoints this reader.

In this case, Flake, expressed the responsibility and power of his office and his civic integrity. By circumstances, he, along with other Republicans on the Senate Judicial Committee had two duties to We the People of the United States, those citizens who have read, contemplated, and decide to civically behave and civilly collaborate according to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble is both a civic and a civil sentence that is neutral to race, religion, gender, and ethnicity. Citizens and resident aliens may choose to oppose the preamble, but may find themselves constrained by the statutory justice it drives.

The U.S. is a representative republic with the intention to spoil democracy, or mob rule; chaos. Thereby, Senator Flake found himself with two steps toward negating the power of the President. He could vote “yes” on advancing the nomination from committee then “no” on confirming the nomination.

Flake’s opinion was that justice required an FBI investigation to try to uncover refutation of the obvious appearance that Dr. Ford’s testimony, for reasons that may never be known was erroneous. Without the chance for the FBI to find corroboration that had not been pursued, like the grocery-store experience Ford recalled. Flake thought it through, discussed it with the other 21 committee members, obtained concurrence, and acted.

No matter the final outcome, Flake demonstrated that there are fellow citizens who serve in elected office and do not lose trust-in and commitment-to the preamble, whether the commitment is in their articulations or in their genes and memes.

On the other hand and another topic, my Senator, John Kennedy, had challenged Kavanaugh with a religious oath that Kavanaugh handled with typical, ceremonial aplomb; in other words, meaninglessness. In other words, Kennedy has a god and Kavanaugh has a god, but God, whatever that is, does not conform to the two gods.

Kennedy’s was an accepted, unconstitutional act made seriously unconstitutional by Kennedy's directness. For example, the Supreme Court Justice exercises politically correct unconstitutionality by ending the presidential oath with the question: “. . . so help you God?” There’s nothing wrong with a president adding to his oath “so help me Allah,” or “so help me physics,” or integrity, or other personal expression, but the Justice’s lead is blatantly unconstitutional.
 
I hope for future reform.

(Posted on the site)

Columnists could coach without contradicting the quest by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (Clarence Page) (https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/09/27/tribal-times-dont-forget-what-unites-us/1431036002/)

Page long since convinced me he writes not as fellow citizen, but this is the first time I perceived blatant self-contradiction. Why does Page choose to impose on Thurgood Marshall a term Marshall seemed to avoid: African-American? What civic agreement draws some black Americans to reject the agreement that is offered in the U.S.? Is Page a legitimate leader or something else?

My dialogue with dead writers, in this case, Frederick Douglass, 1852, informs me that any black citizen, if he or she wants to, may call himself or herself “fellow citizen.” If skin-color seems interesting, he or she may modify to “black fellow citizen.”

Thucydides, perhaps in 404 B.C.E or about 2400 years ago expressed that, in my paraphrase, humans are equal if they agree to collaborate. Some scholars assert that humans are equal under the law and others say humans are equal according to law. One person said, “The government is required to assure each citizen equality.”

I think the framers of the U.S. Constitution realized they had negotiated an excellent form of government and in the work of the committee of forms, an agreement was offered citizens. Individuals may trust-in and commit-to the civic purpose and goals, and they define the entity We the People of the United States. It is both a civic and a civil agreement, for several reasons, one of which is that the entity ultimately discovers and enacts statutory justice. Dissidents to the agreement may find themselves subjects of the rule of law. Only 2/3 of the framers signed the 1787 U.S. Constitution, and some objected to the preamble.

When Page (erroneously) accused the signers of self-contradiction, he chose to invoke Thurgood Marshall. On May 6, 1987, Marshall referred to “black Americans,” then “blacks.” He wrote the phrases, “Negro of the African race” and “descendent of an African slave.” See http://thurgoodmarshall.com/the-bicentennial-speech/.

Marshall’s chose phrases of distinction rather than division. Page’s “African-American justice” tribalism Marshall’s personal distinction.

In contrast to Thucydides’ view of equality and the U.S. citizen’s opportunity to be equal under the preamble, what agreement did African tribes breach when they captured fellow Africans, shackled them, jailed them, and shipped them across oceans as a commodity? What African agreement inspires a black American to neglect or reject the agreement offered in the preamble?

To Francis Elliott The problem stems from the First U.S. Congress re-establishing Blackstone common law with traditional church-state partnership, which is constitutional in England and traditional in the U.S. See Greece v Galloway (2014), wherein my complaint against the factional-Protestant partnership morphed into "great awakenings" morphed into judeo-christianity morphed into judeo-catholic supreme court is called "niggling" and I'm invited to either sit quietly or leave the room. But now, we have African-American Christianity, which an English royal wedding has tasted. Talk about tyranny coming full circle!

Most jurors don’t think with their skin-color (Glenn Davis Jr.) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_15628496-c19e-11e8-a027-f3f021ee1a81.html)

Davis unintentionally makes two perhaps erroneous points: some blacks think with their skin color and all whites think with their skin color. In Davis’s case, one black voted with the whites.

“The jury consisted of nine whites and three blacks. At one point . . . the jurors deadlocked at nine to three [by skin color]. Eventually, one [black] juror went along with voting to convict us.”

Louisiana’s enactment of the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict was intended to meet the 1791 U.S. Amendment VI requirement that states provide impartial juries. Arguments to maintain the English tradition of 12:0 verdicts failed then and opened the door for French Louisiana to be innovative in providing impartiality in its 1880 rule. England reformed from 12:0 to 10:2 in 1967 so as to lessen organized crime’s influences on juries.
Louisiana revised to 10:2 in 1974. Louisiana set the example for the other states, and its 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts were ruled constitutional by both the state (1970) and the US Supreme Court (1972). Reversing constitutional justice using a popular vote that was instigated by the state legislature may not stand.

We the People of the United States collaborate for an impartial judicial process with special attention to courtroom excellence. The prosecution, the defense, and the judge compete for justice for all three parties: the victim, the accused, and the civic people.

The qualified jury-pool has individuals of typical psychologies: habitually impartial, persuadable, and indecisive or biased. Typically, the habitually impartial jurors become a majority, and courtroom excellence helps the persuadable join the majority. The 10:2 rule is essential to accommodate indecisive or biased jurors. If one criminal or bigot slips through the vetting process, the allowable unanimous-majority needs to drop to 9:3.

With the above considerations and without the courtroom experience, I trust the 10:2 jury above Davis and Innocence Project New Orleans. Nevertheless, I wish Davis a life of civic integrity and the best for his family and the people.

Second post: More egregiously, Davis joins special interest zealots in their disparate, collective quests for blind injustice.

Some judges and lawyers are doing all they can to hide the data from the public. But studies show that 12:0 verdicts are often wrong, perhaps 15% of the time.

Black victims, because of a culture of black on black offenses, suffer disproportionally the error-effect of unanimous verdict requirements. Black fellow citizens who collaborate for civic justice would be disproportionally hurt by approval of 12:0 verdicts, contrary to The Advocate’s “Our Views” on August 12, 2018.

Consider FBI data on 12,253 U.S. murders in 2013. Of 5500 reports involving blacks and whites, 3009 victims were white, with 2509 white offenders and 409 black offenders; 2491 victims were black, with 2245 black offenders and 189 white offenders. Altogether, there were 2654 black offenders and 2698 white offenders, about 50% each.

Offenses tend to occur within the same race: 90.1% of black victims suffered a black offender and 83.4% of white victims suffered a white offender. The population in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black. Blacks commit black on black offense 632% more frequently than white on white offense. (That’s 90.1/83.4/12.6*73.7*100% = 632%.)

Davis, perhaps innocent of the murder, nonetheless illustrates the insufficiency of honesty. By not exercising integrity---obtaining and considering the facts and the available data---lobbies against justice for all fellow citizens, especially black fellow citizens.

Black fellow citizens who act for their individual interests rather than for a non-profit that seeks political power or has other motives will vote to preserve a Louisiana, early discovery in impartiality: the unanimous-majority jury verdict.

Third post: Davis’s situation inspires deeper proposals for an achievable, better future.

First, no matter the past, I hope Davis and his family enjoy individual happiness with civic integrity. That implies building a good future for Davis’s grandchildren and beyond.

The grandchildren thought comes not from my imagination but from the leading-edge of a local library discussion of the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The ultimate goal of that agreement is benefits to “our Posterity,” which, for the individual, means grandchildren and beyond. Let me restate that: The U.S. would be better if, for the past 230 years, parents and their children had had in mind that they were working not only for their happiness but for the parents grandchildren and beyond; from the preamble, “our Posterity.” Despite the past, a better future is at hand.

Further, a confluence of events caused me to ponder: Why do black fellow citizens with 632% disproportionate frequency murder black fellow citizens? As a chemical engineer, I am hardly qualified to do more than ask. But as a fellow citizen, my first speculation was that when I was ten and spent nickels to watch Tom-Mix cowboy shoot-em-ups on a Saturday, my black counterpart may have lived in a community that practiced vigilantism. The Knoxville police were called only to clean up and try to follow up.

Another notion was invoked by Wil Haygood’s book, “Showdown: Thurgood Marshall . . . “, 2015. The first sentence seems wrongminded: “The hunger for Negro freedom began as soon as the first slave ships . . . landed on America’s shores.” The word “Negro” has Portuguese origin, and I imagine the captive’s hunger for freedom began during African capture, confinement, and loading on Portuguese ships. Haygood expressed biased sentiment about the misery of leaving Africa. Does he honestly imagine leaving Africa as a commodity was alright?

Jeremiah Wright told me in 2015 at Southern University that his black church’s damnation of America is the fault of white church. Wright and I laughed over my essay about his “flag burning,” my tack for not quoting his infamous oath. If white church is responsible for the widespread neglect of the civic and civil agreement that is offered in the preamble to the US Constitution (and I think white church is guilty), it is a fault that may be corrected. However, black church must be involved in the correction rather than damnation of black fellow citizens’ homeland.

A people are equal under the laws they agree to both observe and correct when injustice is discovered. In the US, that agreement is offered as the first sentence in the US Constitution: the preamble. If there is a civic and legal agreement I am overlooking, I’d like to know.

Africans were sold into slavery by Africans. I have no idea what African laws the captors broke. I am aware of the mid 15^th century papal bulls that arrogated the doctrine of discovery with African slave trade. And the English became the fiercest competitor in the African-slave trade. However, the preamble and the 1787 Articles of the Constitution made way for both emancipation of the slaves and a clean break from English tradition.

The descendants of slaves and I were equally newborns in this country. We have equal opportunity to adopt the civic and civil agreement that is offered fellow citizens. Citizens who collaborate for statutory justice according to the preamble seek statutory justice whereby dissidents who live peaceably pursue their happiness but dissidents who cause actual harm are constrained. Thus, fellow citizens have two special interest groups: a civic people of the U.S. and dissidents.

Citizens of the U.S. are equal under the agreement that is offered in the first sentence of the U.S. constitution. Any other compact is dissidence and perhaps worse: treason. It matters not that the preamble has been neglected in the past. The preamble’s agreement offers fellow citizens an achievable, better future.

Elected and appointed officials of local, state, and federal government are first fellow citizens and candidates to choose between civic citizenship and dissidence. I will always vote against the dissidents.

Fourth post: I wonder why Davis, in the middle of relating the trial experience switched from “blacks” to “African American”.

“The jury consisted of nine whites and three blacks. Eventually, one African American juror went along with voting to convict us. Two of the jurors held out; they were African American.”

I prefer “black fellow citizens” only if the skin-color distinction is needed. I learned this from Frederick Douglass, who in 1852 in Rochester, NY start his speech: “Mr. President, Friends, and Fellow Citizens.”

Douglass’s speech is pivotal to the hope for a better future. Douglass approved the preamble and the articles of the U.S. Constitution as intending emancipation. I need to understand better his reasons and references.

Fifth post: I perceive that factions both within the state and beyond, by creating the actions leading to 2018 Act 493, have breached my right to civic integrity and my civil right to constitutional law.

First, Louisiana’s unanimous-majority jury verdict became the law of the land when the US Supreme Court approved the 9:3 verdict in Johnson v Louisiana (1972). The 9:3 verdict was created in 1879 from 1791 US Amendment VI requiring states to provide impartial juries.

Second, when factions cause injustice by reversing justice, they breech 1868 US Amendment XIV.1, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges . . . of citizens of the United States.” Providing impartial juries is not only a privilege, it’s a civic duty of We the People of the United States. Creating a legislative act if popular vote approves it “makes” a law and if unjust breaches XIV.1.

Primary offenders seem to be The Advocate and its personnel who promoted the initial movement and more egregiously those who created the movement from legislative vote to popular vote: Louisiana Legislators who created, promoted, and voted for Act 493 and Governor John Bel Edwards who did nothing about the tyranny.

As a citizen, I am as qualified to read the U.S. Constitution as any other person, including a Supreme Court justice. The difference is that my opinion may not hold.

Of course the voters’ preservation of 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts negates Act 493. However, the Louisiana Legislature has time to reverse a grave error. Gov. Edwards can also be a civic citizen.

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.