I quit The Advocate newspaper

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 willing citizens of the United States collaborate for civic, civil, and legal self-discipline to provide integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, for ourselves and for the nation’s grandchildren and beyond and by this amendable constitution authorize and 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.

Selected theme from this week

Transition away from The Advocate:  On January 8, The Advocate personnel published an egregious abuse of the loss of five precious individuals as a segue to unrelated political opposition to President Trump’s bid for comprehensive safety and security at the U.S. southern border.

After fifty years’ subscription, I want to quit collaborating with such an immoral entity as The Advocate. I have withdrawn from theadvocate.com and will no longer contribute to the public exchange there.

Readers who may want to follow my views as events unfold my read my weekly posts at cipbr.blogspot.com.

Our Views (The Advocate, local press in Baton Rouge, LA) my last responses and the transition to other local media

Local strawman disgrace Jan 8 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_bfcda338-12a8-11e9-b413-f7db5559c801.html)

To Leroy Theriot: I agree.

The Advocate personnel reached their moral abyss with me today by using the five precious persons tragically lost in a Florida traffic accident to construct a strawman mendacity.

And their haste to construct the strawman led to stupid arrogance against the people: “Security is important, but key parts of the border already have a wall.”

I will approach MWWW (my wonderful, witty, wife) for agreement to end our five-decades’ subscription to The Advocate.

The Advocate personnel shield John Bel Edwards’ responsibility for Bankston corruption Jan 8 (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_9d456248-12a2-11e9-9213-0bf9ee56e755.html)

Let Amite lawyer John Bel Edwards' support for Bankston as well as Edwards and the Louisiana State Bar Association undoing Louisiana’s U.S. Amendment VI compliant impartial 10:2 criminal jury verdicts be campaign issues by which voters remove Edwards from office in the Louisiana state capitol building once and for all time. The 12:0 verdict absolutism 700% disproportionally hurts black victims.

Letters

Passive fellow citizens (William Bonin) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_0b20687a-0f8e-11e9-9417-dbb04fcbaa62.html)

William Bonin unintentionally expresses his status among fellow citizens: In the United States, according to the U.S. preamble, the individual fellow citizen may choose to dissent, to passively observe the law, to obey the law, or to collaborate so as to improve the law.

Fellow citizens are free to consider the 2400-year-old Athenian Greek idea of civic, civil, and legal equity under an agreement to collaborate for statutory justice. In other words, to discover the-objective-truth about an existing injustice in the law and correct it. Discovery empowers humankind’s path to statutory justice, and no human construct can shape the undiscovered actual reality so as to repress the whole of the-objective-truth.

Scholars and search engines lamely ignore “the-objective-truth,” perhaps because the operators want to preserve their construct which they label “the common good.” Frequently, they tout reason in competition with "nature," the obsolete obfuscation of physics the object of discovery. (For example, a Rudyard-Kipling-village's claim that the king was a god was refuted when the women bled the king. Consider it ancient DNA evidence, a progeny of physics that is used to discover lies.)

These days, some officials demand that passion and love represent the common good yet use profanity to stonewall fellow citizens who stand for responsibility and appreciation. The passion and love sentiment, even without the profanity and AMO Rule No. 5 cannot derail civic integrity and appreciation of fellow citizens.

Bonin complains for change in words that consign his essay to futility. The hackneyed words obscure concrete proposals such as collaborating to perfect the Greek suggestion of equity under responsible statutory justice rather than the American mimic of judicial Blackstone with Canterbury-House-of-Lords partnership. I don't know the-objective-truth so can only offer my opinion.

The-objective-truth exists and does not respond to compromise, personal attack, obstruction, nuclear threat, self-blame, or tolerance of clowns in official office. Elected and appointed officials, whether local, state or federal, may demonstrate their collaboration to discover and effect the tacit promise of the U.S. preamble: May demonstrate that they are of We the People of the United States who maintain the USA. On that standard, the people may vote them in or out of office.

A better personal future begins the moment a reader considers, analyses, embraces, and promotes the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble. When We the People of the United States develops into the majority of fellow citizens, the United States' ineluctable march toward statutory justice may resume.

To James Hyde: Beware obsolete scholarly slogans like "the greater good for all of the people," which might seem good to John Locke (d. 1704).

I want civic integrity (statutory justice) with the happiness Phil Beaver perceives as he develops his individual rather than the civilization some person or some institution aims to impose on me.

To James Hyde again: "Educated people" or perhaps fellow citizens like Mongolian HU---intelligent people. Dedicated, whether educated or not?

Here’s my poetry this morning representing We the People of the United States according to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution after being forced to resist invaders, internal or external.

I attempt to mimic Mongolian rock lyrics representing “intelligent humans” even though I have not yet imagined how profound their poetry may be. Read the lyrics in Tuvan throat singing to rock rhythm at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM8dCGIm6yc. What an experience!

It’s only my first draft but follows:

If oppressors come, we’ll fight to the end.

If vigilantes come, we’ll fight and battle.

If empathetic lovers come, we’ll fight in rage.

If pretenders* come, we’ll fight and obliterate.

*Adults who attack to satisfy themselves while sacrificing the future for the grandchildren and beyond.

To Joe Diogenes: Trump has always had the data on the cost of illegal traffic across the U.S. southern border. He knows that actually real costs each year easily exceed the $20 billion ultimate cost of a permanent wall.

Trump does his best, but cares nothing about today's statements and will easily change to statements that will persuade fellow citizens to take responsibility for their personal safety and security and that of their family and their grandchildren and beyond. In other words, Trump expresses humility about yesterday's thoughts so he can express today's improvements. He expects responsible fellow citizens to either act in their own best interests or perish on their indolence. He is convinced that neither government nor God will take the people’s responsibility for safety and security, ultimate justice, or civic integrity. We see that spirit in his behavior toward some wayward Republicans and most Democrats.

“Wayward” refers to politicians and elected and appointed officials who do not behave as though they are first fellow citizens who trust-in and commit-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. preamble for short).

Trump's is not an easy task, especially when many people are fooled by the coercion that either government or God, whatever that is, owes them an existence. Such fellow citizens are thereby civically, civilly, and legally corrupt according to the U.S. preamble.

Illegal aliens are not fellow citizens and thereby "traitor" does not apply to them; they simply need to be removed from the country. However, I think there are some self-expressing traitors in high places.

I bet you, Diogenes, anxiously do not understand my “salad of words.”

To Paul Spillman: Stonewalling fellow citizens is the chief cause of not source of the chaos we are suffering.

News

Being a civic, civil, and legal fellow citizen for life (Alexis Platt, https://www.brproud.com/news/wednesday-is-national-law-enforcement-appreciation-day/1693700862) (https://www.facebook.com/phil.beaver.52)

For National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day:

Perhaps it was 2007. I was working in my front yard when a policeman got out of his car and asked if he could speak to me. He told me they were chasing a suspect who had crossed the bayou and headed my way through the woods.

He asked if I had a way to notify neighbors. I said I did and wrote a notice to my online Neighborhood Watch styled online group. The moderator did not publish my alert. Two days later, I learned that the moderator, at the time, was in another city caring for her family.

I called her and volunteered to be a backup moderator. After several interviews and collaboration, she made me the backup moderator. When she left town, she made me the owner of the online group. Being in my seventh decade, I recruited two more moderators, both younger than me, and asked one of them to be the owner.

In times of challenge I contact the moderators for collaboration. They are both male, so I continually seek a female moderator. I think females are naturally sensitive to mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Males, who are naturally supportive of females, do well to collaborate with them when they speak, especially about safety and security.

My voluntary role occasionally calls for police contact. I never have to say I am a moderator for a community online security communications group. I just give my name and receive dedicated service, often involving direction to another office in the department.

I feel that I am a civic, civil, and legal citizen, acting for statutory justice (the ultimate goal of both We the People of the United States and their authorized agent for a monopoly on domestic force). I have experienced that most police regard themselves as fellow citizens with me.

When an individual fellow citizen behaves as though he or she has egocentric interests rather then equity under statutory law, I do all I can to help the police. I started helping in an actually real, continuous way in 2007 after a policeman requested civic help.

(BTW: This is my first post regarding the news which excludes my hometown newspaper as a resource.

Yesterday, they used the deaths of five of our precious individuals as a basis for politics against the safety and security promised by the President of the US.

After fifty years subscribing to and reading my hometown newspaper I decided it is time to disassociate with a civically, civilly, and legally unconstitutional institution. I have unsubscribed to theadvocate.com.

Any readers who may want to know my opinions on the news or opinion may follow my weekly posts at cipbr.blogspot.com.)

Wrong civic, civil, and legal attitudes about crime (GRACE TOOHEY, LEA SKENE, KATIE GAGLIANO) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_e14db61a-0fb5-11e9-a7fb-fb14efc3f471.html)

“In 2018, the [Baton Rouge] homicide rate was 35 per 100,000 people . . . about seven times the national average . . .” At the national average, the murder rate here would be 12/year instead of 87. A drastic change in learning (that is, a drastic change in the system to encourage and coach children and adults) will be required to reduce the annual murder rate to 12. Statutory justice comes from the people.

“. . . the vast majority of the victims were black males at just over 80 percent.” Baton Rouge is much worse than the nation, where from 1980 through 2008, “. . . black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Blacks were disproportionately likely to commit homicide and to be the victims. In 2008 the offending rate for blacks was seven times higher than for whites and the victimisation rate was six times higher.” https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

(Beginning in 2019, Louisiana's 12:0 felony jury absolutism will also 700% disproportionately hurt black victims.)

I could not suggest reasons for it but think I see two trends in the data. There seemed to be a murder-rate decline of 5%/yr from 2007 until 2016. Obama was president from 2009 until 2017. The trend from 2003 through 2017, with its “black lives matter” peak, is a 5.6% annual increase. These trends are mirrored on an annual chart dating from 1965, a civil rights year; http://www.murderdata.org/p/blog-page.html. I can speculate that Obama’s late support for the “black lives matter” movement adversely affected black vigilantism.

Baton Rouge Police Chief Murphy Paul “[increased the number] of [homicide] detectives . . . from nine . . .  to 13.” The recommendation: “. . . optimally staffed when . . . the lead investigator [is] on an average of three to four new homicide cases per year.” Page 42, https://www.bja.gov/Publications/promising-strategies-for-strengthening-homicide-investigations.pdf. With 106 cases in 2017, 2018 needed 27 to 35 homicide investigators. I bet most fellow citizens would prefer community relations officers and victim counselling officers be reassigned to make room for homicide investigators.

“Our police officers are doing their part to understand the community that they serve … and are engaging the community in a positive way," said Baton Rouge Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome. 

Children are not encouraged and coached to learn the fundamentals of civic, civil, and legal citizenship. Citizens divide, choosing to use their individual life to develop either infidelity or integrity. Humans are so individually powerful that always some will develop crime. Athenian Greeks, about 2400 years ago suggested that equal justice is possible when citizens collaborate for statutory law and law enforcement. The idea is controversial, but in this country, the opportunity to collaborate for statutory justice is offered in the civic, civil, and legal preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Statutory justice seeks to perfect statutory law and its enforcement.

Broome may privatize her church-and-dialogues-on-racialism platform so as to publically advocate civic integrity through the U.S. preamble with collaboration to discover the-objective-truth rather than conflict for dominant opinion. These proposals for an achievable, better future were developed in local library and other meetings, now entering our sixth year.

  

Columns

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

Richmond

Other fora

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/01/11/protestant-theology-and-nations-as-moral-communities-yoram-hazony-nationalism

“But the nations only exist in the first place because humanity rebelled against God at Babel.”

How can civic fellow citizens respond to premises grounded in myths? Is it impossible for professors to admit to themselves that they are foremost fellow citizens who owe it to their mirrors to relate to actual reality? If not, pity. But civic integrity marches on.

Civic fellow citizens collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that each one may pursue individual happiness with civic integrity. In civic integrity, one citizen does not attempt to impose evaluation of his or her god on another citizen, especially a citizen who will not turn his or her back on God, whatever that is.

https://www.facebook.com/nutleyhome/posts/10217681502205895?comment_id=10217681966217495&notif_id=1547229385284143&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic

I appreciate your alert to this attention to a typo. We civic people need all the help we can get, and I want to elaborate ideas we are collaborating on in case someone will tune in.

I correct myself all the time. My daughter pointed out four needs for editing in my post the morning in appreciation of law enforcers. I immediately edited, without regrets but with appreciation.

I voted for Trump/Pence twice and am on deck for two more votes for them. I think the GOP has begun to reform, Independents are reforming, Libertarians are reforming, and Democrats have doomed themselves.

Trump is humble enough to share with alacrity his thoughts directly with We the People of the United States then correct, because Trump admits to himself that he does not know the whole of the-objective-truth.

We the People of the United States, that unique civic, civil, and legal entity is defined by the agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. 

Fellow citizens are in the dichotomy of individuals who collaborate for statutory justice (the perfection of statutory law and its enforcement) and individuals who for their reasons do not collaborate. Among the latter group are traitors. Illegal aliens cannot be traitors, because they are not fellow citizens; however, among We the People of the United States there are a few traitors. 

Writers for the press are foremost fellow citizens. Those who place their egocentric opinions above the-objective-truth are, intentionally or not, opponents of statutory justice. Some are willing to forego statutory law so as to advance their agenda. There are so many media personnel who care nothing for the U.S. Constitution that the journalism profession is almost extinct. I think of Byron York as perhaps a journalist. I cannot name another. But then, I do not know the-objective-truth, and that is not news to you, my friend.

https://www.quora.com/America-was-born-as-a-republic-What-s-actually-the-biggest-difference-between-a-republic-and-a-democracy-which-is-mob-rule?

The first two paragraphs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic explain “republic,” and you explained mob rule. Either one seems to involve the people in the discipline required for justice; however, democracy’s potential to erroneously lead everyone off a cliff is well documented. America’s constitution deliberately spoils democracy so that statutory justice may be discovered. There remains your premise, “America was born.” I think America is described by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble), and it has yet to be established: The possible America, perhaps collaboratively intended by the framers, especially the signers, has not been born.

My U.S. preamble interpretation today (1/10/2019) is as follows: Civic fellow citizens in our respective states collaborate to discover and effect statutory justice (actually realizing it is a perhaps distant or impossible perfection). We maintain the statutory laws and institutions that seem required to allow mutual, comprehensive safety and security for living fellow citizens even though some citizens in their states think vigilantism pays.

A cursory review of this continent’s British history will illustrate the youth (230 years old) in the U.S. preamble’s effects. Beforehand, British slave-trade with Africa was dominant among the traders. British colonists in the eastern seaboard complained to their homeland king’s subjects that colonists were being enslaved to manage the awful African slavery for homeland benefits and requested relief. Great Britain did not respond.

The liberation of Worcester, MA, in 1774 inspired the British colonies to call themselves states, write constitutions, and in 1776, declare war. France joined the revolution as part of their existing war with England and influenced victory at Yorktown, VA in 1781. The confederation of 13 free and independent states (1783 Treaty of Paris) struggled until 1787, when Shays rebellion made it clear a union of states was essential for survival.

From May to September 1787, delegates of 12 states, one of the 13 being dissident, debated how to create a nation that might survive. Chief points of contention included national theism on par with England’s constitutional partnership under Canterbury; monarchy; and states’ rights, especially regarding slavery. The U.S. preamble and its articles viably provided for future emancipation of the slaves. Of 55 delegates from 12 states, 39 individuals (2/3 of delegates) signed the U.S. preamble and the amendable articles that followed. I speculate that Gouverneur Morris summarized the fantastic accomplishments of the convention’s framers in the U.S. preamble. I suspect that James Madison had a few opposing words but could not influence the committee of five to revise the preamble.

If 2/3 of states would ratify the 1787 U.S. Constitution, imperfect as it was, the USA would be established. At the time, there were eight slave states --- not quite 2/3 of states. The required nine states had come forth on June 21, 1788, establishing the USA. The overall votes in the state ratification conventions was 2/3 for ratification. The Atlantic slave trade with Africa ended in 1808, as scheduled, but the domestic slave trade flourished until the late 1850s and Bleeding Kansas; white Christian vs white Christian killings. In 1858, the slave-states dominance fell to 15:17 free states.

The immorality of slavery, especially African slavery, was well argued. Christian militancy arose over abolitionists. R. E. Lee’s December 27, 1856 letter to his wife plus the CSA’s declaration of secession are sufficient to show that the Civil War was motivated by “sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” A newly minority portion of the states could have had the civic integrity to admit that theirs was the erroneous religious belief. The CSA of 7 states (21%) initiated war against the military power of 27 states, erroneously thinking that their god would prevail!

Politically astute but civically immoral (my opinion) Lincoln cited the military superiority and the ultimate justice of the people in his first inaugural address. But Lincoln used almighty words people could hardly comprehend. It’s as though he mused:  The CSA won’t really start a war, but if they do, the people’s military power rather than the gods will prevail. Lincoln claimed he was preserving the union of states (the Union), but he could have done so by championing emancipation regardless of personal political costs. In 1864, Lincoln arrogantly (my opinion) attributed to God (whatever that is) what happened to the U.S. In this context, God seems a metaphor for ultimate justice---perfection beyond military power.

The consequences of Lincoln’s failures have not yet been resolved. Since about 1968, a faction of African American Christianity has taken the view that God’s chosen people are black-skinned, and black-skinned people have no justification for joining We the People of the United States:  The black-skinned God will prevail regardless of military odds. However, the saga’s path seems to be toward statutory justice. I am not able to say what ultimate justice is but favor the destiny of the U.S. preamble’s agreement, or the ultimate collaboration of the people.

Without the 2/3 majorities at critical points in its history, the U.S. preamble would not be an influence at all. Yet, even though the U.S. preamble is not articulated as the political power that motivates the people, there are individuals who trust-in and commit-to the U.S. preamble’s civic, civil, and legal purpose and goals. When at least 2/3 of fellow citizens have similar regard for the U.S. preamble, the dawn of equity under statutory law and law enforcement may occur.

If so, the American republic’s tacit purpose, to discover and enact statutory justice, will be established by the majority. In other words, the rule of law with collaboration for statutory justice cannot obtain without the majority of fellow citizens. Without democracy’s civic majority, the rule of law fails.

The First Congress, 1789-1793, wrongly attacked the U.S. preamble as “secular,” which is at best areligious. Congressmen, much as adolescent parents don’t know parenting did not adopt the U.S. preamble’s agreement and attempted to establish Blackstone common law with American traditional factional-Protestant partnership with Congress on par with England’s constitutional Canterbury-House-of-Lords partnership. Congressmen voted self-divinity and the feeling that they were more than fellow citizens. Most congressmen flaunted superiority over fellow citizens ever since.

The American tradition has morphed into Judeo-Catholic dominance. Consider, for example, the makeup of the Supreme Court. Because of the political regimes early, sustained failure in civic integrity, the U.S. is now in the chaos of 50% plus one vote prevailing in a destructive political-party spiral. Some Democrats want to make federal government more lawless by abolishing the Electoral College.

The path to chaos can be reversed if most fellow citizens consider, adopt, and establish the U.S. preamble as the discipline for pursuit of statutory justice by collaborating to discover the-objective-truth rather than conflicting for dominant opinion. If so, perhaps the historical 2/3 of fellow citizens will have made America’s democratic republic possible at last.

https://www.quora.com/What-political-party-do-you-follow

I want to help establish the party of civic, civil, and legal people who nonetheless pursue individual happiness.

I could not articulate it then, but at age ten our so, I placed my trust and commitment with the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. That phrase is grammatically meaningless and is therefore ignored by scholars who want to tout their version of objective truth. The-objective-truth is especially avoided by spiritual people such as religious believers. However, among their ranks are some people who attend to the-objective-truth and therefore keep religion in its place: privacy.

I stopped supporting the GOP when they opposed my candidate, Jay Dardenne for governor of Louisiana, opting for David Vitter, a Catholic family man (you know that equates to family abuse when they follow the Church).

I voted for John Bel Edwards and would do it again to keep Vitter out, but Edwards is awful, so I want him out.

I voted for Donald Trump twice and am prepared to vote for him two more times. I felt I was voting against Republicans, Democrats, and Independents for a well known celebrity with intentions to establish power of the people. His slogan was make America great again, because make America great (the actually real opportunity) was not politically astute. I’m not astute enough to admit that, but Trump is.

And I hope Trump is like me. I trust-in and commit to the tacit promise of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: individual happiness with civic integrity. Thus, the party I support is the people in the civic, civil, and legal side of the dichotomy formed with fellow citizens decide whether they individually will pursue infidelity or develop integrity. If integrity, he or she collaborates for statutory justice (perfect law), which provides mutual, comprehensive safety and security to people who want civic integrity.

https://www.facebook.com/brian.schlindwein.7/posts/10156938849649140

Brian, your word choice, "dusk" inspires me to express again my lost ability to imagine tomorrow's "sunrise" instead of the earth un-hiding the sun each morning. I perceive my focus has moved from beauty to awe.

At dusk, the earth's rotation on its axis is beginning to hide the sun. The rotation is so fast the hiding occurs in seconds! And the huge sun is so far away it seems like a light that moved across the sky and dropped below the horizon instead of an unimaginably powerful nuclear reactor that is 93 million miles away. (The earth also rotates around the sun, but annually. The sun itself is rotating along with our galaxy.) In it's orbit around the sun, the earth is also rotating on its axis each day successively hiding then un-hiding the sun during almost 24 hours.

At the sun's distance, the vastly smaller earth can hide the view and does so each time a person is in full darkness. But at each dawn the earth's rotation un-hides the sun. By the cycle from dusk to dawn and back, a person can think in awe of the universe more than if he or she is bound to the tradition that the sun rises, traverses the sky, and sets. Freedom from that convention opens the mind to even more questions and awe. The rotation is so fast; things could fling off except for gravity.

I humbly express my perceptions and would appreciate improvement. 

(BTW, this follows a day when I posted objections to Mark Twain's sentence, "We took another swim in the Sea of Galilee at twilight yesterday, and another at sunrise this morning.” Twain could have avoided mixed impressions by using " day's end and day-break" or "dusk and dawn" instead of the mixed "twilight yesterday and sunrise." It seems Twain is marking the start of day at dark, or when the sunlight is striking the earth 180 degrees from the observers location, rather than at dawn.)

Dusk seems to represent actual reality. Maybe the sequence is dusk, twilight, dark, twilight, dawn, and day. Thank you, Brian, for again making me think.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3TLUNU8074ZNG/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0743256026#R3TLUNU8074ZNG

To P.R. Smith:

I speculate that Gouvernuer Morris, perhaps on contemplating the achievements of the 1787 constitutional convention, summarized it in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble) and the establishment of the USA on June 21, 1788. James Madison, often dubbed "the author of the constitution," did not favor the preamble, I speculate. Madison either favored the confederation of states rather than the union of state under their people, or wanted to favor his god, or both. I say "his god," not out of disrespect for whatever controls actual reality, but to emphasize that Madison's beliefs are not in charge of anything beyond Madison's legacy.

The U.S. preamble is a tacit statement on which fellow citizens choose their branch of the fellow-citizens dichotomy of civic discipline vs dissidence. In other words, either collaboration-for or resistance-to statutory justice. Within each of those branches there are multiple dichotomies. Under the resistance branch there are branches of infidelity including criminality and treason. Illegal aliens are not excluded by the preamble's agreement.

In ultimate justice (perfection, which seems a worthy goal), the amended articles of the U.S. Constitution do not conflict with the U.S. preamble. I doubt the U.S. preamble needs amendment, and that is somebody's brilliance, perhaps Morris's, but I doubt Madison's.

In the middle of my eighth decade, with hope for only 4.5 more decades, I choose to be selective about the books I read, and with no hope for suggestions respecting my concerns, this book will be low on my list. Thank you, P.R.S.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/01/07/oren-casss-productive-pluralism

To QET: “Produce what?”

Mutual, comprehensive safety and security more than adult satisfaction.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-democracy-and-a-representative-republic

Both terms have many meanings, and I am perplexed by the failure of American scholars and politicians and especially newspapers for not educating the people (including me) about the usages that best serve the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which I call the “U.S. preamble.”

The U.S. preamble offers each citizen an agreement on which to collaborate to discover statutory justice. By that I mean civically, civilly, and legally collaborate to discover injustice so as to amend statutory law and its enforcement accordingly. The individual may choose to dissent, to passively observe the law, to obey the law, or to collaborate and improve the law. The option to either dissent, observe, obey, or collaborate is the freedom-from oppression that allows fellow citizens the liberty-to pursue the happiness the individual perceives he or she wants. However, citizens who think crime pays suffer the rule of statutory law and its enforcement, imperfect in its journey to statutory justice as the law may be.

The U.S. preamble may be paraphrased as follows: the people in their states who want the purpose and goals stated herein authorize and maintain the statutory laws and institutions of a union of states. Nine states established the union of states on June 21, 1788, legally reducing the confederation of states formed in 1774 to four members. By the time the nation began operations on March 4, 1789, there were only two remaining free and independent states: Rhode Island and North Carolina.

The amendable U.S. Constitution guarantees the states a republican national government and specifies how officers are to be either elected or appointed. The Congress has two bodies: a house of representatives with state representation proportioned by state population and a senate, with two representatives per state. The sum of congressmen and senators for each state represent the presidential electoral college for the states. Thus, neither decisions by Congress nor election of the president are not based on popular vote, or pure democracy. An individual vote by a Californian is 67 times less effective than one by a Wyoming resident because of the population difference: 40 million vs 0.6 million. The laws that create the representative republic were specified to disrupt democracy, which is documented to produce injustice rather than develop statutory justice.

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.