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 Advocate seems honestly willing to fail integrity by not Googling the facts about Governor John Bel Edwards’ personal abuses against the people of Louisiana. Read my points below and vote Rispone for governor.
News
Writers for the press ought to be journaling the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (Will Sentell) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_ed458dfc-fcd7-11e9-8aca-af3180b3fdf4.html)
Edwards said, “I . . . defy you to find any bill that has passed the Legislature that I have signed into law that actually benefits trial lawyers since I have been governor.”
I cite 2018 Louisiana Constitutional Amendment 2, an unconstitutional authorization by the Louisiana Legislature that was supported by trial lawyers and enacted by John Bel Edwards. The lawyers and judges involved knew that 2/3 votes could not be obtained in the Legislature, but 50% plus one vote was possible with the voters, especially when lobbyists imposed on voters the perception that they were voting for unanimous juries when they were unbelievably accused of crime rather than the possible victim of crime. The deception is statistically harmful to black victims of black criminals.
The trial lawyer and criminal-judge costs that bill imposed on the people of Louisiana were well known at the time. The fact that unanimous juries favor criminals competing with their victims and We the People of the United States, a civic entity, was well known at the time. England, the source of unanimous British juries against colonial-British-Americans, terminated the practice in 1967 to lessen organized crime’s influence on jury trials.
Louisiana’s legal compliance with U.S. Amendment VI’s requirement of impartial juries was upheld in the early 1970s by both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme court in 1972. See the additional information cited at https://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_Amendment_2,_Unanimous_Jury_Verdict_for_Felony_Trials_Amendment_(2018).
I hope John Bel Edwards’ offense against the people of Louisiana regarding termination of an 1880 Louisiana treasure, the non-unanimous criminal jury verdicts will become a U.S. Supreme Court case based on U.S. Amendment XIV.1, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Imposing unanimous jury verdicts where 10:2 verdicts provide impartiality is egregious tyranny.
John Bel Edwards made it happen. I commend the Louisiana Legislature to start work now on reform to 9:3 verdicts for lesser criminal trials, 10:2 for intermediate criminal trials, and 11:1 verdicts for capital trials.
Columns
Republicans encourage responsible human liberty (Wayne Parker) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_a01e5484-ef92-11e9-9e41-43b05abbae93.html)
Fellow citizens may thank me for voting for Trump/Pence both in the primaries and to prevent Hillary. I am on deck to vote for Trump/Pence a third time and a fourth time. Neither Trump nor Pence clearly oppose my view of civic fellow citizens. I know of no Democrat I’d expect to claim membership in We the People of the United States as defined by the U.S. Preamble.
The Democrats present themselves as aliens to We the People of the United States, an entity that is defined by each citizen’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble for themselves. Fellow citizens who oppose human justice are dissidents.
I know Wayne Parker from common interest in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s writings, from https://www.unitarianchurchbr.com/programs/socrates-cafe, and from https://www.facebook.com/socratescafebr/. I doubt he’s unaware of two Greek suggestions. First, individuals may aid human equity by developing and practicing statutory justice. Second, the civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person. I’d be interested in Parker’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.
Mine, today, is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid 5 public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare,” respectively)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens.
According to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, fellow U.S. citizens have the obligation to firmly stand up for themselves in order to aid equity under statutory justice.
BTW: Parker was slamming Louisianans’ elected Congresspersons, excepting the Democrat. It seems The Advocate agrees that Louisiana majority voters may be dissed.
John Bel Edwards’ lies to We the People of the State of Louisiana inspired me to Google West Point honor a couple years ago (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_e472fb60-fce1-11e9-b35a-4bc356e5fbb0.html?)
It seems evident that The Advocate honestly does not consider let alone practice integrity. Ignorance about the insufficiency of honesty does not exonerate the offender. John Bel Edwards seems part of a 3.6% to over 50% faction of West Point privilege takers.
Published reports show that anywhere from 3.6% to “over half” of some West Point cadets are on record for breaking the honor code. See https://www.theadvocate. com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_e472fb60-fce1-11e9-b35a-4bc356e5fbb0.html.
Quoting, “In August 1951 . . . 90 of the Academy's 2,500 cadets were facing dismissal for mass violations of the honor code related to ‘cribbing’. In August 1976 . . . possibly over half of the junior class at the Academy had violated the honor code . . . .”
These offenders stained the reputations of all West Point graduates, including those of 1988. However, West Point privilege-takers do not stain all military veterans.
Mr. Rispone knows this and expresses the same evidences I perceive: John Bel Edwards has no integrity regarding his military privileges. If my perception reflects the-literal-truth, Edwards is a stain to all veterans, and The Advocate is right in there with Edwards.
Most of all, Edwards’ pride in Louisiana’s largest budget ever demonstrates that the people of Louisiana are not the beneficiaries of Edwards-service. Trial lawyers and judges are principle beneficiaries, for example, with the Louisiana tyranny of unconstitutional, unanimous criminal jury verdicts.
It’s not too late to help establish We the People of the United States (George Will) (https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/27/george-f-will-weak/)
“ . . . reactions against modernity — against an open society ‘founded on compromise, toleration, and impersonal rules and institutions.’"
Most individuals are on a path George Will has not imagined---humankind’s journey toward communication, collaboration, and connection rather than compromise; commitment to neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone who opposes statutory justice rather than toleration; and work to comprehend the-literal-truth by discovering and benefitting from the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence that may be better understood as new instruments of perception are invented rather than contesting human reason.
It seems scholars bemuse themselves by competing for the better opinion about meaningless catchwords like “modernity.” With their debates using a myriad of proprietary words and phrases, many scholars lose their personal perspective as a member of We the People of the United States.
That is the body of citizens who earned a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. I think the U.S. Preamble specifies 5 public institutions intended to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. Anyone who makes reference to what “the founders” demand of living citizens has not considered “[responsible] Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” U.S. citizens divide over responsible liberty either by neglect or because they oppose development of statutory justice.
Shame on George Will and other columnists for promoting proprietary scholarship when each could have encouraged and journaled the establishment of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as he or she interprets it. It’s time for scholarly reform.
Printed at the above URL.
The Advocate news belies its opinions (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_12471be0-f745-11e9-b100-4f730928774e.html)
Readers are well informed of Rispone’s intentions. For example, Will Sentell gave us the comparison of John Bel Edwards’ focus on the education bureaucracy versus Rispone’s focus on the children being educated. See https://www.theadvocate. com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_94a6d816-f5cc-11e9-a841-ff6c04720c51.html.
I guess The Advocate editors don’t read Sentell’s articles. Or maybe they have an agendum. Anyway, such articles bely The Advocate’s cry “where’s Eddie?”.
When I read of Rispone’s interest in education, I called and asked for a yard sign.
The Advocate may eventually accept that mass communication’s social scientists devise polls to influence voters but the adage “you can’t fool all the people all the time” holds. Polls don’t control the people.
The Advocate owes it to itself to focus on the-literal-truth, which can be approached only with acceptance of the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which justice is measured. The Advocate ought to be journaling the path toward We the People of the United States approaching the-literal-truth.
Tonight, I doubt John Bel Edwards can distract us from the World Series 7th game.
The Advocate and the Louisiana Legislature abuse the people using the Louisiana State Bar Association (Dane Ciolino) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_20051df6-f67b-11e9-ba03-0b879dab84fa.html)
Often, The Advocate deludes a letter writer’s impact by expressing The Advocate opinion in the caption. Sometimes the letter writer is chagrined. I know, because I have suffered The Advocate’s freedom to oppress letter writers.
The Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA), not “bar associations” is the object of Boudreaux’s lawsuit and Ciolino’s desire to quit.
I suggest that Boudreaux and Ciolino apply their expertise for greater causes: defense of We the People of Louisiana from abuse by the Louisiana Legislature and Governor John Bel Edwards. My suggestions follow, below.
First, Boudreaux and Ciolino consider that more than lawyers they are voluntary members of We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble as each of them interprets the U.S. Preamble. My interpretation this morning is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid 5 public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare” respectively)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living people.
Second, they initiate a systematic application of their interpretations of key amendments including the First, the Sixth, and the Fourteenth; Paragraph 1. A few issues I have in mind in order of priority are: 1) revocation of Louisiana’s imposition of unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials and restoration to 10:2 verdicts (1974) if not 9:3 (1880); 2) national amendment of the First Amendment so as to a) protect individual and collective integrity rather than religion, b) protect responsible freedom of expression, c) require responsible media and d) publicize media ownership by foreign investors.
I commend the LSBA to confess their part in maneuvering a public vote against constitutional law that could not be overturned in the courts. I commend The Advocate to return their Pulitzer Prize for collaborating with the LSBA and others to fool some individual Louisiana voters into thinking they might somehow be the accused in a criminal trial and want the well-known criminal-protection of jury unanimity. (England, the founder of unanimity, revised to 10:2 criminal verdicts in 1967 to lessen organized crime's influence on jury trials.) The U.S. Sixth amendment requires impartiality whereas unanimity both statistically and organizationally favors criminals. Impartiality protects the victim, the accused, and the civic people who support law and its enforcement. Both the LSBA and The Advocate have access to these facts.
Best wishes to Boudreaux, Ciolino and all lawyers who may claim membership in We the People of the United States as each of them interprets the U.S. Preamble.
Law professors
https://www.lawliberty.org/2013/06/10/the-propriety-and-necessity-of-natural-law-to-originalism/
Professor Upham seems not alone in propriety constraint by 18th century principles that may also prevent unbiased consideration of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition: responsible human liberty under standards that may or may not be developed as the future unfolds.
Events since the September 17, 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution reflect that the 4-month convention of 55 delegates concluded that knowledge was insufficient to specify norms. By what standards would future citizens know to amend the articles that follow the preamble’s proposition? The draft preamble was erroneous in fact and had no proposition. The 5-person Committee of Style composed the proposition.
Each U.S. citizen may interpret the U.S. Preamble and either order his or her civic life accordingly or not. Those who think crime or tyranny pays may face law enforcement.
Today, my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare,” respectively)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. The standard by which justice is measured is not specified, as it is left to the ultimate discipline of the people rather than to either government or the mystery of whatever-God-is. Religion is reserved to individual privacy rather than civically, civilly, or legally imposed.
My interpretation has me and my descendants and contemporaries including legal immigrants as “Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Therefore, in my efforts to aid the five public institutions, the 18th century founders have no standing. My obligation is to know-of and not repeat their mistakes. I am obligated to fellow citizens to encourage responsible human liberty without arbitrary limits.
Here’s exemplary limiting language: “. . . natural-law theory affirms not only that the existence of certain universal norms, but also the capacity of human beings, by natural reason, to apprehend these norms (to some extent). Natural law is a theory of recognition as well as validity. For all their differences, Aquinas, Locke, and Blackstone each agreed on this point.”
It seems some scholars freeze human reason at 18th century England. Albert Einstein (d. 1955) reasoned that physics and psychology have the same source. His only example was that humankind does not lie so as to lessen misery and loss rather than to follow some rule. Rudyard Kipling suggested Einstein’s physics-proof against lies in the short story “The Man Who Would be King” (1888).
In another example, abortion can be addressed with integrity when the evaluation begins with the dignity and equity of the viable human ovum rather than the doctrine of life at conception. And love can be better understood when the argument includes mutual appreciation.
Thought problems derive from scholarly language: natural-law rather than physics, the object of undeniable discovery; universal norms rather than ineluctable evidence; understanding and application rather than apprehension; acceptance rather than recognition; and reliability rather than validity.
The study of physics and its progeny (including biology and psychology) uses ineluctable evidence to discover the-objective-truth. It may be held in doubt, because future instruments or technology may change human understanding. However, the-objective-truth asymptotically approaches the-literal-truth, which does not yield to human reason. Thus, physics, the object of discovery, corrects human doctrine and is the standard by which both truth and justice are pursued.
Traditional, proprietary language attempts to establish standards that the U.S. Preamble’s proposition excluded. “Judicial fidelity to a popular Constitution . . . demands not humility before the masses, but piety before nature’s Author. The piety of the faithful originalist might thus represent a virtue that can rival the glamorous creativity of the judicial artist.”
By developing and promoting their individual interpretations of the U.S. Preamble for the continuum of living citizens, scholars may aid the establishment of the USA rather than insistence on colonial-British tradition.
https://www.quora.com/May-God-with-integrity-practice-infidelity-and-abuse/answer/Simon-Binks-2/comment/73410777?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=3250589111 from last week
“The . . . Constitution is a frame of government granting limited, enumerated powers to separate branches according to their functions and intended to mediate among, rather than to rule and transform, states and other more local, natural associations. Thus, it allows for, indeed positively encourages, cooperation between religious and political institutions, assumes a “thick” set of moral beliefs and practices, and rejects the likening of liberty to license. It cannot do many (indeed most) of the things Progressives, libertarians, or even many contemporary conservatives might wish.”
The U.S. Preamble refutes this claim and is a powerful proposition for individual discipline rather than the people’s self-governance.
I intended to address 1) accepting the U.S. Preamble’s proposition instead of “law-abidingness” or “judicial reality”; 2) the citizen’s right to develop human integrity rather than “rights brought over from England”; 3) “human laws . . . have no power over . . . original justice” because the-literal-truth does not respond to opinion; 4) in “historical reality” marriage is decided by two individuals, who may or may not want civil affirmation; 5) hatred for abolitionists as in Bleeding Kansas in 1856 sparked the Civil War in 1861; 6) as expressed by the U.S. Constitution’s provisions for amendment, “standards of judicial duty” must conform to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, introduced by the 5 member Committee of Style perhaps to appreciate the Framers’ accomplishments; 7) We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble is living citizens who volunteer to “secure . . . Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” rather than to preserve past citizens’ traditions; 8) the U.S. Constitution must ultimately conform to the U.S. Preamble, and its object is responsible human liberty rather than “unenumerated constitutional rights”; 9) the-literal-truth is the standard by which “the people” discipline themselves to responsible human liberty; 10) rather than self-governing, the people pursue the-literal-truth by discovering the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which justice is measured; and 11) the U.S. Preamble does not propose “cooperation between religious and political institutions.”
However, I only want to comment on the U.S. Preamble’s exclusion of religion from civic integrity. Civic citizens are obligated to comprehend their interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, because it is this country’s public contract to aid development of equity under statutory justice. We the People of the United States approach this noble work is by amending the law so as to lessen injustice when it is discovered.
Today, my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare,” respectively)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. The standard by which justice is measured is not specified, as it is left to the ultimate discipline of the people rather than to either government or the mystery of whatever-God-is. Religion is reserved to individual privacy rather than civically, civilly, or legally imposed.
With enough citizens joining We the People of the United States according to their individual interpretations of the U.S. Preamble, establishment of the USA rather than colonial-British tradition may begin after erroneous repression since June 21, 1788 begun by Congress on March 4, 1789.
Reform may seem impossible; don’t overlook the power of acceleration.
To Allan Kahan:
” . . . believing orthodox Christians of one form or another? Yes.”
I don’t think so. In the first place there must be approaching 10,000 Christianities and at least 4 major orthodoxies if you count Unitarianism, miniscule as that population may be.
The reform that is needed can be contemplated by focusing on theism. Over these 231 years, the U.S. promotion of theism has led to Judeo-Christianity with willful abuse of non-theists, for example, revising the motto to theism and adding it to the pledge.
I can think of two significant reforms. First, rather than a pledge of allegiance, practice acceptance of the U.S. Preamble by repeating it in unison in public events with the 52 words visibly displayed. Second, amend the First Amendment so as to protect development of integrity, a human duty, rather than promotion of religion, a business, leaving individual pursuit of spiritualism as a private matter. This second provision is implied in the U.S. Preamble by omission of spiritualism as a civic proposition.
To Nancy D.:
Representatives of 13 free and independent eastern seaboard states, formerly British colonies, ratified the Treaty of Paris on January 14, 1784. It states: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Shays' rebellion convinced the U.S. that they could not survive as free and independent states. On June 21, 1788, 9 of the 13 globally free states ratified the U.S. Preamble with its amendable Articles, leaving four globally free states, two of whom joined the U.S. before operations began on March 4, 1789.
The U.S. Preamble civically, civilly, and legally proposes 5 public institutions to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. Neither colonial-English-tradition nor religion nor spiritualism is involved. They are left to privacy rather than civic, civil, or legal pursuits. On the U.S. Preamble, citizens decide, either cognitively or by default, whether they are of We the People of the United States or not.
England has no influence on the U.S. Preamble's proposition, and the sooner most Americans begin to establish the U.S. rather than attempt to preserve colonial-English tradition, the better.
The entity We the People of the United States uniquely shares an achievable better future, and every U.S. citizen should consider joining under her or his interpretation.
Book I am reading
Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, 1980, 1990, Harcourt, Page 172.
The book quoted Kenneth B. Clark “. . . the objectives of public education---producing a literate and informed public to carry on the business of democracy---and to the goal of producing human beings with social sensitivity and dignity and creativity and a respect for the humanity of others.”
Using “A civic glossary,” (promotethepreamble.blogspot.com) iterative response to Clark's idea may be: Public education continuously encourages humans to transition to persons who exemplify responsible liberty to fellow citizens.
Since application of the glossary takes no responsibility for Clark’s views, which I do not share (for example, I oppose democracy as chaos), I see no reason to further credit either Clark or the Friedmans in my future writing.
In general, I think the modern age with Internet search that can discover sources of words and phrases, writers need not confuse readers by citing old ideas that prompted the writer’s response. In this case, I am left wondering if the Friedman’s approved of democracy as Clark did, but feel no obligation to research the question.
A wonderful participant in our June 21 commemoration of 9 states establishing the USA in 1788 (followed by operations beginning with 11 states on March 4, 1789) asked “What’s wrong with things as they are?” I encourage anyone with that question to read the Friedmans’ book.
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