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
Responsible human liberty requires participation by writers and editors for the press. This notion occurred to me as I read an article about coyotes in our neighborhoods.
The coyote story cited below hints at life-resiliency perhaps derived from individual fidelity. The coyote example can be used to encourage individuals to develop responsible human liberty, a goal stated in the U.S. Preamble. There ought to be a journal of achievement of the U.S. Preamble’s goals.
So far, writers and editors for the press have failed the U.S. Preamble’s intentions to encourage responsible human liberty. Perhaps writers for the press ought to aspire to be civic fellow citizens more than “journalists”.
News
Feature story about responsible human liberty (George Morris) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/article_9a4dcd8e-d3ed-11e9-86bb-37c8f75f0c81.html)
I commend The Advocate to create a feature story on some aspect of responsible human liberty to match stories like “. . . Coyotes in your neighborhood?” by George Morris.
Interesting coyote characterizations from my interpretation of the article include discipline, resiliency, awareness, self-interest, communication, prudence, prowess, and fidelity. I especially appreciate the last sentence in the article: “Coyotes mate for life and are monogamous.”
Mating for life involves care for spouse, children, grandchildren, and beyond. Why has a significant portion of U.S. males never realized or have lost this perception of fidelity?
I think it is because the press does not have the fidelity to encourage responsible human liberty. Thereby, the press fails constitutional responsibility that is assumed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
We the People of the United States may amend the First Amendment so as to require the press to express and encourage human responsibility. The press is the only public institution that is immune to constitutional responsibility.
These ideas come from the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, a civic, civil, and legal sentence. It’s essence is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect in order to aid freedom-from oppression and encourage individual liberty-to develop integrity rather than infidelity; in other words, responsible human liberty.
Columns
Press double talk (The Advocate’s “Our views”) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_8623fb76-d960-11e9-8cc2-8ba0768ea396.html)
Leave it to The Advocate to slight an exemplary civic citizen in order to appeal to others for civic integrity, exempting The Advocate. The Advocate editors could admit to themselves that they are fellow citizens among this generation, and The Advocate writers could be civic citizens.
Even writers for the press have human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than nourish infidelity to justice and truth. Acceptance of HIPEA is a choice, and development of integrity is a commitment.
Quoting The Advocate editors, “Congratulations to Gerard Ruth. We need another generation like his.”
Who is this “we”?
Fellow citizens are the current generation of adults. Why are we not trusting-in and committing to both the proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) and the-objective-truth; that is, the ineluctable evidence by which justice and truth are measured?
Is The Advocate exempt from civic citizenship---even fellow citizenship? Could The Advocate do the work to acquire an interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition and offer that view for public debate? Could The Advocate practice civic citizenship (commitment to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition) more than business opportunism?
Today, my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living and future people. Every elected and appointed government official is obligated to their interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and constrained by the-objective-truth, even though most officials ignore actual reality.
The U.S. Preamble omits standards by which the five public institutions and responsible liberty are judged and by which the articles that follow may be amended. The inference is that determination of standards is a human responsibility that remains with the individual. Thus, each human being may either accept or ignore HIPEA and use it to develop either integrity to the-objective-truth or infidelity. Supreme Court Justices each may accept HIPEA or try to consign HIPEA to a “higher power”. Consequences of poor choices are manifest by prospects for posterity, and $22.6 trillion debt reflects adult infidelity.
These principles have been developed over the past six years in public meetings at EBRP libraries by nearly seventy engaged fellow citizens. Civic ideas stand on their own and suggest an achievable better future.
We hope these ideas will inspire the world’s first Responsible Human Liberty Day during the June 21 week of 2020 in Baton Rouge. On June 21, 1788, people’s representatives of the ninth required state ratified the U.S. Preamble and its articles, establishing the USA as a global nation. The U.S. Preamble’s proposition legally terminated the 1774 Confederation of States, leaving four states---Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island---free and independent nations with the option to join the USA. Virginia and New York joined before political operations began on March 4, 1789.
After 231 years of suppression as a “secular” sentence, it is time for fellow citizens to consider the proposition for human equity under statutory justice (perfected statutory law) the U.S. Preamble offers. Mayor-President Broome could be the political leader and The Advocate could be the newspaper that lead the way.
A day for double entry (The Advocate’s “Our views”) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_039245de-d88c-11e9-905b-8318525e38c2.html)
Drew Brees’ wellbeing is a concern in our fan-home, too; we join the get well wishes.
“. . . the gridiron rests at the heart of the civic culture” seems like business-plan more than civics.
We are not fans of The Advocate’s neglect of Constitution Day, 2019. “Constitution Day September 17th is an American federal observance that recognizes the [
In our public library meeting last evening we celebrated the U.S. Preamble’s proposition to fellow citizens: develop individual happiness with civic integrity. The entity We the People of the United States intends to aid five public institutions in order to secure responsible human liberty to living people now and in the future. Among fellow citizens there are dissidents.
Maybe someday Constitution Day will be important to The Advocate.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-Achilles-heel-of-American-society?
Freedom of religion is the Achilles heel of American society.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) proposes five public institutions to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens. However, the First Congress, 1789-1791 imposed a factional-American Protestant partnership patterned after England’s partnership with reformed-Catholicism.
A bemused people struggle to develop integrity but have not the encouragement offered by the U.S. Preamble. Everybody knows that the mystery of whatever-God-is leaves justice to the civic people---the people who accept development of equity under statutory justice. It is time for civic citizens to hold the government responsible for separation of church and state.
Start by amending the First Amendment so as to protect integrity rather than religion.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-exaggerated-or-false-threat-facing-the-nation?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s boast that she serves “we, the people,” a casual entity.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is a proposition by We the People of the United States who accept the sentence as they individually interpret it. My interpretation is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to secure responsible human liberty to living people now and into the future.
I doubt Pelosi ever considered the proposition.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/In-your-opinion-what-are-some-of-the-most-interesting-cultural-practices-customs-youve-come-across?
I think from my Scots-Irish grandmother I learned the spur when I am down and out “Worse things happened to better people.”
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-still-have-freedom-of-speech-or-does-censorship-change-all-that?
Censorship always existed and empowers civic people to identify liars.
Happily, my state has a better provision than the First Amendment’s speech and press clauses: “Louisiana Constitution: Article I. Section 7. No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom.”
Enforcement is left to the people.
A deceptive response to verbal violence is stonewalling, which is another freedom of expression. A response follows stonewalling, and it may be civic.
I advocate for the civic, civil, and legal use of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) and am more than 99% stonewalled. I respond by accepting the stonewaller’s change of topics, silence, or departure. My intention is to learn from the 1% who engage the proposal and improve my position.
Incidentally, my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens, present and future.
This interpretation, while mine today is the consequence of six years of public library meetings with seventy participants who engaged the proposal. With two meetings per year in an area with over a million people, we may estimate that 0.00058% of residents/meeting participated. The most recent meeting, on September 17, 2019, Constitution Day, had one listener-speaker and me.
In my writing and presentation, I express a dominant human concern as “the mystery of whatever-God-is” and hear no objections. To believers, I am expressing provocative reality both to their spiritual beliefs and to their civic obligations. A few believers exit the meeting, and, I hope, contemplate personal separation of church and state.
So far, I have not encountered violence beyond being grilled, “I want to know: Is Jesus your personal savior or not?”
Perhaps the relative peace I enjoy is because no Alinsky-Marxist organizer (AMO) has disrupted our public meetings. AMO agents distinguish themselves by begging the woe of voluntary isolation through stonewalling, boycotts, disruption, verbal violence, property damage, and personal injury.
The censoring media beg the woe of public disdain and eventual acceptance that they never intended to practice or develop journalism.
It seems self-evident that whatever-God-is leaves it to the people to discover truth and justice. Louisiana’s constitution expresses the responsibility of the speaker and leaves it to civic citizens to enforce compliance. When it comes to justice, we can look to the civic citizens more than to government, especially if the government partners with a religion.
https://www.quora.com/Tearing-political-posters-does-not-count-as-freedom-of-speech-Is-that-correct?
Freedom of speech is not a license to destroy property. Political posters are property, not only as the placard but also in the production and distribution labor as well as the political cause.
Under the U.S. Preamble’s peoples’ proposition, fellow citizens may aid Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens now and in the future. Dissidents, fellow citizens who take irresponsible liberties, risk statutory laws. Civic citizens continually amend unjust laws to develop statutory justice.
It is in the citizen’s best interest to attend to the civic basis of laws, which is this: A civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from anyone or anything. Thus, a civic citizen would not destroy property. Further, if a companion acts to destroy property, your word of constraint should stop the intentions. If you end up in court, you should freely report your action to stop the harm.
Intolerance of harm operates on strength, preferably a firm verbalization. If necessary, physical force may be the answer: For example, a loaded gun aimed to kill you should motivate sufficient self-defense.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-ideological-construct-that-all-humans-should-possess-equality-or-justice?
I tried to imagine an answer by considering the human ovum. Each one is unique, and its fertilization to form an embryo does not lessen its uniqueness.
If speculation about equality of ova can be developed that might lead to a viable idea for the embryo and from there to the delivered child and from there to the human person.
I do not plan to develop such a construct.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-see-society-in-50-years-Will-it-be-better-worse-or-more-of-the-same?
Better. Two ideas are capturing the imaginations of the people who want mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Individual discipline and the-objective truth offer an achievable better future.
Mankind is on a journey toward equity under statutory justice, an impossible perfection yet worthy goal. Presently, many people are distracted by “rights” propaganda like the United Nations’ statement. However, there are other, more direct statements that propose responsibility more than rights.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs may be viewed as an estimate of human responsibilities. The human being has the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity, and this reality may be encouraged for a civic culture.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution is a people’s proposition with only six responsibilities. Civic citizens individually discipline to aid Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare in order to secure responsible human liberty to the continuum of living people.
By not specifying the standards by which the six responsibilities are measured, the proposition accepts that humankind may use HIPEA to develop the integrity to conform to the ineluctable evidence for justice and truth. We call discovery based on ineluctable evidence “the-objective-truth,” using the hyphens to encourage readers/listeners to not drop the article for the distraction “objective truth.”
We think a civic agreement with few variables, like the U.S. Preamble plus the-objective-truth offer an achievable better future most people would like to enjoy.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-civic-nationalism?
A civic citizen works for mutual, comprehensive safety and security among fellow citizens (Security) more than for the municipality. If he or she thinks the national government is just and most fellow citizens observe the law, he or she may perceive a people’s perpetuity. Under just laws but poor Security, the civic citizen urges reform. Under tyranny, the civic citizen may choose to emigrate. The civic citizen has no enmity for other civic citizens regardless of the other’s nationality. Appreciating and aiding world-wide Security seems like civic nationalism.
In the USA, the citizen’s proposition for civic nationalism is expressed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). I interpret the U.S. Preamble as follows: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living people now and in the future.
The U.S. Preamble does not specify standards for the five public institutions nor for responsibility in human liberty. However, the system and ineluctable evidence eventually motivate the civic people to conform to the-objective-truth. For example, after only 231 years operation under the U.S. Preamble, few citizens would attempt to defend a religious opinion that supports African slavery. Yet 159 years ago, the Declaration of Secession claimed separation over “a more erroneous religious opinion.”
The U.S. Preamble is neglected as a “secular” sentence. With widespread commitment to and trust-in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition under the-objective-truth, the U.S. might develop civic nationalism. And the world might begin to perceive an achievable better future.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-5-constitutional-rights?
I have no knowledge of a constitution that provides 5 rights.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proposes that citizens aid five public freedoms-from oppression as Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare in order to secure liberty. That’s five public provisions to secure a responsible human characteristic: liberty-to responsibly pursue personal preferences. It proposes 5 disciplines for 1 opportunity. But it is not a right. If a citizen chooses crime, he or she is a dissident to the proposition.
One state’s ACLU lists rights at https://www.aclu-ms.org/en/know-your-rights/constitutional-rights. The First Amendment stipulates five provisions, but they are problematic and may be amended. For example, the religion clauses should be replaced with encouragement to develop integrity. And expressions by both individuals and institutions such as religions and the press ought to be held responsible for actual harm. They add 3 more amendable “rights” for a total of 8. I don’t know.
There’s the classic claim from the U.S. Declaration of Independence from England to the divine right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness plus civic right to equality and self-governance. That’s five, but it’s not a constitution.
I think the human species is the most aware and capable. The human individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to either develop integrity or wander into infidelity to the-objective-truth. Under physics, the-objective-truth is that life can be eliminated any time. Therefore, the essential human right is the opportunity to develop integrity.
https://www.quora.com/Is-freedom-necessary-for-a-perfect-society/answer/Phil-Beaver-1?
To Diane Merriam:
I like to avoid the word “must” and appreciate your prompt: I edited my post to: “Critical to the rule of law is the individual liberty-to develop integrity. Therefore, the civic individual chooses to aid freedom-from oppression.”
Addressing *collective* and *dissidents* my post starts “Only one “society” is worthy of majority support, and that is the people who collectively act for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.” That collective applies this principle: neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone. As more people adopt the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, the civic citizens may outnumber the dissidents to mutual, comprehensive safety and security, becoming the majority. Dissidents to injustice are among the civic citizens---those who aid mutual, comprehensive safety and security, perhaps by amending unjust laws.
Western thought erroneously attributes to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition the notion of “self-governance,” which typically is corrupt. However, the U.S. Preamble is an invitation to self-discipline to aid five public institutions so as to secure responsible human liberty. Disciplined citizens would hold their governments accountable---municipal, state, and federal. Moreover, disciplined citizens would end the Chapter XI Machiavellian church-state partnership in factional-Protestantism the colonial-British subjects were accustomed to.
The U.S. Preamble’s proposition is public aid to Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare in order to encourage responsible human liberty to current and future citizens. The preamble leaves religion or none to the individual according to personal preference. Some fellow citizens do not pretend to know the mystery of whatever-God-is.
Indeed this proposition was not offered by the people; 99% of free inhabitants were factional American Protestants or “reformed Catholics” under the Church of England. Nor was the people’s proposition proposed by “the founders.” Perhaps the proposition reflects the 4-months 1787 discussions by delegates of 12 states (Rhode Island was a rebel). What the delegates sent to the 5-person Committee of Style was erroneous at least three ways. It preserved the confederation of states, including Rhode Island who had rebelled from the convention. It claimed self-governance. And it claimed governance of posterity. The Committee of Style, chaired by Gouverneur Morris, authored the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. I doubt it made committee-member James Madison happy.
The nine states that ratified did so by conventions held by state legislators who communicated with residents in their districts---the republican form of government states are guaranteed. As of June 21, 1788, there was the USA and 4 independent nations according to the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The free nations were Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island. Before operations began on March 4, 1789, Virginia and New York had joined the USA, which began with eleven states. Also, the 1774 Confederation of States and all its legislation had been legally terminated: The U.S. Preamble is a civic, civil, and legal statement, and I may choose to commit-to and trust-in its proposition.
My state, Louisiana was a former French colony under Spanish flag and has not the psychological influence of colonial-British impositions. For example, until last year, it was the only state to independently recognize that unanimous criminal juries are not likely to meet the U.S. Amendment VI demand for impartiality. Louisiana had a 10:2 verdict provision. England in 1967 adopted Louisiana’s 1880 awareness that identity politics such as organized crime often influences unanimous jury verdicts. I want Louisiana to restore their 9:3 criminal verdicts under U.S. Amendments XIV.1 and XI by force from the Louisiana Supreme Court.
I assume the ancient mathematicians were inspired by seafarers who perceived the earth’s curvature on the horizon and could not change it by sailing forth. Perhaps some of them imagined a globe they could not fall from due to unseen forces.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-difference-between-power-and-authority-in-regards-to-the-opinions-of-the-patriarchs-matriarchs-of-politics-e-g-Aristotle-Weber-Lukes-Arendt-etc
Evolution produced one known species, the human being, with the awareness to either develop integrity or nourish infidelity to the-objective-truth. That is, the ineluctable evidence to actual reality. Each human individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity.
In a culture of integrity, civic fellow citizens want mutual, comprehensive safety and security (Security). Fellow citizens interpret Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as the ordering of responsibilities to living people including self. In a world with dissidents to Security, civic citizens aid equity under statutory justice at the leading edge of its development.
Under these principles, thinkers of the past created a journal of errors the modern thinker may observe and need not experience. Some fellow citizens want to nourish the past errors into correction and thereby establish notoriety. Others merely want to be aware of and accept the errors but rely on the leading edge of integrity to the-objective-truth.
Integrity is a practice. Perceiving a heartfelt concern, the individual does the work to discover whether the concern is a mirage or not; if not, work continues to understand the discovery and how to benefit; the individual then behaves so as to benefit and publicly shares the reasons for the behavior; he or she considers public feedback with open-mindedness and adjusts if necessary; and he or she remains open minded to new discovery that requires change in understanding.
The human individual has the power, authority (and energy) to develop integrity rather than cling to past errors. Our species is empowered for responsible human liberty.
These ideas come from open-minded study of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and its perpetual commitment to posterity: living people want Security under the-objective-truth.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Which-books-should-I-read-first-if-I-have-opted-for-the-sociology-optional-Can-you-please-name-all-the-books-needed-for-a-beginner-in-sociology-as-I-dont-have-any-idea-about-the-subject?
In my mid 70s I am loath to share what I think of sociology; it is not favorable. I consider it modern metaphysics. Metaphysics is the practice of speculating about what is not known without confirming that the concern is more than a mirage. For example, why not accept rather than question “being”.
I think scholarly commentary on scholarly commentary has brought mankind to an erroneous body of literature that may be read to observe past errors and avoid them. Therefore, reading should be very selective, with your particular interest in mind.
The modern human should adopt the un-civilized conviction that the human individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to the-objective-truth. That is, integrity to the ineluctable evidence that is discovered. To speculations about what has not been uncovered, the student may accept the edict, “I don’t know.” However, if he or she doubts the speculation, accept and express the doubt and keep an open mind. Even when the-objective-truth seems discovered, keeping the mind open seems prudent. But I do not doubt that the earth is like a globe rather than flat and the earth rotates on its axis so as to hide the sun in the evening and un-hide it in the morning: the sun’ll come up is only an impression.
The two books I recommend (to help consider direction) are H.A. Overstreet’s The Mature Mind, 1949, and Cecil J. Schneer’s The Evolution of Physical Science, 1960. Two essayists helped me choose to pursue integrity rather than civility (conformity): Ralph Waldo Emerson in “Self Reliance,” and “Divinity School Address” and Albert Einstein in “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics.” The last verses of the Holy Bible contain threats that turned me off that literature, and I am critical of every word therein.
For continuing open-mindedness, join a Great Books reading and discussion program at your local library, preferably starting with the original 5-year series. They’ll know the nearest group. Engagement with other open-minded people is enriching. Beware “free-thought” which may deviate unproductively from the-objective-truth.
Good luck.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-that-freedom-dividends-for-all-Americans-would-positively-impact-many-lives?
May I assume from the lower-case plurality that you are not advertising for Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend so as to answer as a civic citizen?
About 2500 years ago, a Greek suggested that civic people may develop equity under statutory justice. That is, by communicating, collaborating, and connecting to discover injustice and then amend statutory law for justice, encouragement for the people could be possible. Under such a culture, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs might express responsibilities.
The U.S. opportunity for a civic people is proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Our expression of the discipline is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public freedoms-from oppression—-integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—-in order to encourage the liberty-to develop individual integrity.
Some fellow citizens are unfortunately incapable of participating so need care. Some fellow citizens—dissidents—-erroneously perceive the U.S. Preamble creates opportunity for tyranny, crime, or free-loading.
The proposition is neutral to religion, race, gender, and wealth. It offers freedom-from oppression for the liberty to responsibly pursue individual happiness rather than accept someone else’s imposition.
The First U.S. Congress, either not comprehending the U.S. Preamble’s ultimate purpose or to insist on preserving colonial-English tradition, imposed factional-American Protestantism as the standard for justice. We the people’s identity politics was “the Christian thing to do.” We the People of the United States has resisted the imposition ever since; recent political regimes impose Judeo-Christianity. The U.S. Supreme court seems Judeo-Catholic. But human integrity requires as standard the-objective-truth, that is, the ineluctable evidence, in order to measure justice and truth.
The nation that establishes a culture that accepts freedom-from oppression and liberty-to develop integrity to the-objective-truth will “positively impact many lives.”
https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-government-ensure-social-justice-and-equality-to-all?
The short answer is that government cannot ensure social justice and equality to all. Government can only succeed when the people hold it accountable, and the people have not the self-discipline. And humans are unique and therefore can expect equity: Equality contradicts uniqueness.
We know that one species, humankind, evolves with the awareness to develop integrity to the-objective-truth. That is, integrity based on ineluctable evidence rather than human constructs such as reason, revelation, coercion, force, subjugation, cooperation, and other weak efforts---erroneous standards.
The human individual has the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to the objective truth, but influenced by civilizations tends to procrastinate, often wandering into infidelity to the-objective-truth. For example, some civilizations inculcate a search for higher power and of those many claim to settle the mystery of whatever-God-is. Since whatever-God-is does not respond to human constructs, the consequence is ruinous connections and transactions with other human beings, nations, and beyond. Human misery and loss can be lessened as soon as these principles accelerate into public attention, and consideration is happening as I write.
Human uniqueness begins with the ovum, each one of which is unique. Distinction increases when the ovum is fertilized. Conceptions develop in the physical care by the mother and the psychological care by the father for both mother and child. Children respond to their community. Only a fortunate few discover and accept their HIPEA and of those, only a few use it to develop integrity. Almost no one would articulate that they accept HIPEA and use it to develop integrity.
The principles I have described so far suggest two changes in how civic citizens hold governments accountable. First, most people accept that to aid human liberty requires both individual and collective discipline. Thus, many people may accept their HIPEA and use it to develop integrity rather than infidelity. Second, civilizations may encourage responsible human liberty under the-objective-truth. Thus, civic citizens seek equity and aid discovery-of and acceptance-of statutory justice.
These principles emerged during the recent 6 years at public library meetings with contributions from both collaborators and detractors numbering about 70 people. The meetings-purpose is to suggest that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble), in its “our Posterity” phrase, offers its proposition to living citizens. The founding fathers, the framers, the signers, the ratifiers, and the first Congress do not participate in modern communications, collaborations, and connections to amend the U.S. Constitution toward statutory justice. Thus, the civic people of today constitution the current We the People of the United States.
A civic people’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition answers to the current opportunity more than the past and against past errors. Every citizen may consider the U.S. Preamble and express it to support his or her pursuit of responsible happiness. My current interpretation is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to secure responsible human liberty to living people now and into the future.
The U.S. Preamble asserts that religion is a private pursuit rather than a civic, civil, or legal practice. By all means there’s no human liberty if every citizen must accept one speculation about the mystery whatever-God-is. The U.S. may amend the First Amendment to protect integrity rather than religion.
Government can assure equity to fellow citizens who accept a civic contract such as the U.S. Preamble or better and employ the-objective-truth as standard for developing statutory justice. Errant fellow citizens may be constrained by statutory law and are encouraged to reform by the civic citizens’ example to pursue individual happiness with civic integrity.
Law professors
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/09/20/explaining-originalism
“Constitutional [debates] are . . . cloistered [by the proprietary language of] academy [that shield themselves from expressions] by the general public. The nation could benefit from a deeper [attention to] civics.” In my paraphrase, “civics” refers to aiding responsible human liberty as described in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble).
“Gorsuch [seems] . . . a down-to-earth explainer” for preserving colonial-British tradition rather than promoting American integrity.
“Originalism says the rights of the Constitution that were given in 1789 are the rights you enjoy today and they can never be taken — and if you want to add to them, we the people add to them.”
Gorsuch believes that originalism “is all about protecting … the original structure of the Constitution.”
I could understand that, if the original structure specified statutory justice. However, as it is, expression deserves more attention. Perhaps expression, both by the individual and by the press, is a fourth branch of the federal government. It seems to me the only valid human right is the right to develop integrity.
“I say the country is owned by We the People. We wrote a Constitution, we put down what we wanted to put in it.”
This claim as well as the reference to 1789 is controversial if not wrong.
As of June 21, 1788, the people’s representatives of nine states had ratified the U.S. Preamble, legally ending the 1774 confederation of thirteen states and establishing the USA as a global nation. Four states remained free and independent nations, but two joined the USA before operations began with eleven states on March 4, 1789. North Carolina joined in November 1789 and Rhode Island in May 1790.
The USA is owned by We the People of the United States, a civic entity that accepts the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and maintains the U.S. Constitution. Fellow citizens who oppose amendment of the law so as to approach statutory justice are dissidents. The U.S. Preamble leaves it to We the People of the United States to discover and apply the standards for justice and truth. Only the ineluctable evidence (the-objective-truth) stands for justice. Accepting comprehension-fallibility, civic citizens cautiously understand yet steadfastly apply the-objective-truth until new discovery demands change. The U.S. Preamble specifies individual human discipline by which fellow citizens may pursue integrity.
Unfortunately, the First Congress, 1789-1791, like adolescent parents who know no better than to argue over four ways their moms and dads parented—those politicians—imposed colonial-English tradition instead of developing the U.S. Preamble’s integrity. One consequence is “freedom of religion,” an imposition, instead of encouragement to develop integrity, a civic duty.
Gorsuch could recite the U.S. Preamble in unison with his committee of nine to begin each work day. We have appealed to the Louisiana Senators to introduce this practice in the U.S. Senate so as to encourage Senators to strive to be of We the People of the United States. For now, the House’s identity politics negates hope for communication, collaboration, and connection for civic citizenship.
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