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: “Willing citizens collaborate, communicate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions—integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living people.” 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
America seems confused by its confusion. Many Americans cling to colonial-British tradition, thereby preventing acceptance of a people’s proposition, the 1788-ratified preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The consequence is colonial-British pride in the 1791 First Amendment with its “freedom of religion” rather than liberty-to develop integrity.
There is no justice in imposing legal freedom of religion on a people whose proposition to encourage responsible human liberty is public provision of Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare.
Announcement
Join discussion of an achievable better future at our 6th Annual Constitution Day Celebration, September 17, 7:30 PM at Goodwood Library, second floor, Study Room 2F.
See https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/local_events/?_ev_id=489814_6th_annual_constitution_day_celebration for more information.
News
Rarely has a newspaper so leaped out onto Pulitzer-lessening limbs (Gordon Russell) (https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_1f48481c-c434-11e9-a4e4-03653e104871.html)
One of the clearest evidences of humankind’s ineluctable-march to conform to the-objective-truth is the high cost of statutory injustice. A civic citizen feels compelled to object to the local press working against statutory justice.
One is constrained to ask why Gordon Russell, a writer for the press, a particular press that has no appreciation for journalism would write, “Louisiana became the first state to break with centuries of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition,” without pointing out that the source, England, revised to 10:2 criminal-jury verdicts in 1967, lagging former French colony Louisiana by only 87 years. England's purpose is to reduce power of organized crime to influence empty votes in trials. Or was John Simerman responsible for this slight of actual-reality?
Do these two press-writers prejudicially interpret U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) decisions? “ . . . in 1972 . . . five justices said they believed the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to a jury trial includes a requirement for unanimous verdicts in federal courts. But one of the five, Justice Lewis Powell, said he did not think the requirement extended to the states. The result was an unusual 5-4 ruling that said federal juries must be unanimous to be constitutional but state juries need not be.” I take exception to “unusual” respecting USSC politics of 5:4. About 20% of cases are so decided; see https://yiqinfu.github.io/posts/supreme-court-kennedy-retirement-ot2017/. Also, federal courts, by design under federalism develop higher national standards based on constitutionally limited experiments in the various states (now 50 states).
Because of its unique French and Spanish influences, Louisiana was the only former member of the Confederate States of America that had the wisdom to enact the 9:3 jury verdict in 1880 (then codify it in the constitution eighteen years later). Some newspapers represent the facts: “Lawmakers in Louisiana passed the split-jury rule in 1880,” https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-louisiana-jury-20180912-story.html. The Advocate writers obfuscate, citing the 1898 constitutional convention, even though other writers report facts. And The Advocate editors allow mendacity against the journal of events. Perhaps obfuscation for political power is The Advocate’s intent.
Why don’t The Advocate writers quote the U.S. 6th Amendment, 1791? “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The 6th Amendment’s words require states to provide impartiality not unanimity. Impartiality is both essentially and statistically impossible in a world of conflicting identity politics. That was as true in 1787-1791 as in other times.
Race may the least divisive of the three political identities including gender and religion---both factually and historically. Consider the subjugation of women and the religious suppression of individual human authority to develop civic integrity and statutory justice rather than religions like the factional mystery of whatever-God-may-be. The Advocate writers deny their own responsible human authority when they refuse to report the facts, for reasons they may or may not comprehend. To comprehend my statement takes understanding The Advocate ought to own.
I miss a lot, so I apologize if this is not the first time a writer for The Advocate has used the term “empty votes” regarding jury unanimity. However, a word search on my file before the people’s vote did not find the phrase “empty votes.” See in today’s article “. . . available data show black jurors are far more likely to wind up casting “empty votes” against conviction than white ones.” In the investment world, people with no shares create various ways to vote as a shareholder; https://www.lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub1878_1.Commentary.Empty.Voting.pdf. The analogy in US citizenship is that voters who are not of We the People of the United States vote for their identity-favor at the expense of the people---an injustice. Further, as a jury member, with no interest in justice, an empty vote is biased for an identity---either personal or political. When both the victim and the accused are black, empty votes against conviction hurt black Americans, both the black victim and black taxpayers. Since most crimes are committed by blacks against blacks, this point as well as bias statistics support 9:3 criminal jury verdicts as a provision for impartiality.
I am little concerned about the USSC attempting to impose on states unanimity despite the impartiality required by Amendment VI. It's unlikely they will rule against Amendment VI. No one who gained relief wants to go back to the tyranny colonial Americans suffered from British, traditional unanimity.
What concerns my civic citizenship is The Advocate’s doubtable statistical studies, obfuscation of facts, and political influence to use a faction of misinformed voters to overrule a Louisiana treasure for the USA: the 9:3 criminal-jury verdict. At the heart of this tyranny was the Louisiana State Lawyer’s Association, who trumped up the case to the Louisiana Legislature. Part of the voter-foolery was the idea that if a member of We the People of the United States (citizens who communicate, collaborate, and connect to accomplish responsible human liberty) were on trial he or she would want jury-unanimity, the opposite of the-objective-truth. That is, civic citizens want impartiality rather than exposure to empty votes no matter who is accused or victimized.
In the case of Louisiana’s tyranny, Amendment XIV.1, second sentence, protects Louisiana citizens against the Louisiana legislature and governor, even though their method pretended to appeal to the people: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” I am seeking a lawyer to appeal on my behalf for restoration of Louisiana’s 9:3 criminal jury verdicts under Amendments 6 and 14.
Rarely is there such good news for Louisiana residents (Randy Boudreaux) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_06e7ea5a-c044-11e9-a38b-5b9bba3e6038.html)
Fellow citizens may celebrate Mr. Boudreaux's civic integrity. That's "civic" as in communicating, collaborating, and connecting for responsible human liberty according to actual-reality.
I called him this morning to thank him, congratulate him, and wish him success. This is a right-to-work state, and right-to-work ought to apply to lawyers, attorneys, and judges.
Unanimous criminal jury verdicts: I hope another lawyer will take up my complaint. The Louisiana State Bar Association is responsible for an egregious offense against the people of the state of Louisiana, and the federal government has the laws and responsibility to correct it.
Briefly, Louisiana, in 1812 inherited the British tradition of unanimous verdicts with 12 jurors in criminal trials. In 1880, Louisiana enacted the 9:3 verdict in order to meet U.S. Amendment VI requirement that states provide impartial juries. Congress chose "impartial" rather than "unanimous" knowing that unanimity statistically favors injustice. In 1967, England accepted Louisiana's wisdom and many jury-verdict studies, revising their requirement to 10:2.
The LSBA and The Advocate kept this kind of information from public view as they persuaded voters that if they were accused and found guilty they'd want the unanimous-jury requirement. Neither The Advocate nor the LSBA spoke up for the civic citizen, who is always the victim of the unanimous-jury requirement.
Federal courts have a remedy for this kind of tyranny by states: It's in the second sentence of U.S. Amendment XIV: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." I want a lawyer to file a complaint for remedy from Louisiana's change from justice to injustice by ending the 10:2 verdicts in favor or 12:0 verdicts on a emotional majority of wrongfully-influenced and miss-informed voters.
For more information, see my comments at https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d19745cc-0ebd-11e9-8f3a-ff600552c1f2.html .
Quora
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-suggest-some-suitable-activities-for-elderly-people
I suggest trying to engage people in conversation and if they agree, collaborate on their concerns. That is, appreciate them and respond to their expressions, whether statement or question.
Share your ideas for addressing the concerns without apology for your opinions. In fact, state that they are opinions and that you do not know most of the-objective-truth.
Don’t hesitate to address politics and religion, letting the other party take the dialogue where they want to go.
Appreciate every human where they are as they are in their journey to responsible human liberty, including yourself. By so doing, you may connect with a fellow citizen.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-the-idea-of-American-Exceptionalism-still-valid-and-believed-today
The people’s proposition, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble) has been repressed since the people of 9 states had ratified it on June 21, 1788. When a majority of citizens have considered and adopted its proposition, the USA’s promises will emerge.
We encourage each person to consider the U.S. preamble’s proposition as a guide for ordering their civic lives. “Civic” refers to citizens communicating, collaborating, and connecting for mutual, comprehensive safety and security more than for a municipality.
Here’s my interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s proposition: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide five public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure liberty to living citizens.
With widespread adoption of this interpretation (or its improvement), an achievable better future will become evident in the world.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-power-biblically
“Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear.”
The Bible’s false promise of everlasting life empowers Bible-thumping clergy to partner with politicians to influence if not control many people. It’s called Chapter XI Machiavellianism (The Prince, 1513).
For all I know, upon my death I will actually be judged by Jesus, and I am prepared for it. However, I do not think it will happen. Therefore, I try to develop integrity in my performance and achievements in life.
I regret every moment I spent trying to master bible-power. Since I do not know the-objective-truth, I do not want anyone to think as I do. Let each person decide for their body, mind, and person.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-reasonable-to-refuse-to-be-friends-with-someone-who-doesnt-share-your-political-views
It is not reasonable to refuse friendship because of opinion.
Consider the proposition that is offered by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide five public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure liberty to living citizens.
Adopting this proposition is essential to civic citizens and people who do not adopt it, for whatever reason including unawareness, are dissidents to justice.
Notice that the list of public institutions excludes religion. Believing religion is a private practice under liberty.
Citizens appreciate each other for mutual, comprehensive safety and security regardless of personal opinion.
https://www.quora.com/Do-engineers-tend-to-be-more-conservative-or-liberal-in-their-political-beliefs
Probably 85% of engineers are fiscal conservatives, because they learn the First Law of Thermodynamics. That is, the total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains interchangeably constant. Stated in general by Einstein, E=mC-squared.
Perhaps 15% of engineers think they know the mystery of whatever-God-may-be; they are religiously traditional. Thus, perhaps 13% of engineers are traditional conservatives.
Some engineers trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. They tend to influence responsible human liberty, which is neither classical liberty nor absolute independence. A culture of responsible human liberty continuously develops mutual, comprehensive safety and security among fellow citizens.
https://www.quora.com/As-a-whole-are-we-valued
To the extent of acceptance of human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to the-objective-truth rather than infidelity, humankind may be appreciated. (HIPEA to develop crime is dissident to civic citizenship.)
Choosing HIPEA to develop integrity may be encouraged and coached by amending Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to a hierarchy of responsibilities to self and to fellow citizens. The sooner an individual accepts HIPEA and develops the self-discipline for Maslow’s responsibilities, the faster humankind may appreciate the individual.
When civic citizens are in the majority, humankind may appreciate itself, and a person could say “as a whole we are valued.”
Law professors
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/08/22/silent-originalism-and-the-reweighting-of-precedent
The problem is that no one in the legal profession accepts humankind’s ineluctable work to conform to the-objective-truth. Fellow citizens who do not know that they trust-in and commit-to equity under statutory justice ought not be authorized to vote. That may include some U.S. Senators and other officials.
Perhaps fortuitously, the preamble to the U.S. constitution (the U.S. preamble) offers the proposition to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. Scholars and others who reject “the-objective-truth” or its better expression (for example, by lessening it to “objective truth” or “truth”) refuse responsible human liberty. Moreover, they refute the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. preamble, a civic people’s proposition that defines We the People of the United States.
The U.S. preamble offers this proposition or better: civic citizens communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. In public, I happily return to the original nouns---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---for unison reading of the U.S. preamble and use the five personal interpretations to order my life under the discipline of civic integrity.
The U.S. preamble is this nation-of-people’s commitment to human equity under statutory justice. Statutory justice is perfected statutory law, an unattainable and worthy goal.
Again perhaps fortuitously, the action taken by the U.S. preamble’s proposition is to establish and provide maintenance-of a system of governance held accountable by the civic people---those who trust-in and commit to the U.S. preamble’s five public provisions for responsible human liberty. Key is the provision to amend un-just articles that follow the proposition. No one knows the ultimate better future of a civic people under the U.S. preamble with the-objective-truth as standard.
People may oppose my interpretation of the U.S. preamble. It seems evident that the U.S. Congress has never supported it, erroneously labelling it secular.
Consider the U.S. Senate. Senators begin each session-day with prayer and the pledge of allegiance. Neither of those acts is consistent with the U.S. preamble’s proposition. The U.S. preamble leaves religion and political-allegiance for each citizen to determine under statutory law. By design, the Senate is the most reliable political body in federal government. Senators are limited to six years before facing accountability to We the People of the United States---a civic people. Both Supreme Court Justices and writers for the media are nearly exempt from accountability. More than any other body, the Senators ought to conform to the U.S. preamble’s proposition and ought to read it in unison to start each session-day. I request that the U.S. Senators so reform.
Religious prayer, a colonial-British tradition, and other forms of “originalism” oppose the U.S. preamble’s proposition. Counting “blessing” a religious expression is true for some, but not all. Even as a representation of whatever-God-may-be, “blessing” means approval-of and encouragement-in [responsible human liberty]. It seems evident that whatever-God-may-be, domestic peace is a human responsibility. We the People of the United States ought not continue suffering erroneous colonial-British traditions.
In tyranny against civic discipline, We the People of the United States suffers the folly of a U.S. Supreme Court who has yet to discover the standard by which humankind marches forward: the-objective-truth (or better expression of the ineluctable evidence by which truth and justice are measured).
To Paul C Binotto:
“But when the right to vote . . . is denied to any of the . . . inhabitants of such state . . . or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion . . .”
Does opposition to equity under the rule of law as proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution establish rebellion and therefore disqualify the voter?
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment