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
The U.S. Supreme Court is in the position to signal that Louisiana’s 1879 decision to use 9:3 criminal jury verdicts to provide U.S. Amendment VI’s stipulation that states provide impartiality is not only constitutionally sound but essential for lessening organized crime’s influence on jury trials. The Louisiana Supreme Court should have acted already to prevent the Louisiana Legislature from breaching Amendment XIV.1’s protection of U.S. citizens from tyranny by their state by authorizing a popular vote against a Louisiana treasure in statutory justice: the 10:2 jury verdict.
News
Unfair treatment of John Bel Edwards (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_baaeb918-ec6f-11e9-9a70-7f9cc73f7e07.html)
It’s hard to imagine a more biased treatment than the unfairness to JBE The Advocate constructed in reporting the leaders of the willing We the People of the United States stumping for Louisiana’s GOP candidates. The photo of President Trump with Eddie Rispone and Ralph Abraham expresses “John Bel Edwards . . . first for himself”, displayed in abject loneliness. And online, there are six photos of the GOP event.
Mercifully to JBE, writer for the Advocate Sam Karlin did not report attendance at SOWELA TCC’s auditorium (capacity 200, (https://www.sowela. edu/workforce-solutions/meeting-rental-space/workforce-meeting-space-options/) for comparison with attendance at Lake Charles’ Civic Center: “The 7,500-seat auditorium, in a parish that voted for Trump by a roughly 65% to 31% margin in 2016, was mostly full.”
JBE, at 31% of an otherwise split vote would not make the runoff! Then the DNC might regret, “Shame on The Advocate for creative bias.”
National impartiality in criminal jury verdicts (AFP) (https://news.yahoo. com/us-supreme-court-opens-session-case-split-juries-133545978.html) and (John Simerman)( https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_bb23f192-e909-11e9-ad82-c38b83cf04b4.html)
.
It seems remarkable that the press does not report the Court’s acceptance that: The 1791 U.S. Amendment VI stipulates that states must provide “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” excludes unanimous verdicts, even nationally. Does the press control Supreme Court opinion? Does "conservative" mean defender of colonial British tradition?
Were it not for the ruinous U.S. psychology of preserving colonial British error (so called “originalism” in its various interpretations), the U.S. might have made impartiality a clear and concise requirement soon after 1791's Amendment VI or after Louisiana’s 1779 brilliant 9:3 provision or after 1967 when England enacted 10:2 verdicts to lessen organized crime's influence on trial results.
Also, U.S. Amendment XIV.1 protects U.S. citizens from unjust legislation by their state, and the Louisiana Legislature, by creating the 2018 popular vote on killing Louisiana’s 10:2 verdicts, was such injustice.
In a nation whose citizens are divided---civic citizens vs dissidents such as criminals (see the U.S. Preamble’s proposition instead of colonial British tradition)---a state might provide impartiality with strictly enforced qualification of jurors and perhaps 6:5 verdicts.
Consider the Electoral College, where 270 of 538 votes or 50.2% is decisive. And the popular vote in the last election was 51.1% split between the leading candidates. Can you imagine a unanimous vote for U.S. president?
Consider the famously split U.S. Supreme Court, were 5 of 9 votes or 55.6% is decisive.
Louisiana’s 10:2 verdicts should be restored under U.S. Amendments VI and XIV.1. The federal statute should be changed to perhaps 5:4. The 12:0 verdict is a colonial British tradition that England obsoleted in 1967 by allowing 10:2 verdicts, perhaps influencing Louisiana’s unfavorable 1973 revision from 9:3 to 10:2.
It is past time for We the People of the United States to hold the Congress, the administration, and the Court accountable to "ourselves and our Posterity" instead of colonial British tradition.
Comment posted on the sites referenced above.
Pulitzer Prize winning press-wrought woe (Joe Gyan Jr.) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_20754176-e46a-11e9-abd4-07cfcedeaaff.html)
It is egregious that The Advocate (not necessarily Joe) does not point out that this event is anecdotal evidence that a civic people of Louisiana made a costly mistake when they allowed the Louisiana State Bar Association, the Louisiana Legislature, the Louisiana governor, the Louisiana Attorney General, The Advocate, and the Louisiana Supreme Court to impose on them an unconstitutional revision of Louisiana’s non-unanimous majority jury verdicts to require jury unanimity.
The ruinous consequences for the people (gains to lawyers and judges) are beginning to emerge.
Perhaps there will be relief on the basis of U.S. Amendments, both Amendment VI’s demand for impartiality and Amendment XIV.1’s demand that a state not reduce a citizen’s opportunity for justice.
The Advocate could give up its Pulitzer Prize now for the appearance to reform to civic integrity.
Columns
Only one lifetime of chance at human humility (Christopher Simon) (https://issuu.com/richlandcentershoppingnews/docs/oo0322, page 6)
Every human individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence that asymptotically discovers the-literal-truth. There has been no discovery that whatever-God-is is imaginary---non-existent. Therefore, “I don’t know what-God-is” seems a humble opinion.
Cultures erroneously encourage the individual to search for a “higher power” that may control the-literal-truth. Many focus the mystery on theism, competing, reasonable constructs about whatever-God-is. They fail the acceptance that whatever-God-is does not yield to human reason. It is a failure in human humility.
It’s reasonable to hope and pray for favorable mystery against what is unknown. However, it takes hubris to publically proclaim that whatever-God-is will save your phantasm called “soul”.
Moreover, to appeal to a civic citizen to change their way of living on your priesthood begs woe, whether you joined the theism in 1796 or today.
We the People of the United States would---should---amend the First Amendment so as to encourage human integrity rather than defend civic, civil, and legal theism.
Blatant press hypocrisy (The Advocate editors) (https://www.theadvocate.
com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_a65f5382-eab2-11e9-ba1e-9b3d2d8f9662.html)
“. . . it’s easier [to] blame the messenger than offer a compelling message of your own.”
The late Bill Bankston taught me that it’s “freedom of the press,” not freedom of the citizen with a cogent message. Not long after that, I began a blog to relieve myself of The Advocate’s business plan. My blog that promotes the U.S. Preamble is read worldwide, but the ideas and library-meeting announcements cannot pass The Advocate’s business plan.
“Everybody knows” the-literal-truth may be approached through the-objective-truth, which may be discovered through the ineluctable evidence rather than by human reasoning. Humankind suffers the mystery of whatever-God-is, and the USA suffers freedom of religion, a spiritual democracy that discourages civic integrity regarding republican government.
The civic portion of U.S. citizens, We the People of the United States who accept the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, may---should---revise the First Amendment so as to 1) encourage each individual to apply integrity in life even if he or she chooses to pursue imagined-favor during personal afterdeath and 2) approve responsible human liberty as proposed in the U.S. Preamble: communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions in order to secure responsible human liberty.
Here’s what I think I observed beyond what Bankston shared. The writer for the press who would report the-literal-truth is also constrained by freedom of the press’s business plan. Therefore, it is unlikely for a media-writer to develop the skills of journalism---reporting humankind’s journey toward the-literal-truth.
Furthermore, since the U.S. media is owned by corporations and the corporations are owned by aliens to the U.S. Preamble, the sooner We the People of the United States amend the First Amendment so as to hold the media responsible to the-objective-truth when the-literal-truth is not evident, the better.
Thank you, fellow citizens who voted for Trump/Pence in the 2016 primaries and again in the presidential election. We the People of the United States may be a step closer to eliminating the media’s singular immunity from the checks and balances provided the people, the cities, the states, and the three branches of the U.S. government.
The Louisiana Constitution already provides a responsibility clause in its freedom of expression, and I commend the Louisiana Legislature to enact enforcement.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-good-idea-to-declare-your-political-views-socially?
It is essential to behave so as to share political views and thereby give fellow citizens the opportunity to aid your journey toward comprehending and practicing the-literal-truth. Thereby, a person may develop human integrity.
The-literal-truth is approachable using the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured and integrity is pursued.
Integrity is a practice: perceive a concern or discovery; do the work to confirm actual reality rather than a mirage; drop concerns about mirages and do the work to understand how to benefit from a discovery; behave so as to benefit from your understanding; share your reasons for the behavior with the public and listen for suggestions for improvement; with suggestions, affirm the improvement and adjust accordingly; remain open-minded for new discovery that demands change; if so, share the change with the public.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity. However, communities influence people to seek a higher power, often a competitor in the mystery of whatever-God-is. Unfortunately, many people live a lifetime without accepting either HIPEA or the mystery of whatever-God-is. Such people have not accepted human humility. Reforming this sensitive human conflict cannot be done by coercion or force.
In human humility, the civic individual neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution. Therefore, he or she maintains strength against either physical attack or psychological affront.
He or she recognizes that a person’s hopes and comforts against the unknown may be a god or none. However, he or she does not affirm a mystery. If pressured for witness, he or she might say, for example, that the existence of God has not been disproven, so a humble position is “I don’t know.” If the other party says something like, “You are in danger of Hell’s fire and I will pray for you,” a kind response is needed. I like my friend Hector’s response: “I’m not so sure I’m in danger.” I might respond, “Thank you. I’ll pray for you, too.”
Witness to the-objective-truth is essential to peace. Otherwise, there is no standard for the integrity needed to approach the-literal-truth. In fact, political-repression and citizens’-habitual-neglect of the U.S. Preamble is the reason for chaos in U.S. governance. Every U.S. citizen could—should---interpret the U.S. preamble’s proposition and promote their interpretation for use by fellow citizens.
My interpretation today is: The transcendent society we call “We the People of the United States” communicates, collaborates, and connects to aid five domestic institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens now and in the future. I perceive that the five domestic institutions to secure human liberty imply that the performance standard is the-literal-truth. I use this interpretation to order my citizenship.
Accepting the-literal-truth requires perfection that neither individual nor humankind can attain. However, pursuit of the-literal-truth is attainable through discovery and acceptance of the-objective-truth. For example, civic citizens do not lie to each other because experience and observations inform humankind that the-literal-truth eventually speaks for itself.
Only the human species has the HIPEA to converse about the-literal-truth, and each individual has only one life during which to speak of it.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-everyone-should-live-by-the-same-moral-standards-Why-or-why-not?
I think every human being should aid mutual, comprehensive safety and security in order to secure responsible human liberty. Thereby, each human may pursue individual happiness with civic integrity. Individual happiness is unique while civic integrity conforms to standards.
What standard can humankind conform to and allow the individual his or her unique happiness? Statutory justice based on the-literal-truth should be adequate, but seems unattainable perfection. However, the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured and the-literal-truth is asymptotically approached, can be used to discover legal injustices and reform toward statutory justice. The-objective-truth as the standard for human justice offers an achievable better future.
For example, civic citizens don’t lie to each other so as to lessen human misery and loss. Civic citizens choose integrity so as not to wander into infidelity.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-feel-like-a-Global-Citizen-or-do-you-just-feel-patriotic-to-your-country-Are-those-two-things-mutually-exclusive?
I communicate, collaborate, and connect for civic, civil, and legal citizenship to the continuum of living people without restriction. I think every person may communicate, collaborate, and connect for equity under statutory justice. I am a U.S. citizen.
So far, perhaps 7 trillion person-years have been experienced and observed by humankind over perhaps 3 million years of physical, psychological, and cultural evolutions. On June 21, 1788, my nation, the USA was established as a global nation by the citizens’ representatives of 9 of 13 free and independent global states, formerly the N. American, eastern-seaboard, British colonies.
Its proposed culture was possible until March 4, 1789, when the First Congress, representing the people of 11 of the 13 formerly free and independent states began restoring colonial-British governance under common law and the factional-American Protestant partnership with Congress. Congress made themselves as divine as the English Parliament in partnership with the reformed-Catholic Church of England. In 2019, the USA partnership has evolved to Judeo-Christianity, to non-believers an oxymoron.
The U.S. cultural proposition is stated in the U.S. Preamble. Each citizen may interpret the proposition and thereby order his or her civic integrity . . . or not. My interpretation today is: The transcendent society we call “We the People of the United States” communicates, collaborates, and connects to aid five domestic institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens now and in the future. I interpret the five domestic institutions to secure human liberty imply that the performance standard is the-literal-truth. I use this interpretation to order my citizenship and encourage fellow citizens to develop their interpretations of the controversial 52-word sentence.
Accepting the-literal-truth requires perfection that neither the individual nor humankind can attain. However, pursuit of the-literal-truth is attainable through discovery and acceptance of the-objective-truth. That is, discovery of the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured and the-literal-truth is asymptotically approached. For example, civic citizens do not lie to each other because experience and observations inform We the People of the United States that the-literal-truth eventually speaks for itself.
I don’t hold that the U.S. Preamble is either the only or the best proposition to aid five public institutions to encourage responsible human liberty. However, I do hold that the standard for human justice is the-objective-truth when the-literal-truth is not known. This principle holds for individuals, for societies, for nations, and for humankind, in my opinion.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-first-generation-of-human-rights?
I suspect an ancient thinker imagined that humans have the right to develop integrity.
Lao Tzu may have said: don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you.
Agathon, in Plato’s “Symposium” suggested that Eros’ greatest power is that he neither causes nor suffers harm to or from any man or any god. The suggestion is that men can live lives of justice.
Socrates asked if the god is good because he is god or is god because he is good.
Jesus may have suggested he was god, and may have been saying that men have the ability to develop integrity and that he himself was such a man.
Socrates may have died to uphold the rule of law even when the conviction is unjust.
I think freedom-from tyranny so as to have the liberty-to develop integrity may be the only justifiable human right, and I’m not certain that right can be denied externally.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-find-most-invigorating-in-today-s-political-atmosphere?
We may have reached the abyss of identity politics and have the opportunity to establish responsible human liberty at last. When I was a child, my community’s politics was expressed as “the Christian thing to do.” Today, the U.S. Supreme Court may represent the Judeo-Christian thing to do, and the Congress represents chaos. Today’s administration may be effecting the necessary transition toward equity under justice during life, with individual privacy in any hopes for favorable afterdeath.
The Greeks, about 2400 years ago, suggested, in my interpretation, that humankind can establish human equity by developing statutory justice. Two tools are needed: 1) an agreement on which citizens may choose to be either civic or dissident to statutory justice, and 2) a standard by which perfection can be measured and asymptotically approached. Under statutory justice, dissident fellow citizens are encouraged to reform in order to secure human liberty.
I think the essential tools are implied in the U.S. Preamble, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. First, it specifies five public institutions by which the individual may aid freedom-from oppression so as to secure the living citizen’s liberty-to develop integrity. Second, the U.S. Preamble does not specify the standard for accomplishing the five institutions and encouraging the personal liberty-to accept integrity.
It may be fortuitous that the U.S. Preamble’s proposition can be interpreted that way: I suggest that because the draft presented to the 5-person Committee of Style did not contain the proposition with its six nouns. James Madison may have aided the false interpretation of the U.S. Preamble as secular.
Before June 21, 1788, when 9 of 13 free and independent global states established the USA as a nation, the voting public’s allegiance was to whatever-God-is according to their factional American Christianity, whether Trinitarian or Unitarian. (The voting public was then 4% of inhabitants.) The U.S. Preamble is neutral to religion, race, gender, nationality, yet offers fellow citizens (now nearly 100% able to vote) the opportunity to be either of We the People of the United States or dissident to that entity. Each citizen may interpret the U.S. Preamble and so order his or her civic, civil, and legal life or not.
My interpretation this morning is: The transcendent society we call “We the People of the United States” communicates, collaborates, and connects to aid five domestic institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens now and in the future. I interpret the five domestic institutions to secure human liberty imply that the performance standard is the-literal-truth. I use this interpretation to order my citizenship and encourage fellow citizens to develop their interpretations of a controversial 52-word sentence.
Accepting the-literal-truth requires perfection that neither individual nor humankind can attain. However, pursuit of the-literal-truth is attainable through discovery and acceptance of the-objective-truth. That is, discovery of the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured and the-literal-truth is asymptotically approached. For example, civic citizens do not lie to each other because experience and observations inform We the People of the United States that the-literal-truth eventually speaks for itself.
In summary, we may be at the abyss of theism---the belief that whatever-God-is rather than the individual controls peace. We may be on the rise toward responsible human liberty using a civic proposition like the U.S. Preamble with the pursuit of the-literal-truth.
Perhaps we fellow citizens live in the best of times: the reform to responsible human liberty.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-are-the-features-of-social-accountability?
It seems to me “social” implies voluntary association, whereas humans involuntarily live in times and places. Therefore, I prefer to address civic choices, and a personally advantageous option is to aid mutual, comprehensive safety and security. View my point as Maslow’s eight-tier hierarchy of responsibilities to self rather than “needs.”
On the other hand, I must admit I choose a few societies including one with the potential for transcendence within its nation: We the People of the United States.
The basic commitment by which an individual may demand accountability is to aid human equity under statutory justice. The fellow citizen with this acceptance is in a position to support constraints on dissidents such as criminals and tyrants.
In the USA, the people’s proposition for equity under justice is the U.S. Preamble: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Preamble proposes individual aid to five public institutions: Unity Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare. The purpose is human liberty to both living and future citizens according to personal standards rather than the dictates of others.
In my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, the five goals are integrity, justice, peace, strength and prosperity in order to secure liberty. My standard for justice is the-literal-truth, which may be approached using the-objective-truth or discovered ineluctable evidence. For example, civic citizens don’t lie to each other so as to lessen human misery and loss. Some people use as standard their personal solution to the mystery of whatever-God-is, and also aid statutory justice for responsible human liberty.
The United Nations’ statement of human rights has 30 paragraphs and near 100 rights. That’s too many variables for 330 million people, much less 8 billion. Furthermore, the only defensible human right may be the rights to develop and practice integrity.
The five goals and one purpose stated in the U.S. Preamble seem tenable as the basis of a society whose members accept the proposition. And that brings me to the realization that the entity We the People of the United States is a society. I am a member.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/In-political-sociology-are-there-serious-concerns-about-this-field?
I am a civic citizen, retired chemical engineer, and advocate for the-literal-truth. There’s no place for “social sciences,” because they beg woe by creating statistical studies to support a belief.
In that third capacity, I try to encourage fellow citizens to consider a civic agreement by which to order their communications, collaborations, and connections for responsible human liberty.
About 2400 years ago, the Greeks suggested, in my interpretation, that human equity can be developed under the pursuit of statutory justice. That is the perfection that is pursuable by discovering unjust laws and enforcement and reforming them. Objectivity is required for discovery, because subjectivity and emotions can bemuse the researcher. By all means, research to prove a belief begs ruin.
In the USA, the people’s proposition for equity under justice is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, and I work to encourage every citizen to consider the U.S. Preamble and whether or not he or she wants to be a member of We the People of the United States as he or she interprets the sentence. I think it proposes self-discipline to develop individual liberty with civic integrity---a human, worthy lifetime.
Some journalism schools have discovered the power of the press and have political statistics partners with whom they develop statistical research to prove a belief. The nested principle is that public opinion sways political power, the press controls public opinion, and “political science” can develop the statistical data to influence most of the public. I think press influence is short lived, because even though civic citizens don’t articulate their interpretation of the U.S. preamble, its proposition is in their genes, memes, and blood.
It is critical for the public to become aware of the press’s political power and how it came to pass. It begins with the 1791 U.S. First Amendment provision called “freedom of the press.” Neither the people, their states, nor the three branches of the U.S. government have unfettered freedom: the press is unconstrained. The consequence is that the press is owned by corporations, some controlled by aliens to America, let alone We the People of the United States.
Here’s a first-hand account of press corruption. This is long and complex, but I think worth understanding. Louisiana’s French perspective on the jury impartiality required of states by U.S. Amendment VI was negated in a 2018 public vote that was bemused to favor criminals over their victims. The effect is 700% disproportionally against black victims of black criminals.
In 1879, when Louisiana, statehood 1812, a former French/Spanish colony (thereby not attracted to British tradition), regained control after Reconstruction, the state enacted 9:3 jury verdicts in non-capital criminal trials. This novel law answers the 1791 U.S. Amendment VI requirement that states provide impartial juries. England itself mimicked Louisiana when in 1967, they empowered 10:2 criminal jury verdicts to lessen organized crime’s influence.
The statistical support for non-unanimous verdicts can be considered in rules for the U.S. Supreme Court. First, with political favor split 50:50 (consider recent popular votes for President) and the makeup of the Supreme Court, impartiality is unlikely. Two provisions favor impartiality. First, the Court forces unbalanced votes with 9 members. Second, the Court allows the narrowest vote: 5:4. The claim that justices are too professional to need such measures would be supported by neither the Congress, the Administration, nor the Court, nor especially civic citizens.
To mimic the Supreme Court, a state might enact 6:5 or 3:2 jury verdicts for criminal trials. Louisiana, in 1880 specified 9:3.
But in 2018, the Baton Rouge newspaper, The Advocate, embarked on a political-sociology campaign to assist the Louisiana State Bar Association in its bid to undo Louisiana’s 10:2 criminal jury verdicts using a 70% vote in the Louisiana Legislature. When that failed they created a popular vote in which 2/3 of voters approved unanimous verdicts. The chief logic was: If I was on trial, I’d want a unanimous decision. The irony is that victims do not subject themselves to criminal accusation.
Other Louisianans can be glad they did not create a resolution like the one Ed Tarpley presented to the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA); http://files.lsba.org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf. It ignores that Louisiana’s 9:3 impartial-majority verdicts are constitutional according to the Great State of Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court, and U.S. Amendment VI regarding impartiality. It overlooks that U.S. Amendment XIV.1 prevents a state from imposing injustice when justice is established. That provision may arise in immediate, future deliberations.
The Advocate’s contribution was controversial statistics claiming that black victims of crime are disproportionally favored over black criminals (that’s a tongue-in-cheek interpretation of The Advocate’s socioloy statistics). For their corrupt reporting, The Advocate now sports a Pulitzer Prize. A detailed review of events then is posted at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com; use the search bar in the upper left with “unanimous verdicts” and scroll down to the July 17, 2018 post.
The threat to victims created by Louisiana’s move to unanimous juries is illustrated as both 1) a corrupt judicial system and 2) subjugation to lying jurists in the October 5, 2019 article https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_20754176-e46a-11e9-abd4-07cfcedeaaff.html. A jurist with intentions tried to help a convicted rapist win a new trial. The Advocate does not recall its Pulitzer Prize corruption. The Advocate continues its obfuscation of the facts in the October 6, 2019 article at https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_35ef27e4-e7b5-11e9-8844-57c73a50a4f0.html. The new income for Louisiana lawyers and judge is beginning to surface: https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_a7a5af44-e6dd-11e9-aa14-fb3c572f7de5.html. Shame on the Louisiana Legislature, the LSBA, and The Advocate.
I know this example is a lot to take in. It is well worth the time to understand it, because the entity We the People of the United States is being destroyed by the press’s unbridled power, recently exacerbated by “social sciences.” I you consider yourself of We the People of the United States, take charge of “yourself and your Posterity.”
https://www.quora.com/What-does-Far-Right-really-mean-in-todays-politics?
Far right people probably think I am not a fellow citizen, because I trust and am committed to whatever-God-is rather than some mystery the far right competes over.
Public meetings I host at libraries and elsewhere attempt to present the-objective-truth, that is, ineluctable evidence that may need adjustment with new discovery as the people’s reliable tool for asymptotically approaching the-literal-truth. My purpose is to have open-minded dialogue in which I may earn better personal opinion. (In fact, the innovation “the-literal-truth” has not yet been presented in a library meeting. The next planned meeting is for the week of June 21, 2020, celebrating Responsible Human Liberty Day, the day the U.S. Preamble became the statement of purpose for the USA as a global nation.)
In a recent series of meetings, a communicating participant kept asking me if I was a Christian. I answered, “No, because my view of Jesus is not represented by Christianity.” In the third of five meetings, the participant asked, “Is Jesus Christ you Lord and Savior?” When I answered, “No,” he walked out and I have not heard from him since.
I consider that participant a fellow citizen who is dissident to We the People of the United States. Christians can hope for their souls as well as aid freedom-from tyranny so as to have the liberty-to develop civic integrity.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/If-freedom-of-speech-is-an-integral-part-of-our-constitution-why-are-we-having-such-a-problem-aligning-with-it?
It’s a fundamental flaw in the 1791 Bill of Rights, which is a colonial-British imposition on the entity We the People of the United States by the First Congress. Many elements of the 1789-1791 Congressional impositions oppose the 1787 U.S. Constitution and its purposes as stated in the U.S. Preamble.
First, freedom of expression, which includes speech, is a responsible human right. When irresponsible expression is the actual cause of harm, the discovered speaker is constrained by law and its enforcement. For example, the person who yells “Fire!” in a crowded assembly is held responsible for consequential injury and damage. Also, parents who risk orphaning their children by poisonous snake handling may lose custody of the children, and the grandparents who do not believe in snake handling may be favored by the court.
The commitment to responsible human liberty (including expression) is proposed in the U.S. Preamble, which I interpret this morning as follows: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns are Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare, respectively) ---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living people. This seems a proposition to aid freedom-from tyranny so as to secure individual liberty-to develop responsible human integrity as evolution unfolds. The U.S. Preamble is neutral to religion, race, gender, wealth, and other civic factors.
The U.S. Preamble is a civic, civil, and legal proposition. For example, upon its ratification by nine states as of June 21, 1788, the global status of the 13 colonial-British states reduced to four states, and the 1774 Confederation of States was legally terminated. The nine states established the USA as a global nation. Articles that follow the U.S. Preamble are dissident to the USA if they do not aid the journey toward statutory justice, which is the discovery and amendment of unjust laws and their enforcement.
The 1787 U.S. Constitution limits a state’s rights according to the people in their respective states and grants the Union of states limited rights. All other rights are retained by the people. The human right that seems justifiable to me is the opportunity to develop integrity rather than wander into infidelity. By not specifying the standard by which justice is measured, the U.S. Preamble leaves it to each citizen to choose a reliable standard. Establishment of a standard is contingent on acceptance by the majority of citizens under the specified republican system. For example, most 1790 voting citizens were pleased to compete for dominant American Protestantism, but 2019 citizens are not so inclined.
Critical to the U.S. republican system are 1) the retention of responsible human rights as stated in the U.S. Preamble, where the authority is We the People of the United States, 2) the stated retention of states’ rights, 3) and limitations to the Union of states including complex provisions for the balance of powers between the administrative, legislative, and judicial branches including the prevention of democracy. Some states elect chief politicians by popular vote, but popular voting does not hold in federal branches. No where is the press given a role in U.S. governance.
However, the 1789-1791 Congress acted unconstitutionally under the U.S. Preamble to give the press unconstrained freedom. Neither the people, the states, the three branches of the Union, nor the clergy have the civil, civil, and legal immunity that the press enjoys. As we are experiencing in 2019, the consequence is corruption that empowers aliens to influence U.S. governance. This tyranny by foreign powers over the U.S. press will persist as long as the entity We the People of the United States allows it.
The Congress has always been lawless, but the divergence created by the two-party system has entered chaos under the current dominance of the Democrats, who are controlled more than aided by the press. Nancy Pelosi frequently says she is acting for “we, the people.” I doubt she even understands We the People of the United States is the entity that under “Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” hold her accountable. But not enough Americans comprehend We the People of the United States.
Second, the fact that the popular vote in recent presidential elections have hovered near 50% plus one vote respecting the two dominant tickets shows that too few voters understand the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal power. The U.S. Preamble is a proposition for individual happiness with civic morality rather than a commitment to domestic conflict for dominant opinion. By publically aiding U.S. integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, fellow citizens assure freedom-from tyranny so that each individual has the liberty-to responsibly pursue the life he or she wants. That available future is so appealing that at least 2/3 of voters should be aiding the establishment of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as a demand on the political parties.
The USA struggles for freedom of responsible speech against the 1791 unconstitutional amendments passed by the First Congress in the Bill of Rights. Especially the First Amendment needs reform to 1) responsible expression and 2) opportunity to develop integrity, leaving religion a private choice. Both houses of Congress should begin each session with the unison reading of the U.S. Preamble. The pledge of allegiance with its reference to the mystery whatever-God-is ought to be discontinued so as to emphasize that the USA serves the people.
Law professors
https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/10/10/the-nation-and-the-bible/
Rogers starts, “in . . . ‘Christian Universalism and the Nation’ . . . Reno writes ‘we need better theology.’”
Then he explains an Old Testament culture of Israeli love-discrimination toward non-believers who live among citizens, concluding, “. . . assimilation is fundamental.”
It’s a false notion. Before assimilation, there must be consideration, comprehension, appreciation, and acceptance.
At stake in the USA is acceptance of We the People of the United States, an entity that is determined by individual trust-in and commitment to a proposition. It is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, or U.S. Preamble. The essence of the proposition is: willing citizens aid five public institutions in order to approve and encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. The five institutions are Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare. The standards for aid are left to the individual who wants responsible human liberty.
The fellow citizen who does not appreciate responsible human liberty may face law enforcement if he or she actually causes harm to a fellow citizen. Accepting citizenship in the USA obligates the individual to consider and comprehend the civic, civil, and legal proposition that is offered in the U.S. Preamble. Living as a citizen in the USA implies that the individual either comprehends equity under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition or will reform if not. This principle applies to Bishops who are citizens as well as government officials.
A citizen has the liberty to read into this proposition the belief in a mystery of whatever-God-is, and responsibly pursue that belief. He or she may privately associate with Abraham or Abram, while practicing civic integrity rather than infidelity. Nowhere in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is allegiance to a religion, a philosophy, a political ideal, or any other human construct suggested.
I think the standard that applies to the five public institutions is the-literal-truth when known, or the-objective-truth when discovered, or acceptance of not knowing when the individual citizen has only opinion to act on.
Individually and collectively ignoring the U.S. Preamble will not help Christianity, Judeo-Christianity, reincarnation, or any other human hopes for the afterdeath, that vast time after body, mind, and person stop functioning. However, the U.S. Preamble does propose integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity in order to secure responsible human liberty.
“As stated in the brief by Harris Funeral Homes in the Harris case:
[. . . ] While “sex” views the status of male and female as an objective fact based in reproductive anatomy and physiology, “gender identity” treats it as a subjective belief determined by internal perceptions without “a fixed external referent.”
“As for the constitutional separation of powers, what is being proposed in these three cases that deal with a powerful federal law pervasive in its influence is the takeover by the federal courts of the legislative power.”
Thomas Ascik’s analysis, concludes with the quote from the Harris case, which I interpret: erroneously taking the law from the-objective-truth to subjective beliefs.
The Court already exposed its arrogance against the-literal-truth in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). The-objective-truth is that human life begins with the viable ovum, and its dignity and equality must be protected by the woman whose body produced the ovum and the man who supplies the spermatozoon for conception. This is so, because it takes about 2 to 3 decades for the human being to transition from feral infant to young adult with the comprehension and intention to live a responsible human life, perhaps 80 years pursuing integrity. The human cannot make this fantastic transition on his or her own, and no one else can assume the mother and father’s caretaking. Furthermore, no one else can feel obligated to the ovum’s potential offspring beginning with the parents’ grandchildren. Supreme Court opinion that refutes the-objective-truth begs woe.
The-objective-truth is discovered as the ineluctable evidence that is established by objective research. Research designed to prove a belief begs woe. Sometimes new discovery, often facilitated by advanced research instruments, requires revision of the-objective-truth. Thereby, the-literal-truth or perfect knowledge may be asymptotically approached. Acceptance of a-subjective-truth lessens the power of research.
These principles apply in psychology as certainly as in physics. For example, objective individuals do not lie to each other, because eventually the-literal-truth will emerge. We may be learning that when a liar approaches the President of the United States, the President’s obligation is to protect the pearls (Matthew 7:6, CJB, “Don’t give to dogs what is holy, and don’t throw your pearls to the pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, then turn and attack you.”)
The final sentence in Ascik’s essay could accelerate an achievable better future by promoting a neglected constitutional power: the transcendent society We the People of the United States. That entity, the civic citizens, is proposed in the U.S. Preamble, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Every citizen may accept or reject the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, and acceptance is advantageous for the individual who interprets it so as to order his or her civic, civil, and legal lifetime. This principle holds for justices.
My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble today is: The U.S. transcendent society we call “We the People of the United States” communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five domestic institutions—integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens now and in the future. I interpret the six nouns—the five domestic institutions to secure responsible human liberty—together imply that the performance standard is the-literal-truth rather than the mystery of whatever-God-is.
It is a wonderful time for the U.S. Supreme Court justices to each consider: Am I a member of We the People of the United States or a dissident to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition? What is my personal interpretation of those 52 words? Does my interpretation apply to me and my children and grandchildren or must I be true to dead citizens? Must I adhere to popular opinion?
We the People of the United States is aware and ultimately holds government officials responsible to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
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