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 a civic people of the united states, in order to encourage
individual responsibility for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and
prosperity so as to secure human liberty for now and for the future, pursue
statutory justice in the USA..” I want to collaborate with the other citizens
on this paraphrase and theirs yet 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
We the People of the United States
Three traditions hide the civic, civil, and legal power in
the United States. First, the colonial British “common law” and church-state
partnership have been substantially preserved by tradition. Second, the states’ rights
faction in the 1787 constitutional convention continues in conflict for
dominance. Third, too few fellow citizens observe the civic, civil, and legal disciplines
proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble for short). We the People of the United Sates do not hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the U.S. preamble’s
proposition.
This does not imply that the rule of law is over in the USA.
Instead, there may be a renewal of interest in the U.S. preamble’s proposition
and powers. Some people who felt they were untouchable may find themselves
charged with treason and other high crimes.
We think the U.S. preamble may be celebrated each June 21 as
more important to the people than the nation’s Independence Day, the 4
th
of July. The USA’s birthday, June 21, 1788, may be recognized at last.
It is altogether fitting that this reform should originate
in Louisiana, a former French colony. The 1781 battle at Yorktown, VA was a
French victory (plus a continental victory) in France’s second hundred years war
with England. Therefore, England’s treaty with the thirteen eastern seaboard
former British colonies was negotiated at Versailles and titled the 1783 Treaty
of Paris.
The treaty names each of the 13 globally free and independent states,
and they ratified their global status as free and independent states on January 14, 1789. Only 12 of the 13 states met in 1787
and unexpectedly specified the USA under its preamble. We the People of the United
States is the actor rather than we the thirteen states.
In 1812, Louisiana became
the 38
th state and with its French background never read the U.S.
Constitution with the original 13 eastern seaboard former English colony desire to preserve colonial-American English law and tradition.
After two decades' discussion-led study and five years of collaboration at public libraries, A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana civic-education corporation, observes that the U.S. preamble’s proposition is: Willing citizens collaborate for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and
prosperity so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living and future
citizens. That discipline encourages individual happiness with civic integrity
rather than happiness according to someone else.
Our
6
th annual celebration of the U.S.
preamble (commemorating June 21, 1788) is on June 20 at 7:30 PM at Goodwood Library. Please
join us to celebrate the first annual Responsible Liberty Day in the USA.
News
Fellow citizens in
Baton Rouge have a unique chance for an achievable better future (Terry L.
Jones) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_ec83d5da-7335-11e9-a70f-7f1561ade315.html)
Civic discipline based on skin color is not working.
President Linden Johnson’s 1965 Great Society was supposed to end hidden
colonial-British influences, such as classism, after more than seventeen
decades’ USA governance. More than five decades later a reasonable view is that
American psychological independence for responsible human liberty is worse and
the decline is accelerating.
Baton Rouge has a unique opportunity to establish U.S.
self-discipline for individual independence, at last, because viable ideas for
reform are being developed here. There are two keys: 1) actual use of the U.S.
preamble’s proposition and 2) widespread collaboration to discover and benefit
from the-objective-truth rather than conflict for dominant opinion. By “widespread”
I mean 2/3 of members of 2/3 of existing societies and associations
individually considering themselves a civic people. By “civic” I mean
civically, civilly, and legally collaborating for responsible human liberty.
Since the St. George movement emerged in 2013, a small group
of fellow citizens have, in local public library meetings, promoted the use of
the preamble to the U.S. Constitution rather than lamely referring to “we, the
people.” We learned to express a civic concern and well-grounded idea for
reform, then listen to both collaborators and detractors in order to discover
human justice. We collaborate to develop a civic culture (live and let live and
conform to the-objective-truth). Our appreciations page lists over 70
contributors, and perhaps half of them are aware of our leading-edge
articulations.
This is our sixth year of celebrating June 21, 1788, the day
the people of nine states established the USA. That left four eastern-seaboard
states still globally free and independent. After 573 years under British
developments after Magna Carta, there was a 52 word proposition for responsible
human liberty under willing people. However, the prevalence of colonial-British
psychology has kept the U.S. preamble ineffective. Our generation has the
privilege to establish American psychology at last.
The U.S. preamble’s proposition may be expressed for 2019 living as follows: We,
a civic people of the united states, in order to
encourage
self-discipline for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to
secure responsible human liberty to living individuals, pursue statutory
justice in the USA. Statutory justice may be developed by collaborating to
discover and benefit from the-objective-truth---the ineluctable evidence by
which truth is judged.
We hope both Mayor-President
Broome and the Metro-Council members and other interested fellow citizens will
collaborate with us for perhaps the world’s first Responsible Liberty Day,
scheduled for June 20, 2019, at 7:30 PM for 1 hour followed by informal
discussion until 9:30 PM at EBRPL-Goodwood Main Library. See The Advocate
calendar for details and watch for media announcements.
Columns
Soul wisdom (Christopher
Simon) (
Psalm 103:2)
"Modern psychology often confirms ancient wisdom.”
Simon equates “blessings” as “good things” for people who
prefer “secular” terms. But what does “secular” mean? Areligious? Not eternal?
Temporal?
Blessing can mean “approval” or “encouragement.”
The meaning is important to me because the U.S. preamble
features “the Blessings.”
Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-s-one-law-in-your-country-do-you-believe-lawmakers-need-to-take-another-look-at
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be revised so
as to protect individual and collective human integrity---a civic-citizen’s
duty---rather than religion, a business institution based on the competitions
over whatever-God-may-be, godless religions, and human philosophical constructs.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-LGBTQ-still-having-to-fight-this-Shouldnt-the-equal-rights-laws-have-been-passed-years-ago
The human individual is too psychologically powerful to accept
a responsibility he or she neither wants nor supports. The U.S. Supreme Court
has no power regarding responsible human liberty, and when the court is out of
step with civic integrity, reform is inevitable.
About 2,400 years ago, Pericles suggested that humans may
enjoy equity or justice under the rule of law. In other words, to enjoy
justice, the human accepts equity under statutory law. Few civilizations or
nations offer a proposition by which citizens may collaborate for responsible human
liberty. The USA is an exception due to the U.S. preamble’s proposition.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers this proposition:
We the People of the United States collaborate for Union, Justice, Tranquility,
defense, and Welfare so as to approve-of and encourage fellow citizens to
practice responsible human liberty to living citizens and their descendants. U.S.
citizens may ignore the proposition and live with the consequences. We work to
lessen the faction who ignore the U.S. preamble, including judges and lawyers,
few of whom seem to consider themselves fellow citizens.
The proposition neither dictates how to achieve the five
collaborative provisions nor attempts to arbitrarily constrain human liberty. Ineluctable
evidence, or the-objective-truth, is sufficient to inform the people so as to
discover and observe standards. Also, to dictate responsible human liberty would
ruin liberty itself.
Responsible liberty is an exclusive human characteristic. No
other living spices has the awareness and grammar by which to discover and
collaborate for responsible liberty. And, it takes about 1/3 of a typical
lifetime for each human to develop the civic integrity by which to practice
responsible human liberty. Human knowledge increases faster than typical
lifespan, so if anything, the individual fraction of lifetime required for
psychological maturity may be increasing with time. Many chronological adults
cannot comprehend what I have written so far.
Human facts, observations, and experience inform us that the
new human being, the infant, has the best chances for success when conceived
under the man and woman’s intent to include the new person in their monogamous relationship
or family. Chances may be even better if the man and woman understand Pericles’s
principle, and better still when the parents provide the child human equity
under the U.S. preamble’s proposition. Chances are even better if the parents
and children perceive the importance of monogamy respecting grandchildren and
beyond. It is not unusual for a family—parents and their children—to have awareness
that they are working for their own prosperity as well as for an achievable
better future for the parent’s grandchildren and beyond. These principles are
expressed in the U.S. preamble’s proposition.
It matters not how a fellow citizen meets his or her needs, as
long as he or she does not ask fellow citizens to turn their backs on the civic
proposition, in the USA, the U.S. preamble’s proposition.
The practical aspects of LGBTQ living are obvious to everyone,
and no human being can turn his or her back on responsible human liberty
without consequences. Same sex monogamy is private---nobody’s business outside
the monogamy, and a civil union should suffice as a contract for legal rights
without objection. Calling the monogamy “marriage” neither adds nor detracts
from actual reality to the partners nor to heterosexual couples.
However, the long-term consequence of bringing a third party,
a child, into the monogamy is not known. Perhaps the equity and dignity of the
child in an LGBTQ family is secure: I do not know but doubt it. I doubt anyone
can assure the child a good outcome and therefore would not encourage the
formation of an LGBTQ family. To force me to encourage a practice I doubt is to
falsely deny my fellow citizenship under the U.S. preamble.
I do not hate the people who first experimented to fly. I
would not encourage anyone to fly to the moon, but have no objections if he or
she does so without harming other fellow citizens. However, I do not encourage
Christians to think as John the Apostle does in John 15:18-23. I neither hate
Christians nor hate Jesus nor hate whatever-God-is, even if it is the chaos we
face daily. In the same way, I do not hate LGBTQ persons. When people involve
children, especially when they have no regard for the child’s equity and
dignity, it seems to me the people responsible are breaking the U.S. preamble’s
proposition.
I adamantly oppose the industries and institutions that
promote LGBTQ living. I think in this and some other civic, civil, and legal
issues the U.S. Supreme Court opposes the U.S. preamble’s proposition.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-5-types-of-social-institutions-and-their-functions-that-each-of-them-play-in-the-society
The article in “the 5 types” directs me to the preamble to the
U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble for short).
The U.S. preamble proposes collaborative self-discipline for
integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to encourage human liberty
to living citizens. In other words, the human being may accept the liberty he
or she has by taking individual responsibility for the 5 institutional
provisions. From another perspective, the human being is too psychologically
independent to collaborate beyond the 5 provisions. For example, he or she will
not brook the imposition of religion. Therefore, the U.S. preamble does not
speak of religion.
The U.S. preamble’s remarkable proposition was created in 4
days by a committee led by Gouverneur Morris. The draft remitted to them by the
convention of four months had not one word of the proposition and it claimed
responsibility for the USA to the states rather than to the people. The
convention representing the people of 12 states came 3 years after the 13
states had ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris naming each of them a globally
free and independent state. Beforehand, they had been subjects of English law
since Magna Carta.
The U.S. preamble had the opportunity to influence the
majority of citizens from ratification day, June 21, 1788 until the first
congress, representing eleven states, was seated on March 4, 1789. The first
congress egregiously restored many English traditions.
Prior American generations have left to our generation the
privilege of establishing the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S.
preamble. I assume it will take a Supreme Court reversal to get the job done,
but get it done We the People of the United States must.
https://www.quora.com/Would-you-agree-that-our-freedom-our-rights-come-from-God-and-not-government
Your question begs questions. I think a better future is
available by understanding the U.S. preamble’s proposition and collaborating to
discover the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which truth is
measured.
In “from God” do you mean whatever-God-is or is there some
constraint? If so, please specify the constraint. For example, are you
referring to one of the Gods named in the Bible? Is so, which one?
Are you referring to the God of “God bless America?” Is God
well known? Are there even two Americans who pray to the same God? Does anyone
appreciate whatever-God-is?
What do you mean by “freedom?” Did you equate freedom as
“rights?” Are you referring to mutual, comprehensive safety and security?
Willing people collaborate for such freedom, but few claim they enjoy safety
and security. If there ever is freedom from oppression, it may happen because the
people collaborate for justice.
With freedom-from oppression, the people may be encouraged to
choose to accept responsible human liberty. They may take the liberty-to pursue
individual happiness with civic integrity.
The human being is the only living species that possesses the
awareness and grammar to develop responsible liberty. Some humans develop
happiness with civic integrity no matter where they live. But some humans think
crime pays. Some humans are unfortunately reared by criminals to be criminals.
But some individuals rise above their criminal training. Is the individual the
only person who can reject his or her opportunity to develop responsible
liberty?
Once responsibility is
perceived as the power to liberty, reform seems ineluctable. Can a human choose
crime? Is the right to choose crime the only human right?
https://www.quora.com/How-important-is-civics-knowledge-and-English-in-modern-America
Civic-knowledge is not important at all if most fellow
citizens consider a couple thoughts I share. (A civic citizen lives so as to
collaborate for life more than for pride in a municipality.)
First, the most important political sentence ever written is
the 52-word preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. preamble for short. Its
proposition to the individual citizen (living) is: self-discipline and collaborate
for Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and welfare so as to accept
responsible human liberty. This is a civic, civil, and legal contract for
living, and dead citizens and illegal aliens have no standing. Past opinion is
interesting only to the extent that observed error may be avoided. Being a
civic citizen is as important to happiness as earning the food-quality you
prefer.
Second, the eternal competition for dominant opinion that
enslaves confused humankind need not lessen an individual’s life. He or she may
independently develop integrity to the-objective-truth, the ineluctable
evidence by which truth is judged. This principle applies to reformed criminals
and aliens.
English is so essential most residents learn some of it.
However, many people live in ignorance because they do not understand a
particular word. For example, “posterity.” Many parents freely contribute to
the national debt not realizing that “posterity” includes their children,
grandchildren and beyond for generations to come.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-did-the-Law-Society-of-Ontario-vote-down-its-compulsory-equality-diversity-inclusion-statement
It’s news to me. I read about one woman’s noble work to
overturn the statement and her success. However, it illustrates an almost never
articulated human condition.
The human individual has the power, the energy, and the
authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity. Each time I make this statement to
someone, he or she thoughtfully responds in the affirmative. When this
principle is inculcated from infancy, a civic culture will be possible.
In the meantime, many people either ineluctably or fully
aware accept their HIPEA and resist tyranny. Thereby, a civic people’s
preference for the rule of law with continual reform to statutory justice
continues to constrain social democracy, socialism, communism, and other forms
of human tyranny.
https://www.quora.com/What-if-animals-had-rights-not-equal-to-humans-but-equal-respect
Political theory has informed us for 2400 years that humans
may enjoy equity under the rule of law. Yet many humans think crime pays, so
the need for law enforcement remains.
Some humans perceive that justice is possible under a people
who appreciate responsible human liberty. For example, the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution proposes individual self-discipline to provide Union, Justice,
Tranquility, defense, and welfare so as to accept and encourage responsible
liberty to living generations.
However, most U.S. citizens assume that whatever-God-is will
eventually hold government accountable for equality, regardless of justice.
This fallacy has persisted since soon after Congress began operating with
eleven eastern seaboard states in March, 1789.
Justice can only come from the individuals who decide to
collaborate for the provisions that encourage responsible human liberty. Humans
are the only species with the awareness and grammar by which to choose
self-discipline so as to secure liberty.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-strive-for-equality-when-in-reality-we-arent-equal-Although-as-humans-none-of-us-are-inferior-to-another-we-do-all-have-different-needs-so-how-can-we-have-complete-equality
I think it is interesting that you, Mr. Anderson, think
someone can answer your question and would like to learn your answer.
I am obsessed with the U.S. preamble’s proposition (yet to
be admitted to by a majority of an American generation) and think it contains
an answer.
The U.S. preamble’s proposition is: a civic people
collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security (Union, Justice,
Tranquility, defense and Welfare) so that each living individual may choose to
develop responsible human liberty.
Total participation in the U.S. preamble’s proposition is
impossible, yet it is a worthy goal. Once at least 2/3 of U.S. citizens accept
and practice the U.S. preamble’s proposition, we will be striving for mutual,
comprehensive safety and security, an equality for nonetheless unique
individuals.
I write to learn and hope people will comment on my
response.
https://www.quora.com/What-in-your-opinion-is-the-most-backward-aspect-of-American-society
So far, most Americans fail to appreciate the proposition---individual
self-discipline---that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the
U.S. preamble for short). It is a proposition to break with imposed English
traditions so as to humbly reform to responsible human liberty. The reform may
start now.
The U.S. preamble literally states, “We the People of the
United States . . . ordain and establish . . . the United States.” The U.S.
preamble’s proposition to the people is: collaborate for “Union . . . Justice .
. . Tranquility . . . defense . . . Welfare [to appreciate] Liberty to
ourselves and our posterity . . .” In other words, liberty is available to the
appreciative human individual: Liberty is a human condition to those who accept
its responsibility. The U.S. preamble proposes collaboration for freedom-from
oppression so that each individual may accept the liberty-to be responsible; or
not. Fellow citizens who freely choose irresponsibility may face the rule of
law. People who mistakenly think crime pays may reform.
In the culture of the so defined We the People of the United
States (a civic people for short) elected and appointed officials at the local,
state, and federal levels are first civic fellow citizens. Their accountability
is maintained by a civic people or those who accept responsible human liberty.
The U.S. preamble essentially asserts that every human
individual has the power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to
the-objective-truth: the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. The
U.S. preamble is humble about the mystery of whatever-God-is. Humility reserves
appreciation for whatever God may be.
Humility toward the mysteries that have been constructed in
areas wherein the-objective-truth is yet to be discovered is what distinguishes
the U.S. preamble’s proposition from English tradition, and by not accepting
that humility, America, so far, contributes to humankind’s losses and misery.
America is physically and politically independent from
England. It is past time for America to become psychologically independent,
perhaps by using the U.S. preamble’s proposition and the-objective-truth.
Adam Perrone
If you found yourself on a deserted island with 100 other people and you had to work hard to survive, this would be an example of pure liberty, I imagine. How would you handle people who are irresponsible and don’t have individual self-discipline?
Thank you for such thorough reading and a great question.
The history of the ratification of the U.S. preamble is a sequence of 2/3 votes for, meaning 1/3 were against: signing the 1787 U.S. Constitution, the 9/13 states ratification conventions votes and their total. The ultimate votes of the 13 states.
The 1/3 delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention who did not sign the final document included some dissidents who understood politics so well they new Congress could have its way once the elected official were in control. A key historical lesson is Chapter XI Machiavellianism (The Prince, 1513). My paraphrase is: With a national religion, the church and state can partner to pick the people’s pocket and the people will neither rebel nor emigrate as they wait for their God to come to their aid. The U.S. preamble offers relief from freedom of religion, a business enterprise, in order to establish responsible human liberty, an individual obligation.
So far, most cultures teach their young to seek higher power: if not their government their personal God. Jeremiah Wright “burned his flag” to preach his God. I don’t know if his God is black or if his religion is African-American Christianity or not, but neither he nor anyone who follows him is of We the People of the United States under the U.S. preamble’s proposition. A civic people know they cannot guarantee that their God conforms to whatever-God-is or may be.
The majority of the five authors of the U.S. preamble recognized this, even though James Madison, a dissident was in the room. Rufus King might also have wanted freedom of theism rather than freedom to develop integrity, but their 2/5 vote could not prevail.
We assert that every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity, which is not unlike responsible human liberty. Our work is to persuade fellow citizens to accept their HIPEA and develop integrity. When collaboration on the ideas we advocate accelerates, there will appear a 2/3 or higher majority of civic citizens and their influence by example more than exhortation, coercion, and force will tend to reform dissidents. Your model of 100 will reach a 66 majority that inspires the 34 to reform for responsible human liberty.
I’m sincere in the assertion that you and I are witnessing the acceleration to a civic culture, one discussion at a time.
Adam Perrone
So on an island of 100 people, it’s likely a good conclusion that 34 would be a minority of dissidents. In practical terms, to me, this would mean that they are causing trouble, or being lazy, or stealing food. Essentially, they are making it harder for the other 66 to survive.
If I am one of the 66 I would say that the 34 are a threat to my life and liberty.
I think that example vs exhortation, coercion, or force is certainly the more honorable path. However, in this analogy and knowing what we know about human nature, would you agree that example alone is not going to reform all 34, especially over a short term like months or a year?
And during that short term you’re in quite a predicament, maybe even life and death.
So what to do? The reason I ask is that I certainly understand and agree with your propositions, but I always have trouble with how you apply these things in given situations.
I agree with your concern, and that is where, in my original post I am expressing: “Fellow citizens who freely choose irresponsibility may face the rule of law. People who mistakenly think crime pays may reform.”
It is notable to me that after about five years nursing my interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s proposition I revised it this morning to “We, a civic people of the united states, practice self-discipline for integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, so as to encourage human liberty to living citizens and develop statutory justice in the USA.” In the past, I have cited the customary “defense” but replaced it with “strength” perhaps informed by the 75th anniversary of D-Day.
Similarly, the 66 must practice the self-discipline for the 5 public institutions that approve-of and encourage responsible human liberty. They must develop statutory justice so that the errant fellow citizens will reform before death, natural or not, ends their individual opportunity.
“Statutory justice” is perfection, an impossible end in an evolving universe yet humankind’s necessary pursuit through statutory law.
Yes.
And humankind ought to inculcate Agathon’s rule of
appreciation for life: neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-about-the-phrase-Your-lack-of-preparation-does-not-constitute-an-emergency-for-me-Have-you-been-on-either-side-of-this-situation-What-happened
I heard something similar when I cancelled an appointment.
The relationship was never the same after that and there was nothing I could do
to restore it.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-important-to-live-in-a-conflict-free-society
I think the opposite:
It is important for the individual who is developing integrity to
persist in the face of conflict.
I prefer “challenge” to “conflict” and work to lessen the
conflicts humankind nourishes. I promote the use of the U.S. preamble’s
proposition with the-objective-truth as the standard for civic, civil, and
legal collaboration. Yet there is a place for conflict.
The U.S. preamble proposes collaboration for integrity,
justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to encourage responsible human
liberty to present and future generations. Thus, the U.S. citizen may choose to
collaborate for five public provisions that empower responsible liberty.
The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidences that serve as standards for
the collaboration.
Thus, U.S. citizens are free to prefer infidelity to
integrity for individual reasons. This is a complicated trade-off that involves
judgement. Both humankind and the individual are at a particular point in the
development of integrity. Humankind’s integrity progresses slowly, and may
temporarily regress, but in its continuous time ineluctably improves.
The informed individual may develop integrity at the leading
edge of humankind’s understanding. It is almost impossible to be all-knowing,
and so one individual may be at the leading edge in a narrow range of
knowledge. If humankind has regressed in that domain, the individual may be leading
and in fact may be in conflict rather than merely challenged.
For this reason, while “challenged” us the preferred
collaborative position, there seems to be a place for conflict.
An example of the complexity is in Rudyard Kipling’s “The
Man Who Would be King.” Mankind has progressed to the point that “gods” are
considered constructs of a civilization, admitting that whatever-God-is ought
not be rebuked. A couple adventurers plot an excursion to a primitive village
to become leaders, one of them to be king. After economic successes, the men of
the village conclude that the king is actually a god and elected to
traditionally wed him to the most beautiful woman in the tribe. The women are
conflicted by the men’s plan and isolate the king and cut him. When he bleeds,
the men admit their folly. It would have been a pity if the tribe had rules
that prevented the women from the conflict of cutting the king’s arm.
https://www.quora.com/What-will-America-be-like-in-2024
Of course I have no idea what America will be like tomorrow
much less 5 years from now. However, I know that I have been working on a dream
into my sixth year now, and see progress.
The dream is that most American citizens, at least 2/3, will
collaborate during their lives using the U.S. preamble’s proposition to order
public issues. And also use the-objective-truth as the standard for continually
developing statutory justice. This leading-edge articulation of the dream may
represent the past six years’ work at public libraries (with appreciation to
over 70 collaborators, positive and negative) plus a lifetime of study to
pursue my individual interests.
The U.S. preamble’s proposition I interpret as:
We, a civic people of the united states pursue
statutory justice in the USA using self-discipline for integrity, justice, peace,
defense, and prosperity so as to secure responsible human liberty to living
individuals.
Statutory justice, a worthy goal, may be developed by
collaborating to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth---the
ineluctable evidence by which truth is judged. Individuals who are distracted
by public insistence on a religion, a political cause, or other personal
objective that is not only not shared but perhaps opposed by fellow citizens
are not contributing to the discovery of statutory justice.
In my first half-century, “Mother, God, and Country:
This is America:
Love it or leave it” was good enough for me.
I relied on attention to the Declaration of Independence to distract me from
considering the U.S. preamble. An eastern-seaboard colonial-British tradition
held my person in distraction from the revolutionary U.S. preamble’s
proposition: responsible human liberty.
Starting from Magna Carta, 561 years English oppression led
to the 1774 Continental Congress’s Declaration of Independence from England in
1776. France helped win the continental war. Consequently the 1783 Treaty of
Paris is the global announcement that the 13 eastern-seaboard former British-colonies
were free and independent states.
The confederation of states did not serve the people---was
dysfunctional. So 12 of 13 states met for four months in 1787 and specified a
nation with its purpose expressed in the 52 word U.S. preamble’s proposition:
individual self-discipline to encourage responsible liberty. Thus, the
sequences is 561 years to 1776, 12 years to 1788’s ratification of the U.S.
preamble’s proposition. The generations since then have left us the privilege
of establishing the USA under the U.S. preamble’s proposition.
Fellow citizens of 2019 who want responsible human liberty;
mutual, comprehensive safety and security; relief from conflict for dominant
opinion rather than the-objective-truth; and individual happiness with civic
integrity will help the dream happen. If you like this message, help it go
viral, because at this time we need 220 million Americans who will collaborate
for responsible human liberty.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-concerned-citizens-get-civics-brought-back-as-a-subject-taught-in-U-S-public-schools
After 231 years’ failing the purpose, it seems appropriate for
each fellow citizen to examine the meaning of “civics.” We, A Civic People of
the United States, think the civic citizen collaborates to discover and apply
statutory justice to living individuals. Further, we think statutory justice is
discovered using the-objective-truth, which is the ineluctable evidence
everyone faces. For example, the civic citizen does not lie so as to increase
public happiness and prosperity.
These and other ideas for reform emerged in our sixth year
of open discussions at public libraries. We are a Louisiana education
corporation with no intent to become a revenue-generating non-profit
organization. Just as a human understands that he or she must either work for
preferred quality of food or thank a bureaucrat for what they provide, he or
she may understand that responsible human liberty is provided by neither local,
state, nor federal government nor by whatever-God-is. Responsible liberty is an
individual, human opportunity and duty if accepted.
Unfortunately, known cultures inculcate the belief that
humans must rely on a higher power for integrity under surrogate labels such as
“virtue” or “conscience.” Never has a civilization encouraged infants to accept
his or her human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop
integrity under the-objective-truth. Integrity is the practice of discovering
whether a person concern is valid or not; if valid, discovering how to benefit;
behaving accordingly letting your example express your integrity; publically
explaining your example if asked; and remaining open to new discovery that
demands reform.
At the end of the 4-month U.S. constitutional convention,
which proposed the end of 180 years British tyranny over the eastern-seaboard
colonies, the committee of style, in 4-days’ time created the world’s most
promising political sentence, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S.
preamble for short. It was signed by 2/3 of convention delegates on September
17, 1787, and the people of nine states ratified it by June 21, 1788, establishing
the USA in the company of 4 remaining globally free and independent states
according to the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
Alas, on March 4, 1789, the eleven-state first US Congress
began to re-establish colonial English traditions, assigning to the U.S. preamble
the parochial wound and label “secular,” at best meaning areligious. However,
the U.S. preamble quite firmly assigns religion, whether the believer invokes
the mystery of whatever-God-is or not, to privacy. It would not be surprising
if one of the committee of style said, “I perceive that choosing one of the
promoted Gods exposes the person to the judgment of whatever-God-is.”
In my interpretation for 2019 living by me, the U.S.
preamble’s message is: We, a civic people of the united states, in order to
encourage
self-discipline for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity so as to
secure responsible human liberty to living individuals, pursue statutory
justice in the USA. (Statutory justice may be developed by collaborating to
discover and benefit from the-objective-truth---the ineluctable evidence by
which truth is judged.)
With 2/3 of fellow citizens collaborating to make these
ideas attractive for civics education, the votes to require elected and
appointed officials consider themselves fellow citizens rather than tyrants (or
be unelected or fired), the U.S. would begin functioning as intended.
Reform is not easy, but this reform---widespread use of the
U.S. preamble’s proposition---was ratified on June 21, 1788 but laid dormant
beginning March 4, 1789 in order to re-establish some of colonial-English
tyranny. I think most people want mutual, comprehensive safety and security;
individual happiness with civic integrity; responsible human liberty. With
viral sharing of this message, library discussions can spring up all over the
country. In only a couple years’ time, we may begin to hear politicians tout
their past accomplishments for civic equity under the U.S. preamble’s
proposition and the-objective-truth.
Development of a civic culture could be a topic for
university level education.
Law professors
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/05/09/the-constitution-did-not-decrease-the-power-of-the-states/
Professor Rogers’ opinion and the commentary so far reflect
residual 1787 struggle over the U.S. preamble’s proposition: the people’s
discipline.
The framers’ draft began “We the People of the States of . .
. “ naming each of thirteen globally free and independent states. However the
committee of style, perhaps reflecting the 4 month’s debate rendered “We the
People of the United States . . . “ That made some leaders, like Patrick Henry,
upset.
In only 52 words, the committee created the world’s most
powerful political sentence yet to be enacted, perhaps by our so privileged
generation. Its essence is “We, a civic people of the united states, in order
to encourage self-discipline for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and
prosperity so as to secure responsible human liberty to living individuals,
pursue statutory justice in the USA.
Statutory justice may be developed by collaborating to discover and benefit from
the-objective-truth—the ineluctable evidence by which truth is judged. In other
words, civic citizens collaborate under the-objective-truth rather than
cooperate, subjugate, enslave, or support any human construct for tyranny.
Opinions of dead citizens and religious opinions are not cited in the
proposition so as to leave them out.
Individuals are free to follow individual reason such as
“crime pays” and other conflicts for power like the prisoner’s dilemma.
However, most people behave for mutual, comprehensive safety and security;
individual happiness with civic integrity; responsible human liberty under
the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which
the truth is judged.
For example, the leaders of some states in 1860 thought they
could secede from the USA over erroneous religious beliefs (see the declaration
of secession). They were woefully mistaken. Ultimate justice came from the
civic people.
It is past time to end the colonial-English tradition of religious opposition
to the U.S. preamble’s proposition. When some fellow citizens see themselves as
a religious proponent at the expense of the U.S. preamble’s proposition under
the-objective-truth, they beg woe. The religious tradition started as
colonial-American-factional Protestantism against the
Canterbury-Parliament-partnership and evolved to a Judeo-Christian Supreme
Court. There is no responsible human liberty in religious imposition.
By adopting the U.S. preamble’s proposition with
collaboration to discover the-objective-truth, civic fellow citizens may
develop both the USA and a personal church association that offers hope and
comfort from the unknowns and encourages responsible human liberty.
In the USA, there is no role for the citizen who is
satisfied to be labeled “common man.” Every fellow citizen may develop
responsible human liberty.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/05/14/how-the-framers-intended-for-a-bigger-national-government-to-enhance-liberty
It seems Professor Rogers’ “pathology” invokes
non-proprietary public policy that effects verifiable public benefit. In other
words, 1789 states that behaved differently from other states might nonetheless
help the people in that state and if the state behavior could be legislated to
apply to all states, then the benefit could be applied to the nation and
thereby be multiplied to the people in every state.
This construct perhaps overlooks the fact that some benefits
by some states were created at the expense of citizens in other states. For
example, machinery delivered to northern ports and transported through
seaboard-states to interior states were taxed for transport, gaining benefits
for people of the seaboard state at the expense of people in the interior
states. However, there is no national benefit when national citizens exchange
money.
The fact that intrastate squabbles adversely affect U.S.
citizens can be kept in focus if scholars selectively memorize 16 of the 52
word U.S. preamble: We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and
establish . . . the United States of America.
Also, I think proprietary fellow citizens who yet develop
colonial British thought mimic their failure to master key words, such as
“liberty.” Rogers writes, “The most significant national guarantee of
state-level liberty, however—at least outside of the later-added Fourteenth
Amendment . . . “
Liberty is not a state-granted practice: it is a human
condition that the individual human may deny but not consign. Government can
only attempt to provide freedom from oppression. Developing human liberty is
the responsibility of the individual. Again, the U.S. preamble offers clarity
in 8 of 52 words: “We [provide] Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . .
defense . . . Welfare [to] secure . . . liberty.” Thus, civic citizens
collaborate for five public provisions of freedom-from oppression so that the
individual may accept the liberty-to develop responsibility. Because of a
woefully insufficient education system, many fellow citizens don’t even want
responsible human liberty.
In short, the U.S. preamble’s proposition offers freedom
from oppressive colonial English imposition so that the American citizen may
develop responsible human liberty. It is past time for American individuals to
accept responsible human liberty, and proprietary scholars can help by inviting
consideration of the world’s most powerful civic, civil, and legal sentence:
the U.S. preamble.
An obvious stumbling block is that the U.S. preamble’s
proposition seems secular. However, the U.S. preamble admits the obvious in 0
of 52 words: government has no say in the mystery of whatever-God-is. The
justices of the U.S. Supreme Court proved in Greece v. Galloway (2014) that
they have not the civic integrity to yield to whatever-God-is, in other words,
by fellow citizens under the U.S. preamble.
An increase in fellow citizens’ collaboration using the U.S.
preamble’s proposition “could actually increase overall liberty for the
country.”
One other point in favor of collaborating civic, civil, and
legal issues under the U.S. preamble’s proposition and the-objective-truth
focuses on the 1787 U.S. Constitution, U.S. Amendment VI (1791) and U.S.
Amendment XIV.1 (1868). The British imposed 12:0 unanimous jury verdicts. The
framers recognized that unanimity conflicts with impartiality so did not
specify unanimity. Also, Amendment VI requires states to provide impartiality.
In 1880, Louisiana, singly among 38 states provided impartial criminal juries
using the 9:3 majority verdict. In 1967, England mimicked Louisiana’s provision
with a 10:2 majority verdict. England’s purpose is to lessen organized crime’s
influence on jury trials. Will the U.S. Supreme Court negate Louisiana’s 2018
unconstitutional vote to terminate their 1974 10:2 criminal jury verdicts? Will
the USA enforce the sentence, “No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or
U.S. Amendment XIV.1?
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.
