Arbitrarily interfering in civic expression

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 interpretation of its proposal as follows: “We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence.” I want to improve my interpretation by listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems the Supreme Court occasionally refers to it, and 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

Arbitrarily interfering in civic expression

Suddenly in April 2020, I became acutely alert to the public harm of a long standing legal pocket-picking by the media owners. A civic discussion provider gathers subscribers under rules, reportedly for civic/civil expressions. Customers ask questions for no charge and other subscribers offer suggestions for his/her consideration. Since the questions and answers are published, copyright is not a concern unless someone arbitrarily makes it an issue.

Suddenly, provider removes a response and the responder is accused of vague copyright issues and challenged to produce a record of when the idea was published before. The provider has intervened in the dialogue between questioner and responder without evidence of plagiarism. I will always use my old ideas in new concerns and rely on my blog to journal my development of integrity. In other words, I will freely share my ideas. I am pleased to stop writing on a particular site (because it allows me the time to write elsewhere) but am not pleased to be prevented from responding about a shared concern for the questioner’s consideration. Obviously, I can respond to fewer questions, to save my time, and I have done so.

In the 1990s I began writing letters to the editor of my hometown newspaper, The Advocate, Baton Rouge. During 2 decades of experience, observation, and some conversation, I experienced and observed the following:

1.    There is no way to civically appeal to the editor’s silence.

2.    My letter might be rejected because the space had been used, trashing the civic concern I addressed.

3.    The Advocate reserves the right to caption letters to the editor and may slant the expression.

4.    The editor may publish a letter to take advantage of error by the writer.

5.    Journalists hold themselves possessing opinion better than opinions of fellow citizens.

6.    Letters to the editor is part of the business plan more than a public service.

7.    Freedom of the press does not imply published freedom of reader expression.

8.    Most press writers and editors do not consider journalism a civic/civil responsibility.

9.    No one has the intentions to journal the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity. Under the First Amendment, journalists should take that role, but there are no journalists.

10.  The writer who wants to learn from writing to the editor ought to keep a file of the submissions and rejections. There will be no notes on shared reasons for the rejections.

11.  Given the chance to redress an editor’s civic arrogance, a fellow citizen should do so.

Starting April, 2020, I think I have noticed a new arrogance by internet-media. Some media have civic/civil rules for using their site. Some invite public questions and answers. A person who submits questions or answers or both may suffer arbitrary judgment of expressions. Often there’s more copyright value in the question than in the responses. There may be an avenue for review, but there’s no arbitration. Users, beware.

News

Writers for the press ought to be journaling the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (John Simerman) (https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_e446e44e-35f3-11ea-8b1c-8705ca5b3db9.html)

I look forward to reviewing the decision.

Much as I regret it, though, I must accept this travesty against responsible human independence. (Liberty is a failure due to some fellow citizens taking it as license, often to draw a fellow-citizen’s blood. When the mob is marching for liberty, I want independence.)

Organized crime won this case against the 6th amendment, which requires impartially rather than unanimity. Maybe after my lifetime the whole country will reform to split verdicts like this 6:3 opinionated outcome: 2/3 is a good target for opinion, and 2/3, like Louisiana's vote, may not touch the-objective-truth.


Columns

U.S. Constitutional facts flawed by judicial preservation of colonial-English-American opinion (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_df64b01c-83de-11ea-963c-7349989ab418.html)

Perhaps with temporal defeat of Louisiana’s U.S. leadership in providing impartial juries, We the People of the United States, as defined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, may observe the tyranny of the U.S. Supreme Court. Some justices are emotional for originalism, common law, and precedent as they see it. Their precedent selections often oppose the 5 goals and the purpose of the U.S. Preamble. Many justices have no individual interpretation of the preamble and therefore never established personal U.S. integrity.

Also, it is egregious for the Court to accept 1889 instead of 1880 as the date Louisiana enacted prudent 9:3 criminal jury decisions; https://www.wwno.org/post/history-louisianas-non-unanimous-jury-rule. The likely French influence on the 1880 enactment of 9:3 verdicts as a means of providing impartial verdicts was precedent to the inflammatory 1898 Louisiana convention.

It is statistically unlikely with divided inhabitants to select an impartial jury of 12. Most citizens, divided 51:49, do not accept that they 1) are human beings and 2) are obliged to pursue equity under statutory human justice (an unattainable yet worthy perfection of written law).

The Supreme Court accepts 5:4 decisions to maintain judicial preferences for opinionated facts. Sometimes the dissenting opinions lean more toward the-objective-truth. It’s ironic that a majority vote of 6:3 imposes on Louisiana citizens the requirement of unjust unanimity, 12:0, when U.S. Amendment XIV.1 assures them the U.S. will protect citizens in states from, for example, Louisiana Legislative tyranny. The Legislature should not have proposed defeat of Louisiana’s precedent provision of impartial juries by popular vote. Ramos v Louisiana seems a candidate for immediate reversal.

Here’s the history in my view. The England & France period 1689 through 1789 saw 3 bloodletting revolutions ---the English Civil Revolution of 1689, the American independence from England of 1774, and the French Civil Revolution of 1789---all 3 seeking “liberty” as the license to draw political blood. (Yorktown, VA, 1781, was an England vs France battlefield with the Continental Army assisting France.) As license, liberty is a ruinous activity. When the mob aggresses, I want the independence to object if they are not practicing civic, civil, and legal integrity. Nine states ratified the U.S. in 1788.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, framers (55) debated and signers (39) approved a proposition for disciplined citizens to hold accountable the fellow citizens who serve/exist in each their state and the national governments. Religious pursuits were private rather than civic, civil, or legal duties. Some of the 16 delegates who did not sign objected to “We the People of the United States” rather than the 13 named states as the entity with the responsibility for human independence. Some others would recognize whatever-God-is (Nature’s God to deists or the Trinity to Christians except Unitarians or African-American Christians).

If states beyond the 13 former English colonies joined the U.S., their diverse thinking would strengthen the preamble’s purpose: pursuit of statutory justice in the Union. Louisiana, influenced by Napoleonic code, joined in 1812. Defending my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is a matter for another essay, but on May 29, 1787, the Delegate Edmund Randolph used “blessings” to mean “advantages” of a Union rather than divine license; “to p[ro]cure to the several States various blessings, of which an isolated situation was i[n]capable.” See https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1. Thus, “blessings” ought not be attributed to whatever-God-is.

The U.S. Preamble proposes the development of statutory justice by the continuum of living citizens, ultimately by posterity’s posterity. Fellow citizens who do not consider citizenship deeply enough to comprehend their personal interpretation of the preamble risk losing the opportunity to enjoy responsible human independence. That especially includes justices and politicians whose agenda is alien to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. For example, a citizen whose civic, civil, or legal allegiance is dedicated to religion or race or gender is not of We the People of the United States. When the President nominates an originalist for the Supreme Court, it is likely the nominee has a negative if any interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.

Language The Advocate promotes here---common law, precedent, imposition of unanimity as impartiality---covertly favors “originalism” as English law overriding the U.S. Preamble and the legal system proposed in order to sustain its 5 public disciplines for responsible human independence.

Shame on both The Advocate and he U.S. Supreme Court for imposing English precedent to divide U.S. citizens. We’ll see how the 6:3 vote turns out. Because the 3:6 dissenters made their case, I think posterity’s posterity will overrule.


Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-about-politics-that-causes-such-discord-even-within-families?

First, let me say that I am inspired by your question, Melissa Jackson, and anyone who would stand between your civic concern and my response seems a tyrant. I am writing from my life experiences, observations, and assessment of them as I see it this morning. Some things I write I wrote before but for different purposes and have records of them on my blogs.

To your question:  Unfortunately, past political regimes have taken advantage of the human characteristic of taking integral responsibility for their lives by misguiding people who do not accept being human. “Integral” implies complete integrity rather than mere honesty. Being human involves a nest of acceptances.

Here’s a list of acceptances that come to mind just now, and each one can be unpacked/refuted according to your experiences and observations. Accepting being human requires accepting:

1.    Human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than infidelity to the-literal-truth. When not knowing the-literal-truth, the person admits and claims, “I don’t know.”

2.    Beyond personal authority the human being reserves humility toward whatever-God-is rather than imposes evaluations such as “Nature’s God,” “The Almighty,” the good, love, “The Judge of the World,” and such.

3.    Human dignity and equity begins with the viable ova a fertile woman carries. She has the HIPEA to care for her viable ova, for example, selecting a reliable mate for monogamy for life. Her mate has the HIPEA to be reliable for life.

4.    Together, spouses nourish-family reliability to descendants---to their posterity.

5.    The human individual, by experience and observations, has the opportunity to enter a civic agreement to develop human independence with civic integrity; in other words, individual equity under statutory justice. Developing statutory justice involves encouraging fellow citizens who employ HIPEA to develop infidelity such as crime or tyranny to reform.

6.    In the U.S., a civic agreement that offers the above way of living is proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is in the U.S. citizen’s self-interest to earn a personal interpretation of the preamble so as to develop it toward individual happiness with civic integrity among fellow citizens.

7.    Unfortunately, some people observe that life is so challenging that some fellow citizens treat civic integrity by neglect. After some 2-3 million years of evolution, cultures have evolved wherein the few who are willing to govern abuse fellow citizens who prefer being governed to doing the work to hold government agents accountable. Methods of abusing fellow citizens were enumerated by Nicolo Machiavelli in “The Prince,” 1213. The type of abuse conducted by tradition in the U.S. I refer to as Chapter XI Machiavellianism. See https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm for your own interpretation.

Principles equal or better than these may be developed by the 2020 generation of U.S. citizens. We have this privilege due to neglect by the generations since September 17, 1787. I write to learn, so please comment.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-describe-decolonization-in-your-own-words-How-would-you-characterize-it?

To decolonize, a people must each 1) accept being human, 2) agree to independence from the government that colonized them, 3) accept that whatever-God-is seems to have assigned civic integrity to humankind, and 4) propose a system of governance that encourages responsible human independence rather than liberty. Liberty is too often taken as license to damage fellow citizens’ property or kill them. When the masses are taking license I want the independence to effectively object.

Taking the U.S. for example, it seems possible that the land was colonized by the Catholic Church in competition with factional European Protestantism dominated by The Church of England, a reformed Catholic religion. The Christian Churches competed under the doctrine of discovery, ostensibly to benefit God and his son Jesus. Ecclesiastical domination is described in irony by Machiavelli in “The Prince,” and I refer to it as Chapter XI Machiavellianism: https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm. I work (dream) to change this U.S. practice.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proposes 5 public disciplines that do not include religion. When Congress imposed freedom of theism beginning March 4, 1789, they had no authority to do so according to the U.S. Preamble’s 5 public goals to encourage responsible human independence.

The framers and signers had rejected a proposal for daily prayer during the Philadelphia convention and published statutory law that made exclusion of Chapter XI Machiavellianism clear. However, states that ratified the 1787 constitution did so with the stipulation that the First Congress would amend it to include a Bill of Rights. The First Amendment egregiously protects religion, an institution, rather than integrity, a personal and public duty.

Fortunately, Congress did not amend the U.S. Preamble. The perhaps 12 generations since then have neglected the preamble, leaving our generation the privilege of holding U.S. governments---local, state, and national---accountable to whatever-God-is first and We the People of the United States second.

To decolonize the U.S. requires acceptance of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as posterity’s posterity interprets it.

These are my ideas, and anyone who accuses me of plagiarism needs to present the evidence. Also, I am responding to Damien Webb’s creative question that he directed to me. Anyone who would interfere in that communication is welcome to do so at the expense of my participation in this forum.


https://www.quora.com/What-type-of-achievement-provided-you-the-longest-duration-of-happiness?

Choosing to accept that I am a human being has led to deeper human acceptances.


https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-resolve-a-conflict-when-both-sides-are-right?

Could you be asking a hypothetical question without the hypothesis?

What’s your hypothetical?

Here’s one:  A person with a gun threatens a man who seems vulnerable. The apparently vulnerable man says “One more move toward harming me, and you will die.” The aggressor says “OK, I surrender,” and offers the gun, because he or she is convinced of the man’s strength in defense. So the man was right to show his strength and the potential aggressor was right to accept it.

Here’s another:  A devout person says, “My God will defeat your God in battle.” The second devout person responds, “I doubt it, because both your God and my God conform to whatever-God-is. History shows that in war the side with military strength by numbers and strategy dominate.”

For example, the American Civil War was by white-Christian slave-state inhabitants who thought white-Christian slavery abolitionists were evil and attacked them. Both sides prayed to the same Christian God, but imposed their opinion on the God, with no humility toward whatever-God-is. At the time of the attack, the abolitionists could have discussed their military strength (27 states against 7 states) and cited the mutual commitment to the Union of states in perpetuity. Instead, they chose war. Both sides were wrong to count on their arrogance over whatever-God-is and both sides lost.

Please note, Sun Kim: I have applied many of my thoughts from the past to your creative question.


https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-institution-of-marriage-exist?

Marriage, in my view, is an attempt to resolve the dilemma of male heterophobia.

Through physical and psychological nature (derived from the same source according to my view of Albert Einstein’s obscure expressions about human nature), men and women are mutually attracted and have distinct obligations. The man who acts on physical instincts may fear life-time commitment to the woman who tentatively trusts him and un-civically pursue intimacy anyway. He may suffer heterophobia, the fear of the lifetime self-interest of marriage. The authentic man will not threaten a woman’s viable ovum, even if she is willing.

The fertile woman will produce a potential crowd: about 400 viable ova. Grammar and awareness inform most women and many accept that they have responsibilities to both themselves and their viable ova. Thus, a woman maintains her physical and psychological wellbeing with two motives: self-interest and care for her ova. In that regard, she seeks a mate who will trust-in and commit-to monogamy for life with three motives: self-interest, fidelity to his mate, and fidelity to their children and descendants. Yet, when in her judgement she has found an authentic man, she wants intimacy with him. The couple are reminded of monogamy for life through the marriage ceremony.

Unfortunately, traditional marriage ceremonies focus on sanctity, obscuring integrity. Both bride and groom express vows for reasons other than monogamy for life. Other entrepreneurs create worse immoralities, and I will leave them to the imagination.

My response to Lawson Shepherd’s inspiring question is mine and anyone who would question my sincerity or Shepherd’s intentions in selecting me ought to cite grounds for the aggression.


https://www.quora.com/Noam-Chomsky-stated-We-shouldnt-be-looking-for-heroes-we-should-be-looking-for-good-ideas-Is-Noam-Chomsky-correct?

I think so, and Chomsky should not be chastised for expressing an old idea and not documenting the references.

For example, Plato has Socrates asking if whatever-God-is is acclaimed for justice or if appreciation of justice is sufficient? Of course, that’s only my application of Plato’s claim about Socrates after I benefitted from Albert Einstein’s claim that physics with its family of research comes from the same source as justice. (I think that may be the most accurate way I have stated my application of “science” and “ethics” as I think Einstein used them, so far.)

In another example, few modern scholars consider Agathon to have the better argument in Plato’s “Sympoium.” In my application, again, benefitting from Einstein, I assert that Agathon suggested that a civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or human association.

The civic citizen exercises human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) commensurate with the aggression of the other party. Normally, yes/no is sufficient. I owe neither Plato nor Agathon nor Einstein for my application of their ideas, primarily because they are not obligated to my applications of their ideas.

Likewise, I am not obligated to you, Graham Lindsay for you sharing your question nor need I question its sources or prior presentation. Neither am I obligated to allow quora.com to discourage me from responding with my all in this moment to what I view as your worthy, provocative question.

Anyone who wants to stonewall my work is welcome to do so: A closed door is my opportunity to knock elsewhere. (That’s why I dropped out of religious practice, for example.)


Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/the-honesty-of-originalism/

Borrowing words from Stephen L. Carter, honesty is insufficient: what developers of statutory justice need is integrity.

At stake in civic, civil, and legal discipline is acceptance of both 1) words as they are written and 2) the-literal-truth that has been discovered since the words were written. In integrity, the position an uninformed civic citizen takes is “I don’t know” rather than an opinion with no supporting evidence let alone ineluctable evidence.

In a civic culture, questionable opinion is not defended as tradition. Precedence does not trump ineluctable evidence. For example, everyone knows what “God” means, and few accept that the perhaps humble phrase “whatever-God-is” offers integrity more than honesty.


The system said my comment was automatically approved and posted.

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.