"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
Lessening the “liberty” license
The quest for liberty expressed in the century from 1689 to 1789 emerged from Western license for bloodletting. By tradition, it constrains the U.S. from establishing psychological independence, even though physical independence was codified for the 13 eastern seaboard states, formerly British-American colonies, in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The bloodletting began mildly with the 1689 English Revolution, expanded with the 1774 British American revolution against England, and became extreme in the 1789 French Revolution.
The U.S. in 1787 proposed public self-discipline of by and for the people so as to establish responsible human independence to its continuum of living citizens.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proposes 5 disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human independence. Responsible human liberty seems as contradictory as “responsible human license”. The U.S. Preamble does not specify standards for either the five disciplines or for independence. However the proposition is constrained by the-literal-truth, which is discoverable by increasingly accurate and precise perception of the-objective-truth. Perhaps posterity’s posterity will discover the limits of statutory human justice.
Humans are uniquely, individually self-powered, self-energized, and self-authorized (HIPEA). Each can choose to employ HIPEA for either integrity or infidelity. Successful politics requires a society that practices human equity to develop statutory justice. Errant fellow citizens are encouraged to reform by amending written law-enforcement when injustice is discovered.
Reform cannot be accomplished by preserving British-American tradition. American originalism starts with the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and no one knows how successful discipline of by and for the citizens who develop We the People of the United States may be.
Columns
The Advocate is too immature to address the root of the problem (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_c2401b30-8892-11ea-b248-3b40f97729fd.html)
The Advocate adolescently tries to saddle law enforcers with conflict that is imposed on them by unconstitutional provisions of the U.S. Constitution as purposed by its preamble. The Advocate ought to encourage deep civic integrity.
On March 4, 1789, Congress, representing 11 of 13 former British colonies, started erroneously legislating in the US. Since then, indolent generations of We the People of the United States devolved to the American republic’s present chaos.
First, Congress overcalled the framers’ balance of power with erroneously unlimited “freedom of the press.” I assert that press responsibility is to encourage and coach fellow citizens to develop the proposition that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble) in order to encourage responsible human independence among living citizens. In this case, The Advocate lamely whines to law enforcers “lock him up” when Congress unconstitutionally constrained the rule of law by adopting the First Amendment’s religion clauses: The U.S. Preamble does not include religion in the 5 public disciplines that encourage responsible human independence.
Second, with the religion clauses, Congress re-instituted by unconstitutional tradition the English, constitutional practice of Chapter XI Machiavellianism---the partnership of church with state that empowers the clergy and politicians to pick the people’s pockets with immunity from widespread rebellion or emigration. The generations since 1787 left it to this generation to establish the practice of the people’s proposition that is offered in the U.S. Preamble. We owe it to “our Posterity” to effect the reform from English tradition to constitutional American republicanism. Under civic integrity, it is every U.S. citizen’s duty to separate 1) hopes for their afterdeath and 2) fidelity to fellow citizens including family. Writers for the press are not exempt from this obligation.
The chaos exists because individuals wait for whatever-God-is or elected officials or the partnership of the two to cause responsible human independence. Experience and observations make it easy for the newborn human to discover that whatever is in control assigned responsible human independence to human individuals. To accept developing one’s person requires discovering that human beings have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to choose either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. HIPEA cannot be consigned.
Accepting human susceptibility to human-to-human sharing of deadly viruses, people who hope for the afterdeath they learned to prefer can also accept responsibility to their loved ones to worship in their closets when everyone knows that organizing to meet in public involves family activities that can effect viral transmission.
As I view it, the U.S. Preamble, using 1787 awareness and expressions, assigns public discipline to the people who want responsible human independence. The Advocate ought to know this or a better interpretation by now. Shame on them if they don’t start digging deeper into civic integrity.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-such-a-thing-as-free-will-in-a-structured-civilized-society-with-legal-codes-and-statutes-Wouldnt-Hegels-philosophy-in-Phenomenology-of-Spirit-contradict-such-a-notion?
To your second question, maybe so, and it’s OK, in my opinion. Western Philosophy, such as Hegels’ book continues to bemuse American philosophical independence. His book "has been praised and blamed for the development of existentialism, communism, fascism, death of God theology, and historicist nihilism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phenomenology_of_Spirit). It seems in opposition to human, personal happiness: perhaps the opportunity to either define or accept whatever-God-is.
Addressing your first question, humankind is, like all species, subject to the evolution of physics and its progeny---including mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and fiction. Only humankind has the awareness and grammar by which to develop personal equity under statutory justice. Civic citizens agree to develop written law-enforcement and continually reform discovered injustices so as to encourage dissidents to reform and thereby approach perfection: statutory justice.
This work is necessary because human beings have the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. The culture that encourages citizens to develop integrity accepts that some humans choose infidelity: infidels are nonetheless fellow citizens and are encouraged to reform. I know of no such culture.
However, acceptance and practice of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition by at least 2/3 of citizens according to their sincere interpretations offers an achievable better future by which such as culture might develop. The keys are that living citizens 1) consider the U.S. Preamble, discover its proposition voluntarily, and hold governments accountable and 2) the proposition offers no standards by which the practice may be judged. Tacitly, it posits that posterity’s posterity develops statutory justice.
Every citizen should own his or her personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and use it to order his or her civic, civil, and legal life, keeping spiritual pursuits private. I share my updated interpretation so that fellow citizens may offer improvements. My interpretation now is: We the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines----integrity, justice, peach, strength, and prosperity---so as to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. My interpretation, like the original U.S. Preamble, does not invoke God, because God is a private rather than civic, civil, or legal pursuit.
What matters to a human society such as We the People of the United States (as proposed in the U.S. Preamble) is development of statutory justice in human equity. What happens after each citizen’s body, mind, and person have stopped functioning is not the society’s interest. Unfortunately, past citizens have not established We the People of the United States. That’s a benefit to our generation, because we own the opportunity to encourage responsible human independence.
Ms. Barna, as you may imagine, I appreciate your creative questions in their combination and quora.com’s system that allowed you to direct the question to me. Every word in my response I wrote just now (excluding the URL and quote), yet I used phrases I have used many times before. For example, just now on Google Chrome I found 1060 results with the search “5 public disciplines”.
https://www.quora.com/Which-one-is-better-equality-or-inequality?
Is each human being unique? If so, no two persons are equal.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-minimum-number-of-people-required-to-participate-in-the-political-process-for-democracy-to-succeed?
There is no such system, because some humans use their individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to negotiate an agreement they intend to break as soon as they think they can get away with it. In other words, they use their HIPEA to develop infidelity rather than integrity.
We know from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#Survivors_and_eyewitnesses that revolutionary agreement is not 100% successful. Social democracy produces chaos. I think it’s easy to see that democracy is not a viable political process.
What’s required is a citizens’ agreement to practice the public disciplines that encourage responsible human independence. In other words, a society that maintains human equity under written law-enforcement while approaching statutory justice. The society of people who accept the agreement encourage dissidents by example, by exhortation, by coercion, by constraint, and by expulsion.
In the U.S., the people’s proposition for public discipline in order to encourage responsible human independence to living and future citizens is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution for each citizen to consider, interpret, and either practice or invite encouragement to reform.
https://www.quora.com/Are-we-living-in-an-ideal-world-or-aiming-for-it?
The world is what it is. Humankind works to understand and take and encourage the self-discipline required for responsible human independence.
Since ancient Greek culture, we have had the suggestion that humans may develop individual equity under statutory justice.
The U.S. constitutional convention’s Committee of Style proposed, in my interpretation for 2020, 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. Past generations (about 12) left our generation the opportunity to practice the U.S. Preamble’s proposition in our self-interest and for our descendants among the coming generation.
When 2/3 of U.S. citizens personally work to establish their individual interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as a means of ordering civic, civil, and legal living, while privately pursuing the afterdeath he or she wants, there will emerge an achievable better future.
However, statutory justice is a perfection that can only be approached, because evolution unfolds reality faster than humans discover the ineluctable evidence for the-literal-truth.
I hope my answer, Mr. Ireland, shows how much I appreciate both your creative question and http://quora.com’s system that allowed you to direct it to me.
My answer is original and uses phrases I have used before. For example, just now on Google Chrome I received 229 results with the search: "beaver"+"equity"+"statutory justice".
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-can-we-do-to-truly-make-people-feel-equal-It-breaks-my-heart-to-think-that-there-are-people-who-truly-believe-that-they-are-fundementally-unequal-There-has-to-be-something-I-can-do?
Thank you, Mr. Melancon, for a creative question and thanks to quora.com for enabling you to direct it to me. (Also, some Melancon’s near Baton Rouge, Louisiana are dear to my family.)
We can do the work to comprehend the discovered if not fully perceived ineluctable evidence for the-literal-truth.
For example, the psychologically mature human being started as a unique ovum in a unique woman’s womb and his or her individuality did not lessen at any point in the unlikely journey through life. To talk about human equality among the unique seems fruitless.
We can hope for the promises of our personal God while appreciating and reserving a little humility for whatever-God-is.
We can practice and advocate human equity under statutory justice. That is, the rule of continually improved written law-enforcement.
We can create or support a civic, civil, and legal agreement for the society we want. The proposal in the U.S. is stated in the U.S. Preamble, which each citizen may and ought-to interpret for his or her civic, civil, and legal life, leaving hopes for afterdeath as a private matter or none. The U.S. Preamble is a proposal for self-discipline of by and for the people so as to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens.
I think this action or better by 2/3 of U.S. citizens would facilitate an achievable better future.
While this response to you, Mr. Melancon, is original, it employs phrase I have used before. For example, just now I found 179 results on Google Chrome using the search: Phil Beaver "ineluctable evidence".
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-in-the-government-What-do-the-people-actually-control?
Yes, I believe in government, which is civic, civil, and legal leadership.
Specifically, I believe in representative legislation, administration, and judgement of civic, civil, and legal public discipline under the-literal-truth for the continuum of living citizens.
Regardless, each human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. Those who develop infidelity remain fellow citizens but need to comprehend the self-interest of integrity. Government should encourage integrity rather than infidelity by promoting self-discipline of by and for the people.
Ms. Tuttle, I appreciate your creative question, your decision to ask me, and quora.com for facilitating the dialogue. My response is original, written just now, even though some of the phrases I have used before. For example, just now the Google Chrome search Phil Beaver "civic integrity" received about 477 URLs. Thank you for motivating me to think.
https://www.quora.com/Which-would-you-choose-to-live-in-individual-oriented-society-or-group-oriented-society-if-you-have-to-choose-either-one?
I want to live in one and only one society I am aware of: the society whose individuals pursue human equity under statutory justice. Statutory justice is perfect written law-enforcement, which is the worthy human goal. Equity admits that every human ovum is unique, and as physics and its progeny have it, few ova are conceived and mature to psychological adulthood. Dissident fellow citizens and inhabitants are civically, civilly, and legally encouraged to reform by example, by exhortation, by coercion, by force, and by expulsion.
The basic principle is human equity under statutory justice, and my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble expresses a similar purpose as responsible human independence. I substitute “independence” for “liberty” because of liberty’s history of controversial bloodletting. The worst case I know of is “Bleeding Kansas” expanding unto the Civil War. Slave-state inhabitants thought slave-abolitionists were influence by a more erroneous religious opinion (see the Declaration of Session) and therefore attacked their country, the USA.
My brief interpretation of the U.S. Preamble this morning is: We the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens. I write to improve my interpretation and would appreciate yours, Akihiro Omichi and others. If the society of We the People of the United States exists, it an unfortunately small faction of citizens. I speculate that 2/3 of inhabitants should own an interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and use it to order their civic, civil, and legal lives, pursuing religion only if it helps them in civic integrity. There may be a better political proposition but I have not read it.
Thank you for directing your creative question to me. What’s your preference?
Also, please note that this morning’s writing is original. But it uses ideas I have written or spoken before in many times and places. For example, this Google search on Chrome this morning produced four URLs and a photo of my wife and me: Phil Beaver "2/3 of inhabitants". Please pick a phrase that interests you and try a search.
I appreciate quora.com for providing you, Omichi, and me an opportunity to freely dialogue for a better future.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-do-you-think-society-would-be-like-if-it-used-only-informal-sanctions-to-enforce-norms?
Mr. Morgan, your question is motivating, and let it be known that you introduced me to “informal sanctions.” Thank you. My first thought is that society would be as it is now---in chaos.
One first must address the question: what is society? That’s perhaps the first uncertainty. I think society is that faction of humankind that behaves to develop personal equity with statutory justice. “Equity” begins with the human ovum, which has minuscule chance to become a mature human being. To become a human being, the newborn must at some point accept being human and develop his or her person. “Statutory justice” is the perfection of written law, which can only be approached by the faction of people who intend human justice. “Human justice,” in self-interest, admits to not knowing whatever-God-is.
On first encounter, “informal sanctions” seems another express of tolerance. Erroneous “tolerance” is the unfortunate opposite of intolerance, an excellent practice. Practicing tolerance, a person assumes the higher opinion and placates the other party until he or she matures into agreement. It’s a form of hubris that isolates the tolerant person such that examination of ineluctable evidence is simply avoided. For example, the student may perceive in the Holy Bible evidence of whatever-God-is, yet cannot collect the ineluctable evidence for whatever-God-is. At least, I could not.
I think society needs “to 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 am quoting my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, which defines a U.S. society that never developed: We the People of the United States. My interpretation is continually improved and maintained on my blog. I want to improve my statement of public discipline by listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the society We the People of the United States.
As far as I know, this exchange, inspired by your question, establishes legal defense of your intellectual property and my response including the quotation of my continually improving ideas. Anyone who would question our dialogue would need to reference this digital document and its written text.
Returning to your question, in the middle of my eight decade, I cannot recall one human connection from which I benefited from the other party’s tolerance. The human being is so powerful he or she uses his or her individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to pursue the happiness he or she perceives until ineluctable evidence causes reform for self-interest. For example, integrity seems better than infidelity. The fellow citizen who does not present ineluctable evidence cannot express reform opportunity to a fellow citizen. Convincing expression is clear, concise, reliable, and appreciates the listener’s person.
I write to learn and hope you, Mr. Morgan, and perhaps other fellow citizens will comment on my post.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-human-rights-from-1789-and-1949?
Apparently, quora.com sent this message to me. There is no copyright in the question, which inspired my answer in words and phrases I am accustomed to. There is no burden on me to produce the records of my usage since I did not copyright then, either. In other words, my prior posts are public information.
As to the question, there are three entities involved in assessing rights: human integrity, laws (whether statutory and just or not), and desires. I will address only the first.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-literal-truth or infidelity. The opportunity to choose integrity is a human right that can be neither denied nor consigned.
I think my opinion held from the beginning until 1789, through 1949, and will hold tomorrow.
Anyone who wants can ignore my posts, just as I can ignore questions posted. Also, the managers can reject my participation. However, I think humankind needs free expression.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/why-i-am-not-an-originalist/
It seems to me both sides ignore what is made plain to fellow citizens. First, each is desperate for arbitrary power and one would suggest secession (again). Second, one side would use the lame “We the People” to suggest modernity and the other would use “benefits” not as taking advantage of integrity but to empower whatever-God-is---whether it be “Almighty God” (First Virginia Charter, 1606) or “Nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence, 1776) or “more erroneous religious beliefs” (Declaration of Secession, 1860). Experience and observations make it plain that statutory human justice is the responsibility, in the US, of We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). Civic people pursue equity under civic integrity.
As I interpret the U.S. Preamble, here’s a blatant falsehood: “The American Constitution, a fascist constitution, it’s all the same to an originalist.” The originalist makes his or her case, and it’s up to We the People of the United States to discover and codify responsible human independence, appreciating the originalist as a fellow citizen. Not every fellow citizen wants to be of We the People of the United States.
“. . . the rule of law means that it can’t be all politics. Instead, we must seek some neutral ground between a false originalism that at its core is politically right-wing and the left-liberalism of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.” That middle ground is statutory justice based on the-literal-truth that is continually pursued by “ourselves and our Posterity.”
Statutory justice is perfect constitutional law, which is not attainable. Yet posterity’s posterity will approach statutory justice if our generation will establish a civic, civil, and legal culture under the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition.
I got the message, “Your comment has been automatically approved and posted.” So far, I have not seen it.
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/markets-populism-and-a-fading-american-dream/
“But it is failure to deal with political problems like cronyism that create opportunities for people pushing measures like industrial policy which only accentuate crony behavior.”
I can’t imagine a more creative hint that only one society---We the People of the United States--- can hold government accountable, for example, to constrain/prevent crony behavior.
“If you want to persuade Americans about the economic and political case for economic liberty, the message of “universal-peace-and-love-through-free-trade” . . . which often prevails in free market circles is precisely the wrong language to use.”
“Economic liberty” seems too much like license for un-civically taking. Adding “responsible” only clouds crony license. I suggest “responsible economic independence.” Thereby, a citizen can earn his or her lifestyle, commit to monogamy for life, appreciate his or her children as persons, and accumulate wealth (save and invest) for retirement while maintaining civic integrity.
Americans may free themselves from the chains of “liberty.” Liberty was an object of the English Revolution of 1689, the American Revolution of 1774, and the French Revolution of 1789, all drawing blood. However, the 1787 proposal to terminate the confederation of 1784’s 13 free and independent states, formerly British-American colonies, would establish the world’s first global nation predicated on public discipline of by and for the people, no blood needed.
The 5 public disciplines and individual purpose are stated in the preamble. In my interpretation: We the People of the United States maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to secure responsible human independence to living and future citizens.
“. . . if more expansive arguments of this nature are not made and further supplemented with deep normative content, I have no doubt that market liberals will lose their case in the court of public opinion, whatever the facts.”
A deep subtlety in the U.S. Preamble is that it contains no normative suggestions. It tacitly leaves it to posterity’s posterity to determine how well We the People of the United States ultimately develops the 5 disciplines for responsible human independence. It seems self-evident that whatever-God-is assigns the 5 disciplines and the purpose to the society of civic citizens, and their social decisions are based on the ineluctable evidence they work to discover.
Deep appreciation for the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as each citizen interprets it for himself or herself promises an achievable better future, and it can be accelerated by widespread sharing. I write to improve my interpretation by listening to fellow citizens.
Note to the owners: My comments, upon submittal, have recently received the message ““Your comment has been automatically approved and posted.” However, so far, I cannot read my posts, except on my blog.
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