A civic horror: Baton Rouge split by St. George or vice versa

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


A civic horror: Baton Rouge split by St. George or vice versa

Only a dreamer would imagine Baton Rouge being the world’s first city to sponsor a celebration, Responsible Human Liberty Day, each June 21 to celebrate establishment of the USA as a global nation. On June 21, 1788, 9 of 13 free and independent global states, formerly N. America’s eastern-seaboard, British colonies, legally ended the 1774 confederation of states, leaving 4 states with the option to join the USA or not.

We dream of most Baton Rougeans committed-to and trusting-in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition to aid 5 public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare---in order to encourage responsible human liberty as the individual civic citizen interprets the proposition. This is a pivotal time for Baton Rouge fellow citizens to consider “ourselves and our Posterity.”

In my mid 70s I would never have anticipated my home city dividing over local, prejudicial government. When I first heard the possibility, in fall, 2013, I had “completed” what I thought was an informed personal review of American foundations (by informed I mean first not influenced by a university professor’s agenda and second using an open mind to penetrate misleading labels like “Salem Witch Trials,” which I understand were barbaric, other-worldly or spiritual executions of more than 20 citizens in the early 1690s). I had been writing for about a decade about the dis-establishment of the U.S. Preamble, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

I contacted many influential Baton Rougeans with the proposal to use the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition to avoid the fatal mistakes made by the civic citizens of 1860 South Carolina who allowed their state legislators to attempt to secede-from and fire-on their country, the USA.

When no one would respond, I reacted two ways. First, I started a blog, promotethepreamble.blogspot.com on February 2, 2014. Second, I planned a public library meeting on June 21, 2014 to promote interest in being of We the People of the United States as proposed in the U.S. Preamble.

As a consequence, we, A Civic People of the United States, have met a local libraries at least twice a year; we created this blog, cipbr.blogspot.com; and I learned to listen to fellow citizens regarding the U.S. Preamble and more. We now encourage every citizen to 1) consider the U.S. Preamble and use it to order their civic life and 2) recognize that religion, race, gender, and wealth are not among the five public institutions about which We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect so as to aid. My individual interpretation is that the five institutions to encourage 2019 (living) responsible human liberty are: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity.

The U.S. Preamble, I think reflecting the debates in the 1787 Constitutional Convention does not specify the standards for responsible human liberty. I do not object if some individuals use spirituality but do not want arbitrary mystery imposed on me: in the considerations I am aware of, the-literal-truth is sufficient mystery, and I rely on the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence to help me discover reliable standards. I think most Baton Rougeans want reliable, mutual, comprehensive safety and security so each citizen may privately pursue responsible human liberty.

However, some fellow citizens listen to prejudicial political schemes, which discourage the human opportunity to use personal life to aid individual equity under statutory justice---the U.S. Preamble’s goal.

I would like to hear from Baton Rougeans who agree, including fellow citizens who are elected or appointed government officials: whether municipal, state, or federal.


News

Ego-centric techniques (Caitlin Yoshiko Kandil) (https://religionnews.com/2019/10/15/meditation-apps-proliferate-even-if-what-they-provide-is-not-enlightenment/)

“Mindfulness” is itself a misdirected social-workers’ craze.

At first I took it to be instruction on how to get out of your self-consciousness or egocentricity in order to pay attention to what is happening to the people who are communicating with, collaborating with, or connecting with you. But as I progressed through the instruction, I realized it was a coping technique---a way to empower you to overcome the conflicts that result from the fact that life involves independent views of comprehensive safety and security in diverse situations.

I prefer to appreciate fellow citizens as they are and where they are on their journey toward responsible human liberty regardless of their status: unaware of responsible liberty, opposed to justice, or erroneously thinking crime and tyranny pay. Developing personal happiness with civic integrity is my private quest, low as my practice may be.

I acquired my civic commitment by discussing the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and accepting my interpretation: fellow citizens may aid freedom-from tyranny in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens.

Posted on the above URL.

A standard for everyone (Terry L. Jones) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_84945b68-ef93-11e9-b934-73ead3c38fef.html)

“Broome reiterated that she and her team intend to do whatever is in ‘the best interest of everyone’ in regard to the incorporation.“

On Broome’s watch, the U.S. Preamble’s proposition will be more important to both Baton Rouge and St. George than “how an incorporation effort can be challenged in court.” I wonder how Broome interprets the U.S. Preamble. My interpretation today is:  We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare---in order to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens now and in the future (posterity).

Also, now that the St. George vote has been taken, the future St. George might be better off to create a new referendum to see if areas contiguous to Baton Rouge would prefer to annex to Baton Rouge, incorporate a separate city such as W. St. George, or stay with St. George. Individual preference is as important after the vote as before.

I do not trust M.E. Cormier’s advice “neighborhoods [that] share boundaries with Baton Rouge [are] eligible for annexation” to Baton Rouge. In general, I do not trust Together Baton Rouge, an Alinsky-Marxist (AMO) affiliate last time I checked.

I don’t know anything beyond my opinion that the civic individual knows what’s in his or her best interest and ought to have the best opportunity to choose. There ought to be human freedom-from tyranny so as to secure the liberty-to choose.

I’d accept a chance to vote for Foil against the other two (SAM KARLIN and MARK BALLARD) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_78f3637a-f03e-11e9-aa89-1f360ad1a9e3.html)

I see no reason to try to coerce a candidate to voluntarily drop out. Let the people who are willing to vote have their say.

What if the second recount favors Carter? I might vote for Thompson. We’ll see.

Think “responsible human liberty” (Terry Jones) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_113c4802-eea2-11e9-b0a2-4b98c655eaa1.html)

It would be fitting for the world’s first municipal-commemoration of June 21, 1788 to occur in Baton Rouge, LA. By that day, the representatives of 9 globally free and independent states had established the USA as a nation.

But its integrity has not been established. I cannot imagine urgency and achievability of establishing We the People of the United States higher than in Baton Rouge.

We celebrate “Responsible Human Liberty Day,” recognizing the people’s proposition that is offered in the U.S. Preamble (the preamble to the U.S. Constitution). In 2020, we’ll host our 7th annual EBRP public library meeting. More than 70 fellow citizens have contributed time and thought.

I commend Mayor-President Broome to “have [EBRP citizens’] best interests in mind” by creating and hosting the world’s first “Responsible Human Liberty Day” on June 21, 2020. We proposed the event during “15 minutes with the Mayor” on April 10, 2019 and trust that response is developing. The Metro-Council members are also informed of the proposal.

Jones’ report prompted an idea for going forward such that all St. George voters feel represented.

Looking at “The St. George Vote” map, divide the contiguous areas “for” and “against” into St. George and W. St. George. Conduct a new, Louisiana-legal referendum for St. George voters with the options: 1) stay in St. George, 2) create W. St. George, and 3) annex into Baton Rouge. It seems likely that St. George area would lessen, but its citizens would be happy with the arrangement. W. St. George does not seem likely, but we don’t know. However, individual happiness may increase, and that would increase collective happiness in each Baton Rouge and St. George.

Good luck to everyone.

 Columns

Opponents of big government wonder why (The Advocate editors) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_866d3d74-eac0-11e9-94dc-d71dc9269e48.html)

“Grigsby could have simply kept his mouth shut for five days and the threat of a Republican split would have vanished anyhow.”

Really? I view The Advocate opinion a distraction from the urgent question: How did a false recount with a tie between the Republican candidates come into existence? And what would have happened if Foil had left it to Carter to demand a recount?

I think lambasting Grigsby reflects The Advocates foolhardy social democracy and the Democratic Party’s un-civic aggression. We the People of Louisiana need a watch group to investigate The Advocate’s business plan.

Some Republicans, some Libertarians, and some Democrats want to reduce government, that is, reduce percentage of responsible human earnings that are being taken by an ever expanding local, state, and federal force: taxation.

The Advocate seems for larger taxation; John Bel Edwards is proud that he expanded the Louisiana budget to an all-time high; and Eddie Rispone presents the hope that We the People of Louisiana may achieve reduced taxation with improved living conditions.

Who funds The Advocate’s abuse of We the People of Louisiana? If I thought it was my 50 years’ subscription, I’d drop it.

Keller knows the mystery of whatever-devout-Catholic-is (Lanny Keller) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_866d3d74-eac0-11e9-94dc-d71dc9269e48.html)

Keller, are you trying to hint at Catholic judgement? It’s an erroneous practice.

“There is no hint of any personal scandal involving Rispone, who is, like Edwards, a devout Catholic.”

David Vitter, accused of neglecting senate-votes for sex calls, is also Catholic. I suppose Keller judged him and found Vitter un-devout. I wonder about Keller’s devout-scale. Does it account for clergy examples that everything is permitted in moderation? Does the Keller-scale tip towards Edwards or Rispone? Does it take into account Edwards’ pride in the largest Louisiana budget ever? And what of Jindal’s Keller-devout-Catholic-judgement? Keller seems dissident by rendering Catholic judgement in a civic, civil, and legal election. Unlike a journalist, Keller seems to be a bait-and-switch artist, citing sex then switching to religion.

Keller, like most fellow citizens probably does not articulate a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition to cite religion. The U.S. Preamble is a controversial 52 word sentence that is very specific about civic, civil, and legal institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. Nowhere is religion cited, Catholicism specified, or any other spiritual constraint suggested to fellow citizens. Is Keller an aware citizen?

The U.S. Preamble proposes is freedom-from tyranny against the civic goals, such as the imposition of religion, so as to secure human liberty to living citizens. Fellow citizens who do not aid this proposition are not of We the People of the United States---are dissidents, whether by ignorance or by intent.

My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble's proposition is mine, for my way of living as a civic citizen. I doubt many fellow citizens are serious enough about the U.S. Preamble to create their own interpretation. Trust me. It takes at least a decade and many open-minded conversations with fellow citizens to come to an interpretation you’d be willing to represent and defend before fellow citizens including members of the U.S. Supreme Court. However, I am developing that security.

I encourage fellow citizens who have not asked themselves “On what sentence would I communicate, collaborate, and connect for equity under statutory justice” to consider the U.S. Preamble, difficult as the comprehension is.

It is embarrassing, half way to my eighties to admit that only now am I developing an understanding of the U.S. Preamble. However, I do not feel alone in this privation (nor should Keller if he indeed lacks understanding). I am certain I have been misled by the political regimes I trusted, especially those who cite the so-called founding father instead of living citizens who practice responsible human liberty.

I now trust-in and commit-to the-literal-truth and assert that it is approachable through the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which written justice is measured as statutory justice is developed. Other fellow citizens place their civic faith elsewhere.

Once a fellow citizen recognizes and publishes a cogent interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, controversial as it may be, an achievable better future may be available.

Anyway, vote Rispone to reduce the Louisiana State budget (lessen picking the people’s pockets) and increase accountability under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

To Bruce McIntosh: That's right. Keller shamefully expresses social democracy in opposition to the-objective-truth. That is the ineluctable evidence on which humankind pursues the-literal-truth. That's a far cry from the business plan some writers for the press adhere to.

To add to the shame, writers for the press have equal opportunity to develop individual understanding of the civic, civil, and legal proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Too many of them choose to look to whatever-God-is or government to substitute for their individual responsibility to aid or join We the People of the United States rather than be a dissident to Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare in order to encourage responsible human liberty.

The Advocate of Baton Rouge in denial (Editors’ views) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_866d3d74-eac0-11e9-94dc-d71dc9269e48.html)

“Last year, Louisiana voters rejected the state’s [judicial treasure,] majority criminal juries. By . . . 64-36 margin [with 48.7% voter turnout].” Shame on We the People of the United States for not voting.

The Louisiana State Bar Association, The Advocate, and the 2018 Louisiana Legislature thereby unconstitutionally imposed unanimous criminal juries on victims of crime and We the People of the United States who live in Louisiana. Colonial-British traditions and minority prejudices imposed on Louisiana are none the less tyranny against We the People of the United States.

The origin of the unanimous-12-person jury myth was English common law. In 1967, England enacted 10:2 jury verdicts to lessen organized crime’s influence on jury trials. The victims of unanimous jury verdicts are the offended citizen and the citizens who pay law-enforcement bills. With unanimous juries, criminals have the advantage. Each the U.S. Constitution, the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court know the pertinent principles.

The U.S. Constitution (established 1788), Article III, Section 2 states “The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be by Jury . . . in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.” Amendment VI (1791) states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State . . . 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.” Amendment XIV.1 (1868) states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

These constitutional provisions know neither skin color, nor gender, nor religion, nor wealth nor judicial qualifications; that is, fellow citizens may read the words and comprehend. The provisions apply to fellow citizens without prejudice. By opposing the U.S. Constitution, fellow citizens express dissidence to the march for statutory justice. They divide themselves from We the People of the United States.

It matters not that Louisiana, with its French-colonial background enacted in 1879 an impartiality provision that England mimicked in 1967 to eliminate an advantage to the criminal in competition with his or her victim. What matters is that tyrants pitched its impartiality as a consequence of a 1898 state convention. It matters not that black victims of crime are almost 90% of the time offended by a black criminal. What matters is that the Louisiana Legislature unconstitutionally imposed favor to the criminal. It matters not that The Advocate has no acceptance for its own anecdotal reports of both judicial and jurist favor for the criminal; see https://www.theadvocate.com/.../article_20754176-e46a.... It is past time for liars, honest or not, to comprehend and accept that the very walls echo what is expressed but with amendment to the-literal-truth.

An impartial jury decides for the victim rather than the criminal and does not victimize the falsely accused.

I expect the Supreme Court to not only uphold Louisiana’s 10:2 impartial jury verdicts but in so doing to signal the need for an Amendment XIV.1 suit against the State of Louisiana, perhaps to open to 5:4 verdicts in non-capital cases and 6:3 verdicts in capital cases.

The constitutional point is U.S. impartiality rather than colonial-British unanimity.

Second post:

“[A believer's] series [intended to prove the belief] found the provision was introduced to minimize the voices of African-American jurors and that black defendants are more likely to be convicted by non-unanimous juries.”

Almost 90% of black defendants have a black accuser (victim of crime). A provision for impartiality, non-unanimous juries favor black victims rather than black criminals. Impartial juries favor all victims of crime, including both the falsely accused and We the People of the United States, who willingly pay the cost of law enforcement and development of statutory justice.

Third Post:

“The underlying legal argument centers on the Sixth Amendment guarantees of defendants’ rights at trial, which do not explicitly include the right to a unanimous jury but have long been understood that way.”

The Advocate’s hubris in claiming that “impartiality” can be understood as “unanimity” is shameless and begs woe.

It exceeds their falsehood “the bedrock principle of fairness,” infidelity to justice which cannot be escaped by citing John Rawls.

On the other hand, if Phil Beaver always decides what’s fair, maybe that can be used for justice. After all, I work hard to comprehend the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which the-literal-truth may be asymptotically approached. I must admit, though: I often do not know the-objective-truth, much less the-literal-truth.

Fourth comment:

Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the wisdom of preserving “an incorrect view of the United States Constitution” to avoid complications from the court reversing its prior view and opening old cases to retroactive scrutiny.

Fifth comment:

“Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the wisdom of preserving ‘an incorrect view of the United States Constitution’ to avoid complications from the court reversing its prior view and opening old cases to retroactive scrutiny.”

If The Advocate seems confused and contradictory, look at some national, biased reporting.

At stake here is appreciating state differences under Federalist 10. “Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill . . . argued that nonunanimous verdicts should be allowed in both state and federal courts. Put differently, the court should [dislodge] the unanimity rule from the Sixth Amendment [requirement of impartiality].”

Gorsuch was concerned with 14 prior court opinions more than the 32,000 convicts Murrill cited. Perhaps Gorsuch overlooks the U.S. Constitutional specification of impartiality. See https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/supreme-court-nonunanimous-juries-oral-argument.html.

The report of Gorsuch showing emotions is disturbing. Civic citizens know justice is not pursued through emotions: I don’t believe the writers for the media.



Quora

https://www.quora.com/Considering-the-fact-that-John-21-25-contradicts-Acts-1-1-would-you-still-believe-that-both-books-are-inspired

People who write are inspired by their appreciation of life and the desire to communicate, collaborate, and connect with fellow citizens. Some have noble motives. I like to approach literature I once read in NIV with a Jewish interpretation. So here are the two subjects:

John 21:25, CJB. But there are also many other things Yeshua did; and if they were all to be recorded, I don't think the whole world could contain the books that would have to be written!

Acts 1:1-2, CJB. Dear Theophilos: In the first book, I wrote about everything Yeshua set out to do and teach, until the day when, after giving instructions through the Ruach HaKodesh to the emissaries whom he had chosen, he was taken up into heaven.

John’s comment comes after a fantastic insider’s dialogue between Jesus and his disciples. The context of the second, anonymous, author is limited by the phrase “until . . . after giving instructions . . . to the . . . chosen.”

While it is true that the mystery of whatever-God-is inspires some people to speculate without ineluctable evidence, instruction from the speculation cannot be taken seriously except by the personal will to believe.

That is only my opinion: I do not know the-literal-truth.



https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-interpretation-of-freedom?

In the USA, citizens may vote to aid freedom-from oppression in order to secure the liberty-to responsibly pursue individual happiness rather than yield to another’s plan for him or her. These ideas express the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

Here’s my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble this morning:  We the People of the United States aid freedom-from the civic, civil, legal, and alien oppressions of integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare, respectively) in order to encourage individual acceptance of responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. My interpretation without the parenthetic phrase is 39 words compared to the controversial 52-word original.

Freedom-from oppression overcomes two human constraints: choices and external influences: coercion and force. Force is easily recognized and managed. For example, individuals civically, civilly, and legally manage governments by observing written law enforcement while aiding the development of statutory justice. Coercion is more subtle and often appeals to either ignorance (for example, not having a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble) and constructed concerns (for example, fear of the mystery of whatever-God-is).

Evolution has brought our species, through awareness and grammar, to human, individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-literal-truth. During the personal transition from feral infant to young adult, each human may perceive the-literal-truth and choose to develop integrity. Too many humans wander into infidelities like nourishing appetites, crime, tyranny, and evil. Habits become choices. However, establishing fidelity to the-literal-truth can begin anytime the individual chooses. The mature human accepts HIPEA and develops fidelity because that is his or her personal preference.

Perhaps fortuitously, the U.S. Preamble offers the individual freedom-from coercion to 1) accept HIPEA and 2) choose fidelity to the-literal-truth. I think that is because the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention convinced the 5 authors of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition that humankind knows neither the-literal-truth nor how to pursue it. Therefore, to specify the standard is an act of tyranny over the civic citizens defined therein: We the People of the United States. Any attempt to specify the standard for justice would be dissident to the entity We the People of the United States.

Since 9 of 13 free and independent former British colonies, global states, established the USA, on June 21, 1788, mankind has put humans on the moon and into space. After 100 years, Einstein’s theory of relativity became an ineluctably evidenced law of physics (2015). Civic citizens do not lie to each other so as to lessen human misery and loss more than to follow some doctrine. We now perceive a path toward the-literal-truth through discovery and development of benefits. Discovery is effected through ineluctable evidence, which is not attainable through statistical surveys (so called “social sciences”), reason, revelation, doctrine, or any other human construct. The product of discovery is the-objective-truth, an understanding that improves with new discovery, perhaps after invention of new instruments for perception. Fidelity to the-objective-truth gradually, deliberately improves understanding so as to asymptotically discover the-literal-truth.

The keys to human freedom are 1) acceptance of HIPEA (human individual power, energy, and authority) and 2) acceptance of the-objective-truth as the tool by which the-literal-truth may be discovered. These two acceptances express freedom-from tyranny so as to practice the liberty-to develop individual happiness with civic integrity---the literal proposition of the U.S. Preamble.

To June Riley:

I agree with your comments for people in general. I know almost nothing about Australia.

I do want you to get one point I made: Freedom-from oppression is a collaboration by humankind, who nevertheless cannot escape the constraints of the-objective-truth, and humankind’s collective purpose is to assure that the individual may accept the liberty-to choose human integrity rather than submit to infidelity.

We collaborate for freedom-from tyranny so that we may accept the liberty-to responsibly pursue individual happiness.



https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-essence-of-voting-if-you-dont-trust-democracy?

In the USA, citizens vote to aid freedom-from oppression in order to secure the liberty-to responsibly pursue individual happiness rather than yield to another’s plan for him or her.

The Greeks, 2400 years ago suggested that, in my interpretation, humans may communicate, collaborate, and connect for equity under pursuit of statutory justice. Statutory justice is perfect law, which is unattainable yet a worthy goal.

In the continuum of living humans, there is widespread ignorance-of and dissidence-to this civic contract for equity under justice. There’s diversity from criminals to tyrants to evil individuals.

There are two acceptances in democracy: 1) the opportunity to vote under statutory law, and 2) the privilege of aiding the pursuit of statutory justice even when your vote was not in the statutory majority.

In the USA, the states are guaranteed a republican form of justice, and democracy is deliberately spoiled by the system.

In the USA, the citizens’ proposition for equity under justice is the U.S. Preamble. However, the opportunity to vote is abused as a human “right.” Only civic citizens, those who are not among the dissidents to the U.S. Preamble, ought to vote under otherwise existing rules (minimum age and such).

Each citizen may interpret the U.S. Preamble to comport to his or her standards, but the literal proposition is clear. My interpretation today is: We the People of the United States aid 5 public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens.

People who do not want mutual freedom-from oppression and liberty-to pursue happiness ought not be allowed to vote. In other words, the citizen who opposes the U.S. Preamble’s literal proposition as he or she interprets it ought not be allowed to vote. The statement of this U.S. equity under justice makes it achievable.

So, find in the world an existing commitment for equity under justice and continually vote under it.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-should-an-individual-care-one-iota-about-social-justice-or-as-it-really-is-socialism?

Statutory justice is critical to each human’s brief lifetime, and each individual may make certain that some social movement does not steal their candle. Civic integrity is proposed in the U.S. Preamble.

Physical evolution (and its progeny such as biology and psychology) is developing a species that, due to awareness and grammar, is like a god facing death. No other species has the ability to discover the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence which empowers continual improvement through understanding. New discovery often changes humankind’s understanding, and thereby, human cultures may asymptotically approach the-literal-truth.

Humans have been around perhaps 3 million years, with grammar perhaps 0.2 million years. Cultures evolved, including diverse spiritualism starting perhaps 0.15 million years, accelerated perhaps 0.07 million years ago, and conflicted on monotheism perhaps 0.04 million years ago.

Political regimes have used human desire for favorable afterdeath to develop political doctrine that appeals to local, cultural evolution. In the middle east, the development of Judaism’s enemies and its Abrahamic branches including Christianity and Islam spawned unintended expectations for afterlife in Heaven. In Asia, theism did not dominate as much as reincarnation, development of personal integrity (not necessarily civic integrity), reverence for elders, appreciation of discovery, and more. (I ventured beyond my impressions).

About 2400 years ago, the Greeks suggested (in my interpretation) that humans may communicate, collaborate, and connect for equity under discovery of statutory justice. That is, by individually discovering injustice and amending written law, perfect justice may be pursued. They tried to apply this principle in a pure democracy of elite citizens. That is, citizens regarded as wise would be nominated to vote, and their decision would be observed by the rest of the inhabitants. They proposed a democratic oligarchy. However, it failed the Greek excellence.

On September 12, 1787, the 5-member Committee of Style, part of the 55 delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia received a draft U.S. Preamble that was erroneous and moreover had no proposition. Either intentionally or fortuitously the committee authored a 52-word U.S. Preamble which invites the individual citizen to apply according to the individual’s responsible pursuit of happiness: individual discipline would encourage collective accountability.

I think the committee of 5 represented the consequence of the debates among the 55 delegates, which substantially reviewed the western world’s political history, focused on colonial-British abuses of N. America from the 16^th century until the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and proposed individual self-discipline by which all inhabitants had the opportunity to hold government officials accountable. By balancing state governments and a central government featuring branches with checks and balances, the U.S. would enjoy a representative republic that solved the problems of the Greek democratic oligarchy as well as the political tyrannies Nicolo Machiavelli described in irony in 1513.

Nine free and independent states established the USA as a global nation under the U.S. Preamble on June 21, 1788. However, the First Congress, 1789-1793, imposed Chapter XI Machiavellianism as colonial-British tradition. By hiring factional-American Protestant ministers, Congress would grant itself divine authority on par with England’s partnership with reformed-Catholic Canterbury. Most egregiously, whereas the U.S. Preamble implies that the-literal-truth is the standard by which the people ineluctably discover the-literal-truth, the First Congress created the Bill of Rights, which constrains the people to tradition more than integrity. Instead of freedom of religion, the U.S. Preamble encourages development of integrity. Instead of freedom of the press, the U.S. Preamble proposes responsibility.

My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble this morning is:  We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five domestic institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare, respectively)---in order to approve of and encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. In this interpretation, religion is excluded from the domestic institutions. The people’s proposition does not discriminate on gender, race, nationality, wealth, political doctrine, or career as clergy or writer for the press. The articles that follow the U.S. Preamble are specified to be amendable.

During these 231 years since the U.S. Preamble was ratified but disestablished by the First Congress it became ineluctably obvious that the path to the-literal-truth is through discovery of the-objective-truth using ineluctable evidence. Pursuit of statistical evidence to prove a belief, the work of “social science” begs ruin and woe. Researchers have always known that statistics can be designed to prove a belief and, therefore, use systems to help them avoid belief-traps. Social science turns the checks and balances into advantages for advancing agenda.

The USA is physically free of British rule. However, it remains psychologically enslaved to colonial-British tradition, especially the American form of Chapter XI Machiavellianism. We seem at an abyss and inflection toward ascension from tradition to an American dream: republicanism under the U.S. Preamble with the-objective-truth as standard for pursuing the-literal-truth.

This American dream is achievable with at least 2/3 of citizens trusting-in and committing-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition according to the individual’s responsible use of the-objective-truth. With that discipline, We the People of the United States may both encourage dissidents to reform and hold municipal, state, and national officers accountable, whether elected or appointed.

Freedom-from tyranny so as to have the liberty-to responsibly pursue happiness according to individual preference is critical to every human lifetime.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-freedom-of-speech-is-as-important-as-some-people-claim-or-do-you-believe-we-could-live-or-might-even-be-better-off-without-it?

Responsibility is as important as freedom, and the press needs a constraint.

I prefer Louisiana’s Constitutional provision: Article 1, 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.”

The phrase “responsible for abuse” opens the door for consequences, for example, if someone claims blocking an interstate highway was “free expression”; or orphaning children by handling poisonous snakes.

We would not be free to discern liars and believers if liars could not lie. President Trump could not creatively manage liars if liars could not lie.

My neighbor of 3 decades could not get my heartfelt civic attention if he could not burn his American flag. However, the press is owned by aliens to the U.S. Preamble.

I would like to amend the U.S. First Amendment to include responsibility for abuse. Then, for example CNN’s corporation could be fined for systematically punishing We the People of the United States for electing Donald Trump President and Mike Pence Vice-President.

The individual can be held responsible for abusing freedom of expression. In the USA, all government bodies have limits; the press is the only entity that is free from constraint. That needs to change.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-are-the-contrasts-between-individual-liberty-and-a-central-government?

The U.S. Preamble offers fellow citizens 5 public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure responsible human liberty. We the People of the United States authorize and hold accountable the central government to manage the 5 public institutions. When most fellow citizens do not accept responsible human liberty, the U.S. is dysfunctional.

While the human infant is totally dependent on caretakers, if nourished in integrity for 2 to 3 decades, he or she will emerge a young adult with responsible human liberty and will aid maintenance of the 5 public institutions. However, some fellow citizens use their human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop crime, tyranny, or other dissidence to the responsibility that sustains liberty.

https://www.quora.com/Is-everyone-allowed-to-express-their-true-feelings-and-beliefs-in-The-United-States-of-America?

The Louisiana State Constitution says it better than the U.S. First Amendment. Louisiana: “Article 1, 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.”

Louisiana has no provisions for enforcement, in effect, leaving the method of accountability to fellow citizens, as long as there is no threat of actual harm.

I have earned trust-in and commitment to the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which the-literal-truth may be asymptotically approached. So far, there is no evidence to resolve the mystery of whatever-God-is, and I will not turn my back on it. In other words, I choose to appreciate whatever-God-is. In the U.S., no one objects to my religious freedom or expressions.

I think that’s because civic fellow citizens practice their interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition without preaching it or even articulating it.

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/book-review/preaching-the-american-gospel-hollinger-protestants-abroad-review

Professor Moots' book review is timely and welcome to a proponent of We the People of the United States, a repressed and neglected entity that holds promise for the world. "Freedom of religion" may be exchanged for "acceptance of human integrity" and the achievability can be evident now.



“Appreciation of foreign cultures soon led ecumenical missionaries to trade spiritual conversion almost entirely for social work.”



"Hollinger cites a survey of interns at missionary organization from the 1950s, for example, that showed that almost all of these young American Christians had left the church altogether by the 1970s."



"Hollinger inserts himself to say that their failure “may be instructive for anyone who imagines that the United States can ever be an instrument serving anything other than itself.”



America has an achievable better future:  We the People of the United States may accept the U.S. Preamble's proposition and thereby establish, in my interpretation, public integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (actually Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare) so fellow citizens may benefit from responsible human liberty under the-objective-truth.



Critical for reform is to revise the First Amendment so as to encourage integrity, a human duty and benefit, rather than religion, a global business. Religion/none could then be treated as a private pursuit, as asserted in the literal U.S. Preamble.



Success of this "American dream" might promise an achievable better future abroad.

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/10/10/the-nation-and-the-bible (again)

To nobody.really:

nobody.really, what a great post!

“There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.”

Are you certain We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble consent to govern?

Consider the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. I interpret it as: We the People of the United States hereby specify national discipline respecting 5 collective institutions—Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare—so as to approve of each individual citizen’s development of responsible human liberty according to his or her preferences.

Nowhere in this interpretation is a standard for governance specified, and the articles that follow are stipulated to be amendable. The individual chooses the standard and thereby develops integrity or not. Each citizen may or may not consider the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and if not, he or she has not trusted-in and committed-to a citizens’ agreement to aid equity under statutory justice. My standard for justice is the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence that exists and which humankind labors to develop so as to asymptotically approach the-literal-truth. I do not object to Christianity as long as the individual lives under civic integrity while pursuing salvation of his or her soul. Same with other religions including those under a doctrine of reincarnation.

The point is this: The U.S. Preamble suggests that fellow citizens encourage each other to civic discipline according to integrity rather than govern each other on dominant opinion such as a religion. That is, the proposition is about civic discipline and accountability, not governance. Self-discipline accumulates as national discipline.

Living individual citizens have the freedom-from oppression and the liberty-to develop integrity to the-objective-truth rather than to arbitrary rules including “the founders” errors. To collectively accomplish justice, most citizens accept responsible human liberty. In other words, practice discipline to the ineluctable evidence. They discipline for equity under statutory justice. For example, civic citizens do not lie to each other, because each one practices fidelity to the-objective-truth. Hopefully, dissidents learn by observing examples more than by exhortation and punishment. However, dissidents remain free as long as the damage they cause is not noticed and proved.

“You’ll be shocked to learn that my comments are no longer welcome at First Things.”

When bigots shun open-minded people, their brains receive a message. Perhaps eventually the narrow-minded will respond to their own perceptions. I know this, because as a young adult, with East Tennessee Bible-thumping arrogance I spent 16 months in expatriate service in Greece. Fortunately, my Greek co-workers opened my mind, and I am still prying and rarely open my heavily marked book of confusion and contradiction.

Some believers thump to convince themselves he or she solved the mystery of whatever-God-is and thereby have the prerogative to abuse We the People of the United States and beyond. The Christians I know hope to enjoy a favorable, heavenly afterdeath and would not impose a doubt-able-soul on fellow citizens who are convinced that all except their integrity ends when their body, mind, and person stop functioning.

To nobody.really, again,

“From R.R. Reno’s essay:  ‘A conservatism that rests on national particularities cannot be derived from theological principles—but it, likewise, resists universality.’”

 Reno’s observation seems freed-from national and theological oppression by the U.S. Preamble’s proposition to secure individual liberty-to develop responsible human liberty.

The proposition’s authors, the 5-person Committee of Style, reflected the west’s history as played out in N. America from Nordic exploration until June 21, 1788, when the 9th of 13 former British colonies (then globally independent states) established the USA, leaving 4 yet globally free states and a legally dissolved confederation. The First Congress, 1789-1793, did all it could to restore colonial-British tradition in America, and subsequent regimes maintained Chapter XI Machiavellianism.

 Although the 55 1787 delegates had debated a people’s proposition, their draft U.S. Preamble omitted the proposition. However, fortunately, the committee of five authored a 52-word abstraction that may be interpreted as I do. To reach my interpretation and its improvements, I communicate, collaborate, and connect (sometimes suffering subsequent disconnection) with over 70 fellow citizens during the past 6 years of biannual public library meetings in Baton Rouge, LA, USA and in public fora such as this one.

The U.S. Preamble’s proposition does not specify the standards by which We the People of the United States (the society of those who accept the self-discipline that is proposed) aid Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare” in order to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens (“to ourselves and our Posterity”). In 2019, I am of “ourselves”; U.S. viable-ova are waiting to be responsibly conceived; and foreign viable-ova may benefit as “our Posterity.” The-literal-truth is basic to human ova! 

 Voluntary members of We the People of the United States, by the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. Preamble, have the achievable opportunity to develop integrity to the-objective-truth rather than to any of a religious or political doctrine, someone’s American dream, “founding fathers’” visions for living citizens, or “signers” visions for posterity, and most of all, 18th century colonial-British doctrine.

Civic citizens accept the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, and when a majority, at least 2/3 join We the People of the United States, the U.S. may begin to psychologically reform from the ruin of colonial-British tradition. The USA may begin to develop statutory human justice under the U.S. Preamble with pursuit of the-literal-truth.

 “. . . support for universal views (such as, say, human rights, including rights for gays)” is not exempt from obligations to posterity.

As far as I can reason, finding monogamous appreciation for life is rare, and when two humans find it, no human can lessen their fidelity to each other. However, the partners have no prerogative to deny the human dignity and equity due the viable ovum. Herein, is an illustration of the importance of the-objective-truth as standard for responsible human liberty, the object of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition?

 The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence which withstands imperfect comprehension and advances on future discovery so as to asymptotically approach the objective truth. For example, civic citizens do not lie to each other so as to lessen human misery and loss more than to follow some rule or doctrine.

 I would not lie to a liar. For example, I experienced the perception one evening awakened and finding our back door unlocked that an intruder was between me and provisions for family protection (my guns). I considered shaping my hands like a handgun and pointing to say I was going to shoot. Quickly, I decided that my only option was to make the intruder as human as I could and would say, “How can I help you?”

 My family is important to me and they accept me. I think We the People of the United States is important to every President as he or she sees it or he or she could not be elected. I can’t imagine what it takes to protect the people from dogs and pigs but perceive that the Trump/Pence administration is providing historical examples. I'm all set to vote for their ticket a third and fourth time for the sake of the-literal-truth, whatever it is.

 One last point. The Old Testament was canonized I understand by 325 AD and the New Testament by 405 AD on the order of Emperor Constantine who intended to control pagan citizens. The incentive to be a Christian is to hope for a favorable afterlife for the person's mysterious "soul." However, the canonizers failed to choose clear and concise instruction to observe the-literal-truth during human life's brevity in order to have comfort that the afterdeath would be secure. This point is plain to every Bible thumper. The 2019 attempt to promote Christian doctrine as representing whatever-God-is seems as foolish as trying to re-establish the Roman Empire.

The U.S. Preamble does not threaten Christianity's plan for salvation. Christians who today plea for mercy need only accept the mercy that is offered under the U.S. Preamble's quest to discover the-literal-truth's standards.

To z9z99:

Z, I appreciate your suggestions.

As I perceive them, I should: 1) note consistent failure to win attention to the-objective-truth as civic, civil, and legal standard, 2) fill in the gaps to my separation of five public institutions from responsible human liberty, 3) and show appreciation for each “Law & Liberty,” a current liberty v safety debate, and traditional Preamble repression and neglect, paying attention to “why liberty provides ‘blessings.”

Wherein my perceptions err, please correct me.

First, non-fiction writing professors always opined that I had not written for the audience. I think a valid message about human experience and observations should reflect the writer’s human journey toward integrity aided by the audience’s honest improvements or detractions.

My secondary purpose (to promoting the U.S. Preamble under the-objective-truth) is to develop a glossary that transcends identity politics so as to motivate most humans to accept and aid responsible human liberty more than political coercion or force. Thus, “civic” citizens refers to inhabitants who encourage each other to individual happiness with integrity towards each other more than for the municipality, state, or country. For example, if it comes to a neighbor vs the city, interview the neighbor about the difference before taking sides:  Neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone.

My insistence on “the-objective-truth” has heretofore been lessened by the fact that future discovery may change current understanding. For example, understanding that the earth’s rotation on its axis hides the sun each evening forever changes personal meaning of “the sun’ll come out tomorrow.”

However, my post that motivated your suggestions claims that pursuit of the-objective-truth ends with the-literal-truth. For example, respecting the mystery of whatever-God-is, the-objective-truth is that we don’t know if God exists but non-discovery does not lessen the-literal-truth, whatever-it-is.

The U.S. Supreme Court may base opinion on conformity to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, duly appreciating the fact that it legally ended the 1774 Confederation of 13 States, began the Union of nine states, and has grown to 50 states and 6 territories. The U.S. Preamble proposes a civic, civil, and legal proposition. Its achievable accomplishments are unimaginable: they belong to our posterity.

Second, the people’s proposition in the U.S. Preamble is: “. . . to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .” This is a catalogue of predicate phrases, which I reduced to nouns for simplicity.

Thereby, I observed that the first five nouns address public provisions or collectives, whereas Liberty is an individual human acceptance (not merely a choice, because responsibilities are involved). That is, there can be no Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare without the collective action. However, an individual can accept responsible liberty only on his or her own. That is, the public may approve and encourage responsible human liberty but cannot force fellow citizens to accept it and aid the collective. Civic fellow citizens hope dissidents will reform for the dissident’s sake foremost.

I think the U.S. Preamble’s proposition emerged from the discussions that were held over 4 months in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Benjamin Franklin’s proposal for daily prayer did not receive a second. Conclusions were expressed concisely and subtly by the 4-day, 5-member Committee of Style. Expressing separation of church from state was essential to the responsible human individual.

Here’s the draft preamble the Committee of Style received: ““We the People of the [13 named] States do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.” The Committee of Style added the proposition quoted above. How did 5 members effect the change from “We the People [of 13 states]” to “We the People of the United States”? And what does “blessings” mean?

Madison’s notes from May 29, 1787 report that Edmund Randolph stated: “1. . . . such a governme[nt] ought to secure 1. against foreign invasion: 2. against dissention. . . : 3. to p[ro]cure to the several States various blessings, of which an isolated situation was i[n]capable: 4. to be able to defend itself against incroachment: & 5. to be paramount to the state constitutions.” See https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1#lf0544-01_head_013.

“Blessings” used in the above paragraph seems to refer to advantages not possible as free and independent states per the 1793 Treaty of Paris. In context, it’s doubtful that Randolph referred to prayer for divine favor “to the several States.” On the other hand, George’s Washington’s June 8, 1783 farewell to the army cites blessings from Heaven alongside blessings from the revolutionary soldiers, so both usages were current. Did May’s words by Randolph become September’s “secure the Blessings of Liberty” authored by 5 and signed by 39 convention delegates then ratified by representatives of the people of 9 states by June 21, 1788, establishing the USA as a global nation?

However, by excluding Heaven from the 5 public institutions, the U.S. Preamble proposes pursuit of religion/none in individual liberty.

In claiming the sovereignty to interpret the U.S. Preamble, I consider myself “our Posterity” of my mom and dad and my children their grandchildren or part of the posterity of Mom and Dad’s immediate family. In other words, in “to ourselves” I am one, and Mom and Dad, both deceased gave us advantages, especially if we journaled and now avoid their mistakes.

Third, the reader who has followed my history of posts read my statement that no other forum is as capable as this one to effect the essential reform from colonial-English tradition to a civic culture grounded in the U.S. Preamble under the-objective-truth as a path toward the-literal-truth. They also know that I do so as a civic citizen. I read select posts to read, perceiving that I can and will find a way to promote the preamble in response to almost every essay. I feel lucky to have chosen an essay that would lead to your suggestions, Z.

I have a complete life to live and regrettably miss great opportunities. You informed me of the liberty v safety debate. I will research it and respond. Today, I perceive that my urge for mutual, comprehensive safety and security properly orders its necessity to liberty. For example, a college student who is recruited to soldier for an identity politics is not likely to realize his or her dream as concert pianist. When I consider “why liberty provides ‘blessings’” I can’t help going back to my view of it:  With freedom-from oppressions such as identity politics the student may practice the liberty-to pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than the bemusement others would impose.

Thank you again, Z. I hope you will share any corrections to my interpretations and make more suggestions.

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.