Revised U.S. preamble paraphrase

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 civic people of the united states in order to develop individual discipline, civic integrity, justice, defense, prosperity, and to perpetually empower liberty, maintain statutory law for the United States of America.”

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. Equity 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

I am still in flux, but made a major change in my paraphrase of the U.S. preamble, as shown above. A couple entries below contributed to my changes.

News

On the southern border issue, consider the intentions of “We the People of the United States” as stated in the U.S. preamble. Are you committed to the U.S. citizens’ agreement or are you a dissident?

(https://www.nytimes.com/…/poli…/national-emergency-vote.html)

I think the agreement offered to fellow citizens in the USA (the U.S. preamble) intends six results: civic integrity, justice, goodwill, self-defense, prosperity, and responsible freedom to two parties. The two parties are fellow citizens and Posterity (future fellow citizens). Dissident criminals are liable on their own accounts. (Contemplate the U.S. preamble more than my assertions.)

I vote for officials who uphold the intentions of the U.S. preamble, the preamble to the Constitution for the USA. The U.S. laws and institutions, by discovery of injustice and amendment ultimately conform to the U.S. preamble.

“Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the Republican whip, said Tuesday morning at a news conference. ‘Ultimately, we’re going to stand with the president in making sure we can secure this border.’” He spoke for most Republicans, including the Louisiana non-Democrats.
I hope my Louisiana fellow citizens will support opposition to aliens against We the People of the United States.

The Democratic Party seems in dire need to reform to the intentions of the U.S. preamble---this country’s agreement for equity under statutory law. Also, some U.S. Republicans seem alien to the U.S. preamble’s intentions, and they may be voted out of office by people of civic integrity.

Pope utters knee-jerk comment against families (Nicole Winfield) (https://www.kansascity.com/latest-news/article226711954.html)

“In his final remarks to the summit, Francis noted that the vast majority of sexual abuse happens in the family.”

The Church’s ethics department ought to demand the pope’s resignation since families are the prime target of Church tradition. For centuries it’s been obvious to the world that a confused Church bemuses all but the doubting families. Families with faith in the-objective-truth are mankind’s hope for civic integrity.

Note: I express Phil Beaver’s opinion because I do not know much of the-objective-truth and want to learn from others.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/The-spirit-of-the-American-people-used-to-be-irrepressible-Do-you-think-that-is-changing-are-we-becoming-disillusioned-and-apathetic?

I think reform is happening according to the will of non-hypocritical fellow citizens.

The intentions that emerged from the 55 framers of the 1787 Constitution for the USA were controversial, and only 39 delegates from 12 of 13 states in the 1774 Confederation of states signed the document. A source of dissonance was that the intended result, stated in the preamble, was predicated on agreement of the people rather than the states. That is, the willing faction of We the People of the United States would self-discipline so as to constrain a central government so as to serve the people in member states.

The preamble declares, in paraphrase, we the People of the states whose people agree want six results for us and future citizens and therefore authorize a central government to serve the people in their states. Nine states established the USA on June 21, 1788, and two states joined before operations began with eleven states on March 4, 1789.

The first congressmen were not prepared to legislate according to the U.S. preamble. They were like adolescent parents in their mid teens, who know no more about parenting than a 12-year old knows. Therefore, the first Congress did all they could to restore colonial British governance with Blackstone common law and a Protestant-Congress partnership that made congressmen feel as divine as partners in England’s Parliament. Elected and appointed officials have tended to think they were above fellow citizens ever since.

The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth can only be discovered rather than constructed on reason or other human work and is the standard for truth. The authentic human being understands when he or she does not know something and readily asserts “I do not know,” when that is so. In other words, the human species is that powerful.

The character to admit to self and to others “I do not know” is at the same time humility and power. Powerful humility can be encouraged and coached but cannot be taught. Furthermore, most cultures teach their young to believe an ideology or a god or a government, and therefore most adults are not even aware of the practice of integrity: Honesty and hypocrisy are erroneously enough for most human lives. Most adults have never accepted IPEA, let alone committed to the required work. They cannot be accused of hypocrisy when they never articulated IPEA, but the news is out.

Fellow citizens in the USA never established the U.S. preamble as the civic, civil, and legal agreement on which they continually develop statutory justice. But that change is underway. Pericles, 2,500 years ago, arguably said humans may collaborate for statutory justice, and “Equal justice under law” adorns the U.S. Supreme Court Building. However, on Mrs. Roosevelt’s legacy for human rights, many humans deny responsibility for justice and demand equality rather than equity. Appreciation comes from responsibility, and rights have no appeal.

The USA is not in chaos. Consider England, France and Venezuela, each of which is suffering from demands for human rights without individual responsibility. The U.S. preamble’s agreement has the power to restore America’s resilience. By adding fidelity to the-objective-truth, an achievable better future lies ahead. The reform is underway, unnoticeable as it may be. America cannot be great again, but America is becoming great as I write.

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-best-way-to-differentiate-power-authority-and-influence?

Starting with Merriam-Webster online and with the intent to pursue civic integrity (immediately) and statutory justice (a worthy continual goal), we may choose definitions, and I do, as follows.

Power is control over others by force, and the monopoly on force is with the police then the military. Influence is effecting outcomes without using force. Authority is conformance to the-objective-truth.

The human being is so physically and psychologically powerful that he or she will not submit his or her authority except to conform to the-objective-truth. Therefore, only when influence and power align with the-objective-truth will the people collaborate.

As soon as the majority of people accept their individual power, their individual energy, and their individual authority (IPEA) and use it to develop integrity rather than nourish infidelity to the-objective-truth, there will be an achievable better future.

The-objective-truth is the discoverable actual reality by which truth is judged.

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/03/01/the-relevance-of-the-preamble-to-constitutional-interpretation

I hope Rappaport and others consider a fourth possible interpretation: The U.S. preamble is this nation’s June 21, 1788 civic, civil, and legal agreement by which individual citizens either collaborate for statutory justice or dissent. Let me unpack that statement.

About 2,500 years ago Pericles suggested, in my paraphrase, that humans may collaborate for equity under statutory justice. Collaborate means work responsibly. Equity means earn a lifestyle according to personal contributions. Statutory justice means fidelity to the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth is discovered, actual reality, the standard by which truth is judged. For example, civic people do not lie so as to lessen human misery and loss rather than to follow some divine law. Statutory justice is perfection, a perhaps impossible result, but a worthy pursuit. The people act for the result by establishing and maintaining statutory law and its enforcement, always alert to injustice as the motivation to amend the law or its institutions of enforcement.

With that explanation, I now suggest that the debates by the 55 framers in the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia produced concerns and propositions that the committee of forms, chaired by Gouverneur Morris, expressed in the U.S. preamble as intended results and actions to achieve the results. The articles that follow the U.S. preamble either conform to those results or may be amended by the people. Only 39 of the delegates were not dissident to the document so signed it. The 1787 U.S. Constitution, objectionably to some delegates, offered the basis for a nation (a people in their states) who may choose to pursue statutory justice by developing the rule of law and its institutions.

The wonder of the U.S. preamble is that it grants individual fellow citizens the opportunity to choose between either joining civic citizens as defined in the agreement or joining dissidents who behave as they do. Dissidents are hypocrites to the agreement, but non-citizens are merely aliens to the agreement. Elected officials who do not collaborate for the results enumerated in the U.S. preamble are hypocrites. My personal interpretation of the six intentions of the 1787 U.S. preamble’s essence include: civic integrity, justice, goodwill, self-defense, prosperity, and responsible freedom with the two beneficiaries citizens and future citizens. I collaborate at local libraries and elsewhere for my ideas as a means of comprehending the 1787 intentions but not to revise them.

Of my claims that the U.S. preamble is a civic, civil, and legal agreement the evidence for legal seems clear. Before June 21, 1788, the USA was represented by the 1774 confederation of 13 eastern seaboard states. On September 17, 1787, 39 delegates from 12 states signed the document, the Continental Congress endorsed it, and on June 21, 1788, nine states established the USA, leaving four states the opportunity to join or remain free and independent according to the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Two states joined before operations began on March 4, 1789. I stop there, because the 1789-1793 Congress erroneously weakened the U.S. preamble, and subsequent generations have left us the privilege of enacting reform by practicing and promoting the U.S. preamble’s existing propositions.

“Civil” is complicated by two applications: legal and social. The U.S. preamble appeals to fellow citizens to publicly observe the law and manage their societies accordingly. In other words, private associations nonetheless observe the law. Anyone’s efforts to impose social morality as legality opposes the US. preamble. Thus, the First Amendment’s religion clauses are unconstitutional according to the fact that the U.S. preamble leaves the decision to develop spiritual pursuits to the individual citizen. In fact, promoting religion opposes civic integrity, since no one’s spirituality or none has been disproven. No one enters a civic forum to debate the character of their personal God or none.

There remains the question of whether or not the U.S. preamble is a civic agreement. Civic citizens voluntarily collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity rather than compete for dominant opinion. This concept might be expressed as (responsibly) live and let live. Thus, both theists and non-theists mutually appreciate civic citizens under the motivations and inspirations expressed by the U.S. preamble. Every law abiding religion flourishes because its believers want it without attempting to impose it on the public.

The 1787 Constitution promises the people in their states a representative republic. Fellow citizens who propose alternatives are obliged to first present the evidence that the existing system is unjust. Merely proposing one of constitutional church-state partnership as in England, or social democracy, or collective-minority chaos, or a majority opposing the U.S. preamble’s agreement, or a Marxism or other government is insufficient. Any change must conform to the six results that are stated in the U.S. preamble. Proposing the UN’s 30 human rights opposes the U.S. preamble. Further, benefits from the U.S. preamble’s results cannot be confined to extant citizens: Current citizens must provide an achievable better future for Posterity—the citizens in the future. Thus, the national debt is hypocrisy by the current citizens.

There’s a lot to say about how the proposition of the U.S. preamble has been obfuscated, but that is a topic for another time. Just now, I’d like to draw this forum’s attention to an achievable better future. Fellow citizens may choose to vote for candidates for office who have demonstrated two practices: first, ordering public issues according to the six intended results and the two beneficiaries stated in the U.S. preamble and second, collaborating to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth.

Not appreciating fellow citizens who trust-in and commit-to the U.S. preamble’s agreement to work for equity under statutory justice is a dissident’s activity.

I have written before and write it again: Writers in this forum are qualified and have the opportunity to develop these ideas into an achievable better future in the USA. I trust that thoughts and work is underway without constraint.

To John Schmeeckle after Devin Watkins: I ponder the subordinate clause with its purpose for six results, by six specific actions, for two parties according to the intentions:  “Union . . . Justice . . . domestic Tranquility . . . common defence . . . general Welfare, and . . . Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” I perceive five freedoms from oppressions---disunity, injustice, strife, attack, and poverty---so as to serve the human status: liberty. Thus, five freedoms-from oppression support the human individual’s existing liberty-to responsibly pursue individual happiness rather than someone else’s dictates for him or her.

That liberty-to pursue happiness is a blessing seems more a claim than an imposition. That is, neither God nor government impose on the human being the liberty-to responsibly pursue individual happiness. Again, the human being already has that prerogative. The aware human being discovers that he or she has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-objective-truth. If the former, individual happiness is possible and if the latter, woe may be ineluctable.

Thus, the civic citizen, defined as the fellow citizen who trusts-in and commits-to the agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble, collaborates for freedom-from five stated oppressions so that he or she may take the human liberty-to pursue individual happiness with civic integrity. That is, so as not to prevent a fellow citizen’s pursuit of individual happiness.

I do not perceive that extant citizens can discover the wonder of the U.S. preamble by trying to understand the minds of the citizens who ratified the U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788, establishing the USA.

To Thank you, Mr. Binotto.

Please help develop that perspective.

In fact, my comments reflect the collaboration of over seventy people who attended public library meetings to promote the widespread practice of the U.S. preamble. A recent articulation is that the U.S. preamble promotes individual happiness with civic integrity, and the wonderful thoughts continue to come.

I doubt the congressional perpetrators of the Michael Cohen spectacle ever considered the U.S. preamble, and civic citizens may vote them out of office and have the duty to do so.

Second independent post: I doubt any sentence in history has been so miss-read or misrepresented as the U.S. preamble.

Consider the grammar. The main thought is: we willing people establish laws and institutions for the USA. A subordinate clause expresses the intentions. That clause has five actions to effect five results: Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare. The five actions---form, establish, insure, provide, and promote---would secure inalienable opportunities. The opportunities are liberty to us and Posterity. While the five results can be managed by either coercion or force, responsible liberty is an existing opportunity only the individual can exercise.

Contrast the 263 words of the preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution. The 52 words of the U.S. preamble leave it to posterity to establish statutory justice according to ultimate human authenticity, which is individual happiness with civic integrity. Humankind has not yet discovered the standards for civic integrity. Therefore, civic dialogue errs to presume to represent all of the-objective-truth. Fellow citizens cannot expect to develop public wisdom without individual collaboration, and they need not ponder opportunity for people in the past. Those people died.

In other words, it is not necessary to evaluate why people thought as they did on June 21, 1788, when nine states established the USA. The U.S. preamble challenges each fellow citizen to choose: either trust-in and commit-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble or behave as the dissidents do. Neither elected nor appointed officials are exempt from fellow citizenship and their opportunity to develop their person to their individual perfection---to collaborate for statutory justice during their lifetime. I do all I can to keep dissidents out of office.

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.