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 cost of unanimous criminal jury verdicts is emerging
Many criminal defense lawyers have their clients appeal for retroactive unanimous jury verdicts. The cost of the Amendment XIV.1 tyranny against Louisiana residents by the judges and lawyers of the Louisiana State Bar Association, the Louisiana Legislature, and Governor John Bell Edwards is beginning to accumulate.
I request the Louisiana Legislature to restore the 9:3 majority verdicts instituted in 1880. Also, The Advocate ought to return its Pulitzer Prize.
News
Writers for the press ought to be expressing civic integrity (Joe Gyan Jr.) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_c53a1e3e-540e-11ea-9432-4b5506654634.html)
Each time one of these “unintended consequences” of what the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) and the Louisiana Legislature imposed on the voters of Louisiana, The Advocate should be castigating 1) the judges and lawyers who influenced a popular vote for unanimous juries in criminal trials and 2) The Advocate writers who concocted social science pseudo “statistical evidence” to support discrimination for criminals against victims.
The Advocate ought to return its Pulitzer Prize. The LSBA plot to overturn a Louisiana treasure, the 10:2 criminal jury verdict was a breach of both U.S. Amendment VI, which calls for impartiality, and U.S. Amendment XIV.1, which calls for states preserving citizens’ statutory justice.
The 2020 Louisiana legislature should, by super-majority vote in both chambers, re-establish 1880’s 9:3 criminal jury verdicts and introduce 11:1 verdicts for capital cases.
Writers for the press ought to be expressing civic integrity (Youssef Rddad) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_125920dc-4cff-11ea-ac36-0366322c873f.html)
The Advocate’s writer reports “The Louisiana Attorney General's Office noted that few more than 100 cases could be impacted in a filing last fall when the court reviewed the Ramos case.”
This is contrary to the court records.”. . . in addition to casting doubt on every pending felony trial in Louisiana for crimes committed before January 1, 2019, a mandatory unanimity rule will have serious consequences for post-conviction review. Thousands of final convictions in Louisiana and Oregon could be upset if such a new rule were later declared retroactive.” Further, “The potential that about one out of every four jury trials in two States would need to be retried is deeply concerning and should give this Court pause about opening the door to such claims.” See https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-5924/112629/20190816150657072_18-5924%20Respondent%20BOM.pdf, numbered 49 on the page or 61 in the PDF file.
The idea of about 100 came from Ramos’ lawyer, Fisher. “Justice Neil Gorsuch took on the state’s argument that the convictions of as many as 32,000 defendants could be called into question if the court ruled for Ramos.
During his rebuttal, Fisher tried to assuage the concerns of the justices who may have harbored more concerns than Gorsuch did about the effect of a ruling for Ramos. There are only 36 cases on direct review involving the question presented in this case, he told the justices, assuring them that they can postpone questions about whether their ruling would apply retroactively to inmates whose convictions had already become final.” See https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/argument-analysis-justices-weigh-constitutionality-of-non-unanimous-jury-rule/.
Apparently, The Advocate holds itself a figurative Adam Schiff---immune from consideration of the facts in fair and balanced reporting. Failure to consider the proposition offered each citizen in the U.S. Preamble (I think individual and collective self-discipline for responsible human independence) begs woe.
Columns
“Blessings” in 1787 meant benefits or advantages (Kathryn Jean Lopez) (https://www.uexpress.com/kathryn-jean-lopez/2020/1/3/words-of-wisdom-for-the-new and https://townhall.com/columnists/kathrynlopez/2020/01/05/words-of-wisdom-for-the-new-year-n2558925)
Lopez wrote a pivotal, egregious column for 2020. I’m concerned about “blessings” coming from anything but responsible human independence and “liberty” as license for spilling blood.
From the May 29, 1787 records of the constitutional convention: “Mr. Randolph . . . observed . . . a government ought to secure 1. against foreign invasion: 2. against dissentions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular states: 3. to procure to the several States various blessings, of which an isolated situation was incapable: 4. to be able to defend itself against encroachment: & 5. to be paramount to the state constitutions.” “Blessings” in Item 3, above seems like “advantages” more than divine grace. See https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1. Note also that Randolph’s primary predicate “to secure” lost grammatical flow in Item 3, which might be edited to “against past isolation, which lessened individual States’ blessings.”
For Lopez to claim that the U.S. Preamble’s “blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” references the DoI’s “Nature’s God,” is, quoting her, to “impose . . . ideological tyranny.” Lopez’s tyranny of imposing as “founders” the DoI’s authors on the U.S. Constitution’s signers is not original to religious fellow citizens’ tyranny over human integrity. Integrity is the practice of pursuing the-literal-truth and otherwise claiming, “I don’t know.”
Most egregious is extolling “liberty” as a birthright. Even the U.S. Preamble’s “Liberty” is inferior to “responsible human independence.” Its inclusion is the unfortunate development of the “liberty” to spill blood in the century from England’s Glorious Revolution of 1689, this land’s 13 eastern-seaboard English colonies’ 1774 rebellion and 1776 declaration of independence, the 9 states’ ratification of the U.S. Preamble and its amendable articles on June 21, 1788 followed by the First Congress taking the liberty to restore colonial American-English traditions, and the U.S. Constitution’s influence on the French Revolution of 1789.
I encourage Lopez to create her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s goals in antonyms for comparison with mine: deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence. I speculate that she will find it difficult to impose Catholic doctrine or any other religion on the U.S. Preamble’s goals. Maybe then Lopez will encourage fellow citizens to separate any hopes for soul from intention to live in the USA with responsible human independence rather than dissidence to the U.S. Preamble. As measured by the U.S. Preamble, Lopez’s allegiance to religion leaves her among the alien fellow citizens of 2020. I think she’s in Romney’s camp: piety prevents the integrity needed for citizenship.
Holding for approval at the first URL and published on the second.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-is-truth-What-is-justification-What-is-the-relation-of-truth-and-justification?
It seems to me the-literal-truth constrains justification: when an individual knows the-literal-truth, he needs justification only if he does not take the advantage. For example, a person might believe that buying lottery tickets is like throwing money away yet buy because the chance of winning equals the price.
Justification is a controversial reason for doing something, such as convincing your person to act against your belief.
I refer readers to Search (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) to explore 1668 entries, beginning with “Truth.”
I use “the-objective-truth” to represent discovered, ineluctable evidence and the determination of how to benefit from the discovery. The-objective-truth may be continually improved by invention of new instruments to better to perceive the evidence. The discovery process may lead to or approach the-literal-truth, which is actual reality more than irrefutable fact.
Since there is no ineluctable evidence for whatever-God-is, the-objective-truth is: “We don’t know.” There is no shame in accepting humility. However, whatever-God-may-be may judge justification of worship, praise, and supplication.
https://www.quora.com/What-can-be-done-to-help-bridge-the-gap-between-people-who-view-the-will-of-the-majority-as-supreme-vs-those-who-want-the-rights-of-unpopular-minorities-to-be-protected?
The U.S. Preamble proposes individual happiness with civic integrity.
This is our 7th year hosting local library meetings to protest the repression of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition by the U.S. Congress, the USA’s legislative branch.
We encourage each citizen to own and practice a personal interpretation of the preamble’s 52 abstract words.
My interpretation today states the 6 goals as antonyms: We the People of the United States civically, civilly, and legally both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence of by and for fellow citizens. The U.S. Preamble makes religion a private rather than public pursuit.
On the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, fellow citizens divide: civic citizens, passives, and dissidents. Perhaps the current split is 1/9, 2/3, and 2/9, respectively. If so, only 11% of fellow citizens trust-in and commit-to the USA’s proposition for individual and collective human equity under statutory justice. The First Congress imposed this division by creating “freedom of religion” instead of encouraging fellow citizens to develop integrity. Their egregious error can be undone.
Anyone who allows hopes and comforts respecting their mysterious afterdeath prevent their civic integrity is not of We the People of the United States as defined by the U.S. Preamble. Whatever-God-is may not conform to God. If 2/3 of fellow citizens behaved according to their personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, living citizens and our descendants would have an achievable better future.
https://www.quora.com/What-did-you-last-actively-protest?
This is our 7th year of hosting local library meetings to protest the repression of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition by the U.S. Congress, the USA’s legislative branch.
We encourage each citizen to own and practice a personal interpretation of the preamble’s 52 abstract words.
My interpretation today states the 6 goals as antonyms: We the People of the United States civically, civilly, and legally both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence of by and for fellow citizens.
On the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, fellow citizens divide: civic citizens, passives, and dissidents. Perhaps the current split is 1/9, 2/3, and 2/9, respectively. If so, only 11% of fellow citizens trust-in and commit-to the USA’s proposition for individual and collective human equity under statutory justice.
https://www.quora.com/Freedom-of-expression-should-not-have-limits-Can-you-change-my-mind?
Independent civic citizens consider liabilities such as causing death by yelling “Fire!” in a crowd. I appreciate a culture that outlaws rather than licenses personal liabilities.
I don’t know, but it seems Adam Schiff is licensed to lie. I appreciate a culture that discourages license, a form of liberty that is known to spill blood.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-media-so-intent-on-dredging-up-and-repeatedly-attacking-the-statements-actions-of-leaders-decades-ago-without-acknowleding-the-difference-in-society-at-the-time-versus-their-thinking-and-actions-today?
Unfortunately, the media industry employs many adolescent writers and opponents to the U.S. Preamble. Journalism is scarce: consider Byron York’s reliability and George Will’s bias.
In the first place, the media is diverse-entertainment business, often owned by foreigners rather than members of We the People of the United States, the unique entity that is defined by the U.S. Preamble.
On the preamble’s proposition, the people divide themselves: independent civic citizens, passive beings, dissidents, aliens, and traitors. I speculate that the split is about 1/9, 26/81, 1/3, 2/9, and 1/81, respectively. If so, there are about 4 million traitors, 73 million aliens, and 220 million dissidents, and 106 million do-nothings with the entity We the People of the United States, leaving only 37 million civic citizens.
Each citizen, like it or not, ought to own his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal proposition so as to avoid being a non-civic citizen in the USA---much as drivers know speed limits so as to avoid subjugation to the law. Viewed as precautions, the six goals of the U.S. Preamble, stated as antonyms, seem to be deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence. The individual citizen is in charge of his or her behavior, and the collective behaviors measure success of the Preamble’s proposition.
The proposition equates to mutual, comprehensive safety and security to living citizens, and acceptance offers individual happiness with civic integrity rather than submission to some else’s or an institutional vision for the individual’s future. This proposition is so civically, civilly, and legally attractive readers may wonder how it has been repressed since September 17, 1787, when 39 of 55 delegates signed the U.S. Constitution with the abstract U.S. Preamble that was authored by the Committee of Style during September 8-11, 1787.
Of course the answer is complex. First, European revolutions that occurred in a 100-year span focused on “liberty” among other political issues, and at least two of four were bloody. There’s the English “glorious revolution” in 1689, the 13 British-American colonies’ revolution against England in 1774 declaring independence as states in 1776, the U.S. reform from English tradition proposed in 1787, and the French revolution in 1789.
Some of the 9 of 13 states required to ratify the 1787 U.S. Preamble and its amendable articles of constitution did so only on the promise that an English-like Bill of Rights would be negotiated by the First Congress as the first constitutional amendments. Beginning on March 4, 1789, with eleven states in the USA and two remaining free and independent states, Congress began restoring colonial-British American traditions as much as possible, erroneously/falsely labeling the U.S. Preamble “secular.” The U.S. Preamble treats religion as a private pursuit to the individual, omitting spiritualty from civic goals.
The intentional omission of religion from the U.S. Preamble’s six civic goals---Unity, Justice, Tranquillity, defence, Welfare, and Liberty---is clarified by the antonyms shared above. Pursuit of religion is a private choice. The point is further emphasized in the articles of the Constitution, which negates use of religion in oaths of office. Appreciation of the antonyms helps civic citizens understand that people who hold their religious obligations above obligations as civic citizens are aliens to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Also, “liberty” often takes the license to shed blood.
We the People of the United States must amend the First Amendment to protect the people’s opportunity to develop integrity rather than religion. Integrity in this context means pursuing the-objective-truth in absence of ineluctable evidence for the-literal-truth and admitting “We don’t know” when there’s only imagination rather than discovery.
One other required amendment: freedom of the press must be amended to “independence of a responsible press,” leaving entertainment media to the legally compliant market. For example, media-pornography is controlled by U.S. law enforcement.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/If-everyone-went-to-the-psychologist-would-we-have-a-better-society?
I don’t think so: sincere humans have the independent power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity for life. Humans who use HIPEA to develop integrity could train psychologists. Only the individuals who use their HIPEA to develop infidelity need reform and don’t admit it. Unfortunately, some psychologists are in that group. Individuals who use HIPEA to develop integrity know when they are stumped by the unknown and seek needed advice.
However, humankind’s cultures sorely need to encourage and coach youth to consider and accept independent HIPEA and avoid using it to nourish appetites. Most cultures erroneously teach their youth to seek higher power, for example, from whatever-God-is or from government’s tyranny.
My wife, now entering her sixth decade of marriage (with me), is independently, frankly communicative. I did not know it then, but I wooed her because of serene confidence, which persists to this day despite horrendous human wounds. She is a retired school teacher and Louisiana-French Catholic (she owns persistent independence from papal folly).
And I am a retired chemical engineer who trusts-in and is committed-to the-objective-truth, which, through continually invented instruments of perception, can approach if not attain the-literal-truth. Whatever-God-is does not yield to God, and my wife would not change my opinion: She knows I know I do not know the-literal-truth.
Neither of us would change the other, because we’d no longer be a unique, mutually appreciative pair.
As I address your question (thank you), I recall one spousal acceptance and confrontation, regarding parenting. We discussed the wound with a priest, who faithfully analyzed the cause and rendered church doctrine. Accepting the doctrine would have meant conformity to the essence/incense “Wives should submit to their husbands as they do to the Lord” rather than spousal independence.
At other times, recognizing that I needed assistance, I consulted my primary care physician or insurance provider to recommend a social worker. Each time, useful advice was obtained without delay.
Confronting a disease, my spouse is seeing a psychologist. Wanting to understand Phil Beaver so as to express responsible human ideas, I am seeing a psychologist. Each of us have identified aid we sincerely seek. The psychologist is empowered by each sincerity.
If everyone went to a couple, each retired from disparate professions, motivations, and inspirations, who had each succeeded in independent commitment to monogamy for life, and were both willing to share human principles, would humankind have an achievable better future?
https://www.quora.com/What-laws-do-you-believe-the-world-is-lacking?
Every newborn should be civically, civilly, and legally encouraged and coached to accept the human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than drift into or nourish infidelity to the-objective-truth if and when the-literal-truth is unknown.
https://www.quora.com/Is-inequality-inevitable?
Since every human being is unique, inequality is ineluctable.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-latent-and-manifest-function-of-the-media-in-society?
Ignoring the modifiers, the media is diverse entertainment supplier to thriving, diverse buyers.
A buyer can use his or her habitual choices as evidence of personal interest. I trust-in and am committed-to the-objective-truth, which may indicate the-literal-truth, and find myself wasting time on Fox News, even though I dislike the Judeo-Christian leanings of the employees.
I prefer college sports to professional sports and think I am biased against the arrogance that high-risk wealth brings.
I like music but detest awards shows.
I think reality shows promote nourishment of banal practices and should never be watched by anyone.
I think most local, state, and national politicians consider themselves above the entity We the People of the United States, so I doubt their claims and the media who sponsor them.
Schools that previously claimed journalism have turned to “social science” as a promising business plan. The idea is that a social scientist can construct a survey to prove an assumption, select the survey subjects, design the survey, control the collection of data, and evaluate the consequential “data” so as to confirm the assumption. By skillfully reporting the survey results, the media may control public opinion. Public opinion controls legislation and thus the law.
However, the entity We the People of the United States self-interestedly disciplines itself for responsible human independence and therefore cannot be controlled by opinion surveys.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-trust-any-form-of-government/answer/Phil-Beaver-1 from the past
When people (your Government) tell you
"Before us, nobody knew what justice is; fairness comes only from us,
trust us, and we will arrange a justice that will satisfy you," - these
people deceive you or, even if they sincerely have their best intentions in
mind, they deceive themselves. That’s because they still want you to recognize
them as their masters, and then your FREEDOM will end up being OBEDIENCE to
these new masters. Answer them that you have only God as your master, and you
don't want another, and God will set you free.
Lamennais
Tolstoy
Reading circle
Whatever-God-is will set us free.
It seems whatever-God-is assigned statutory
human justice to humankind and will not usurp HIPEA—human individual power,
energy, and authority.
Some humans use HIPEA to develop integrity,
where integrity is the practice of discovering the-objective-truth so as to
approach the-literal-truth. Some persons waste HIPEA on infidelity to
the-literal-truth.
but if you
personally do not do what God intent from you, then you are a waist,and will
perish like all carnal!
Your opinion is OK for you for you, but not
for me. I reject it wholly; when I die, all that will be left is what I
achieved, and that too will perish.
I am prepared to face judgement for my
opinion about me, but not from you nor for your opinion for you.
It is not my opinion
but Universal Truth, you never had your opinion, because you speak like huge
majority of people, therefor your “opinion” is mass indoctrination came your
mind from main source propaganda=government! And there is no judgement, you
already judged by that spirit of God within you, which you refuse to obey, and
when your body will die, so everything else will die! Basically you are dead
already, and it is a only mater of time!
The-literal-truth measures Universal Truth
and your theism may conform, at least for you. However, whatever-God-is
assigned to me HIPEA by which I may develop integrity, and I do. I admit, I may
be wrong for me, but I doubt it.
My poor friend, but
point is I know my Father, but you never knew God, therefor blind, because
Truth is not available to those who never understood what is good, and what is
bad, never understood meaning of our life, which “integrity” you are talking
about, you never knew what is base for our life, you need to start from the
beginning! Like all wise people told to poor people, and I am telling you,
change understanding of your life, otherwise YOU WILL PERISH! READ GOOD BOOKS,
want our list of them??? THINK!!! before it is too late for you.
https://www.quora.com/Is-global-civics-just-another-snowflake-and-liberitarian-major-or-is-it-actually-a-potentially-useful-resolution?
Often, I am grateful for questions that lead me to new information; none more than your introduction to “global civics.” I will use Global civics - Wikipedia to learn more.
To address your question, I think global civics is useful. Considering our discoveries about the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (we dub the U.S. Preamble) could help. Here are some principles we perceive we learned:
- The draft preamble given to the Committee of Style on September 8, 1787, claimed the 13 states were issuing the constitution with no people’s proposition. Apparently, the proposition reflected the consequence of the convention, because 39 of 55 delegates signed it. Some of the dissenters wanted to preserve states’ powers rather than rely on the people.
- Three revolutions of the era focused on liberty—license for blood if “necessary”: 1689 England, 1774 British colonies in America, and 1789 France. We think the 1787 U.S. Preamble proposed discipline of by and for the people in order to establish and maintain human independence.
- Viewed as precautions, the six goals of the U.S. Preamble, stated as antonyms, seem to be deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence.
- The U.S. Preamble does not offer standards of performance, implying that the ultimate practice by the continuum of living We the People of the United States will discover human justice. It’s like a parent admitting to his/her children that they cannot imagine the world the children will manage.
- “Freedom of religion,” erroneously imposed by the First Congress, 1789–1793, rather than encouragement to develop human integrity has repressed the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal power for justice since 1787.
- Fortuitously, the Committee of Style, in 52 words, captured the idea, in my interpretation, that the-objective-truth, continually improved by new instruments for better perception, may lead humankind to the-literal-truth.
- The human tendency to seek higher power (either whatever-God-is, government officials, or imagination) rather than to accept the human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity unnecessarily limits possible future justice. Separately, private theism/philosophy may be essential for some civic humans.
- Integrity is the practice of rejecting error in order to approach discovery of the-literal-truth. Apparently, whatever-God-is holds humankind responsible to discover the ineluctable evidence.
- Only fellow citizens who want human equity pursue statutory justice. Likewise, not every nation will participate in global civics.
- The U.S. Preamble is not necessarily the best expression of these principles and may be appreciated as the original human-political hope.
If I think of or read of an improvement, I will add it and date it. I have no idea when I will study global civics.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-expected-of-someone-when-it-comes-to-being-a-productive-member-of-society?
Fellow citizens who pursue individual happiness with civic integrity rather than yield to someone else’s vision for them may appreciate each other.
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-more-complicated-for-a-right-wing-person-to-understand-a-left-wing-person-or-for-a-left-wing-person-to-understand-a-right-wing-person?
Each party wants mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that each can pursue the happiness he or she wants rather than submit to someone else’s plan for them. Cultures inculcate the search for higher power. In the quest, many parties never focus on the-objective-truth, which through improved instruments of perception may eventually help discover the-literal-truth.
Every way I consider this question the explanation boils down to a Chapter XI Machiavellian persistence by each party. Both parties rely on the higher powers each believes in to maintain tolerance of the other until the other reforms. Only a dreamer (rather than Nicolo’s “fool”) would try to change it.
As an example, consider the confederation of 13 eastern seaboard colonies’ declaration that their God would beat England’s God. Quoting the declaration, ”. . . necessary for one people to . . . assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.” Colonial-British Americans claimed separation from the Church of England’s God. When it seemed that England’s God would defeat America’s God, France extended it’s ongoing war against England to Yorktown, VA in 1781 and dominated in both military power and strategy. The world might be better off if the declaration had referred to the laws of whatever-God-is.
The U.S. Preamble to the 1787 U.S. Constitution proposes to end the God competition by proposing both individually and collectively six human disciplines: to discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence, my antonyms for Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, Welfare, and Liberty. However, the First Congress, to position themselves as divine on par with Parliament established factional-Protestant traditions to compete with the Church of England’s constitutional partnership with Parliament. It’s been that way ever since.
The harm of this “ceremonial” practice by all levels of U.S. governance---local, state, and national---was illustrated recently. The U.S. Senate together with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court administered the oath of juryperson for impeachment of President Trump: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of [Donald Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.” The caveat “so help me God” is intended to provide each swearer an avenue to injustice “according to the Constitution and laws.”
The phrase “so help me whatever-God-is” could restore justice under the Constitution, and that might be preferable to the ongoing pretense that a divine government’s diverse Gods are in charge. The Senate’s Gods split the Senators along party lines, excepting Mitt Romney.
As I understand it, Romney’s claim “I am a religious man,” can be means: As a Mormon Saint, I reject the U.S. Constitution’s authority. “According to LDS Church theology, men and women may be "sealed" to one another so that their marital bond continues into the eternities. Children may also be sealed to their biological or adoptive parents to form permanent familial bonds, thus allowing all immediate and extended family relations to endure past death.” See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Distinctive_doctrines_and_practices.
We work to persuade fellow citizens to consider, study, and interpret the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. My interpretation today is: We the People of the United States practice and promote 6 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, prosperity, and independence---to living citizens. The reason no standards are suggest may be imagined by again considering the cautionary interpretation using the antonyms to the above listed goals. We the People of the United State avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disturbance, weakness, poverty, and dependence to living citizens.
By trusting-in and committing-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, living citizens may develop individual happiness with civic integrity the moment each perceives the egocentric advantages and reforms so as to discover an achievable better future.
In the not too distant future, the U.S. can enjoy a culture wherein civic citizens, using the U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth, may develop responsible human independence, each party appreciating the other for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-absolution-important?
Addressing
the question, “Why is absolution important?”:
To begin the question with “Why” rather than “Is” makes the assumption that absolution is vital, which may not be so. Whatever-God-is may accept rather than judge human individual behaviors or persons. That is, justice respecting the-literal-truth may be a human responsibility.
I do not think absolution, a human construct, is valid.
Each human individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity. Extant cultures neither encourage acceptance and development of HIPEA nor represent integrity as pursuit of the-literal-truth. Consequently some individuals who discover HIPEA use it to nourish infidelity.
The individual who fortunately discovers HIPEA and develops integrity may become the person he or she wants to be at the end of their complete human life. They follow a path of discipline wherein humanly inevitable mistakes occur only once and with declining frequency as they psychologically mature.
Such individuals practiced responsible human independence and have fulfilled the-objective-truth of a human life, which is a close to the-literal-truth as a human can approach. In that independence, the person expressed and still holds humility toward whatever-God-is; he or she has not yielded to any human construct that claims to represent God.
I do not know the-literal-truth, so can only express opinion (BTW, based on my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition) and hope a fellow citizen will improve it.
https://www.quora.com/Are-you-a-bad-person-if-you-are-against-freedom-of-expression? From last week
In term of give me
liberty or death I’d like to play devils advocate for them. I like living quite
abit but I have no wife or children to abandon. If I was in a position where I
needed to lawyer this case (a revolutionary impression whilst drunk at a party
when a police man happens to walk by and did have the wife and six children)
then I’d argue that i wanted this freedom not only for myself but for my wife
and children and i’d be willing to die for it.
The problem is that the wife and six
children are each due the dignity and equity of a human being.
Once a man decides to woo a civic woman to
be his spouse, she trusts-in and commits-to reliable monogamy for life. She
will care for not only her spouse but the 400 viable ova she carries during her
fertile years. He will cherish her, her ovum in each cycle, and the crowd they
may produce.
Most of Henry’s seven would prefer life to
death. Perhaps a few perceive that psychological independence requires neither
freedom-from repression nor the liberty-to act egocentrically. That is, the
will to live is so strong only death can end life.
Thus, some members of his family would
reject Henry’s preference, and might tell him so, given the opportunity to
speak. In integrity, Henry’d need to honor their preferences and reject liberty
so as to continue to support his family members.
Few men accept that a proposal for marriage
is a human-life commitment to the woman, her ova, any progeny, the
grandchildren, and descendants beyond. Tragedy to the husband does not offset
his commitment to them.
This line of thought does not come from
Western philosophy as much as from the experiences and observations every human
may consider.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-there-is-freedom-of-speech-in-2020?
Yes. However, the speaker may be held responsible for injury, property damage, or death that is consequential to the speech. This is so even if the speaker has volunteered for another person’s cause such as an Alinsky-Marxist organization (AMO) that has a permit for limited public disruption that gets out of hand.
Public disruption is commonplace in Paris, because some of the 1789 expression that liberty can be gained by blood remains in some French memes. Many Europeans would like that misery to dominate the U.S. Thank goodness, we have the civic, civil, and legal authority of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
A similarly erroneous claim is in the American Revolution. Patrick Henry expressed failed integrity to his wife and children when he declared, “Give me liberty or give me death.” I have low esteem for his efforts to preserve the Confederation of States and colonial-English traditions.
The rest of the U.S. Constitution has been weakened by the First Congress, 1789-1793, who did what they could to restore colonial-British-traditions in the USA. Congress has interfered ever since, but We the People of the United States is now challenging each member of Congress to consider whether they want to be known for dissidents to the preamble or not.
Every elected or appointed official at each level of government---local, state, and national---needs to consider the preamble’s proposition to living citizens (“ourselves and our Posterity”) and decide whether they want to continue its repression, follow a positive interpretation or, for example, improve my cautionary one for today: We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves and encourage fellow citizens to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence of by and for living citizens. Because “liberty” can be interpreted as bloody license, we choose “independence” as a path toward responsible human living.
Use of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is not limited to the USA, but establishing responsible human independence is not easy, as We the People of the United States demonstrate. Human independence requires discipline, both individually and collectively.
https://www.facebook.com/phil.beaver.52?__tn__=%2CdC-R-R&eid=ARDXr1RU-HBREpcS4udEqzyPwEWl5T_XH61r_pm4E5Sg9swYaWooDHrhw6X0Kdk2fPnIQeGzawBzaD1J&hc_ref=ARRmHorH2RSAtvOysk8732zWZnKuCu4oupnmCbButZtLHagA1rIgysp517XqTVkfu1s&fref=nf
I will use Global civics - Wikipedia to learn more. I think global civics is useful.
Considering our discoveries about the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (we dub the U.S. Preamble) could help. Here are some principles we perceive we learned:
The draft preamble given to the Committee of Style on September 8, 1787, claimed the 13 states were issuing the constitution with no people’s proposition. Apparently, the proposition reflected the consequence of the convention, because 39 of 55 delegates signed it. Some of the dissenting 16 wanted to preserve states’ powers rather than rely on the people and others wanted to represent their theism.
Three revolutions of the 17th century focused on liberty—license for blood if “necessary”: 1689 England, 1774 British colonies in America, and 1789 France. We think the 1787 U.S. Preamble proposed discipline of by and for the people in order to establish and maintain human independence.
Viewed as precautions, the six goals of the U.S. Preamble, stated as antonyms, seem to be deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence.
The U.S. Preamble does not offer standards of performance, implying that the ultimate practice by the continuum of living We the People of the United States will discover human justice. It’s like a parent admitting to his/her children that they cannot imagine the world the children will manage.
“Freedom of religion,” erroneously imposed by the First Congress, 1789–1793, rather than encouragement to develop human integrity has repressed the U.S. Preamble’s civic, civil, and legal power for justice since 1787.
Fortuitously, the Committee of Style, in 52 words, captured the idea, in my interpretation, that the-objective-truth, continually improved by new instruments for better perception, may lead humankind to the-literal-truth.
The human tendency to seek higher power (either whatever-God-is, government officials, or imagination) rather than to accept the human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity unnecessarily limits possible future justice. Separately, private theism/philosophy may be essential for some civic humans.
Integrity is the practice of rejecting error in order to approach discovery of the-literal-truth. Apparently, whatever-God-is holds humankind responsible to discover the ineluctable evidence.
Only fellow citizens who want human equity pursue statutory justice. Likewise, not every nation will participate in global civics.
The U.S. Preamble is not necessarily the best expression of these principles and may be appreciated as the original human-political hope.
If I think of or read of an improvement, I will add and date it. I have no idea when I will study global civics.
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.
