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: ” Civic Citizens of the United States continually develop and practice 5
domestic disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and
prosperity---“in order to” encourage responsible human independence to U.S.
youth and posterity.” 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
Each citizen’s interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s
proposition is precious personal property
My interpretation today is: A civic citizen of the United States nurtures and practices 5 public disciplines (integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity) in order to develop and encourage enjoy responsible human independence among fellow citizens.
This interpretation came about because someone who took interest discounted my inclusive interpretation as a myth. I am thrilled with this singular interpretation, because it eliminates another assumption I make when I start with the plural "Civic citizens": that there exists more than one citizen who would promote this interpretation.
It makes no appeal to the reader to join the interpretation. I hope the person who criticized my inclusive interpretation a fantasy accepts my gratitude.
Update on July 5, indicated by strikethroughs, above.
Columns
Scholarship and
proprietary-writing without offering a grounded remedy (George Will) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/most-of-todays-intelligentsia-cannot-think/2020/06/25/987cf0c4-b714-11ea-a8da-693df3d7674a_story.html)
Will should have discovered decades ago the cause of U.S.
ruin so far. The English-American Chapter XI Machiavellianism the First
Congress, 1789-1793, imposed on U.S. citizens by falsely branding the preamble
to the U.S. Constitution a “secular” sentence.
What inhabitants need in 2020 is for most citizens to
consider the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and develop a personal interpretation
so as to order their civic, civil, legal, and spiritual life. Because the
preamble offers no standards for the public disciplines and intentions to
responsible human independence, the human integrity each citizen develops will
determine the nation’s integrity. Posterity’s posterity may approach statutory
justice.
I was put off by Will quoting a Spanish philosopher when he
could have been promoting the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and
the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth as provisions for an achievable
better future.
If a chemical engineer in his late seventies can appreciate
the U.S. Preamble, a contemporary who is a writer for the press should have
acquired his appreciation and promoted it long ago. It’s never too late for
living citizens to engage in civic integrity.
Quora
No and yes. In other words, both happiness and dignity are
uncommon.
Most cultures that humankind has evolved inculcate in their
young the quest to discover a higher power to which each person can consign his
or her opportunity to live a human life. The usual objects are God, government
or the God-government-partnership. No individual, no society, and no government
has the authority to attempt to usurp whatever-God-is, yet many peoples attempt
to consign HIPEA. [Search "phil
beaver"+"civic"+"hipea" on Google Chrome.]
The God-government-partnership is included in Nicolo
Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” Chapter XI. The message is that whenever the
majority of inhabitants believe in their personal God, the elites of the
church-state-partnership live high on the hog and the inhabitants will neither
rebel nor expatriate. England has a constitutional church-state-partnership
with 26 seats in Parliament assigned to Canterbury. The First U.S. Congress,
1789-1793, unconstitutionally established a church-state-partnership by
tradition; some judges would call it “precedent,” imposing Blackstone and
Canturbury to regress the civic, civil, and legal power of the preamble to the
U.S. Constitution. U.S. law should support the U.S. preamble’s proposition, but
does not especially regarding the First Amendment’s religion clauses and SC
opinions like Greece v Galloway (2014).
Practicing integrity is in the individual’s self-interest.
However, the cultures that have evolved advocate ethics, the culture’s
standards for human conduct. The culture itself may lack integrity and
therefore, the citizens lack integrity. Ethics is the journal of discovered
integrity, and no writers for the press accept journalism as a personal
responsibility. In fact, the journalism profession does not profess dedication
to journaling humankind’s path to integrity.
We live in a confused world, and the person who attempts to
conform rather than use his or her HIPEA to develop integrity finds neither
happiness nor dignity. I have written my opinion, since I do not know
the-literal-truth.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Do-social-policies-influence-peoples-value-structures?
Absolutely, for most human beings.
I don’t know a single person who was reared in a culture
with a nest of human acceptances: being human; having HIPEA; being responsible
for mutual, comprehensive safety and security among fellow citizens;
spirituality does not invite infidelity toward whatever-God-is; there’s one
opportunity to develop integrity during life; human error does not terminate
the pursuit of integrity.
With such a progression of personal acceptances, there will
be an achievable better future.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-right-to-procreate-a-human-right-Should-it-be?
No, and no. Too many fellow citizens don’t understand
responsible human independence.
The ovum is a single cell, a gamete needed to conceive a
human being. The spermatozoon is also a single cell gamete. Each ovum and each
spermatozoon is unique, and they can merge to form a single cell without
lessening the uniqueness.
Both the ovum and the spermatozoon deserve the dignity and
equity due a mature human being. This appreciation is delivered by the men and
women who attend to their psychological and physical well-being out of
awareness and self-interest. Each is aware of his or her role in procreation,
and that consideration plays into the self-interest. No one I can imagine
wishes to beget a human being destined to live without appreciation.
Women who are not aware that during their fertile years they
ought to appreciate every ovum they produce and protect it from unwanted
insemination ought not procreate. Men who are not aware that a woman represents
potentially 400 human beings during her fertile years ought not seek intimacy
with a woman. A real man would never threaten the future of any woman and her
viable ovum.
An authentic couple become intimate for bonding, only after
each is convinced that they are mutually committed to monogamy for life. Also,
the couple will make certain any sexual intimacy does not lead to conception
before they are convinced that their mutual appreciation should be shared with
any children they may create. At stake is not only the couple’s future and the
family’s future, but the futures of any grandchildren and their descendants.
No institutional religion I have observed inculcates
humility toward whatever-God-is. However, some individuals who nurture
spiritual pursuits develop sufficient humility even while they take comfort-in
and hold hopes-for a personal God. Exploring whether or not an individual has
or has not humility toward whatever-God-is is neither a civic, nor a civil, nor
a legal prerogative. Therefore, choices about religion do not justifiably enter
the procreation public debate.
However, the principles described above are critical to an
achievable better future. Procreation licensing is essential to the development
of future statutory human justice.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-role-of-ethics-in-development-administration?
Unfortunately ethics represents the standards of a civilization,
culture, or society and is falsely rated above integrity to the-literal-truth.
The standards can be erroneous. For example, in a society
that holds women to be property, a man can ethically offer his woman to another
man for a night of her sexual subjugation.
What humans need is integrity and a journal of the discovery
of justice. The journal that reflects development of the-objective-truth by
continual invention of new instruments of perception so as to approach
the-literal-truth could be considered mankind’s journal of ethics.
The administration that focuses on the discovery of
integrity and journals the path of discovery might have a promising future.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-justice-naturally-in-the-world?
So far, no culture in the world coaches and encourages
responsible human independence to its youth.
A nest of acceptances is required for each person to choose
to behave for equity under statutory justice; in other words, to be a civic
citizen.
The person must accept that he or she is a human being.
Humans are so aware and so psychologically powerful that it takes a quarter
century for him or her to transition from feral infant to young adult with the
comprehension and intention to live a complete human life.
If so, it takes another quarter century of experiences and
observations to accept that developing integrity was in his or her
self-interest. Fortunate is the person who is coached and encouraged to accept
human individual power, individual energy, and individual authority to develop
integrity rather than tolerating infidelity.
The civic citizen accepts that there will always be fellow
citizens who are dissident to justice, and therefore they engage for adulthood
in the provision of republicanism under the rule of law.
These principles come from personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s
preposition. Every U.S. citizen should develop a personal interpretation so as
to order his or her civic, civil, legal, and spiritual living. The proposition
offers an achievable better future wherein posterity’s posterity might develop
human justice.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-call-a-person-who-doesnt-take-responsibility-for-their-actions?
I prefer to think of him or her as a dissident fellow
citizen. In the U.S., he or she has not accepted the U.S. Preamble’s
proposition: practice 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible
human independence.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-attitude-and-values-influence-effective-communication?
Tolerance kills communications.
Assume that all people want to consider, communicate,
collaborate, and connect so as to achieve mutual, comprehensive safety and
security. One group works to master the actual-reality about whatever-God-is
and tolerates fellow citizens who do not join the quest. Another group develops
human equity under statutory justice without questioning whatever-God-is.
These two groups each considers its values to be noble.
Typically, the first group stonewalls the second group and therefore meets
intolerance.
Social responsibility is determined by the society you join.
People often confuse society/association with membership in humankind, which is
not a matter of choice.
It seems to me human individuals choose to develop either
integrity or infidelity and thereby divide themselves into two grand societies
with diverse groups in each.
The faction that chooses to develop integrity tends to
behave for mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that individuals may
pursue the happiness they want in responsible human independence. Civic
citizens develop human equity under statutory justice so as to constrain the
faction that tolerates infidelity.
PC is a social-democracy myth. Civic citizens develop
mutual, comprehensive safety and security, and that requires statutory justice.
No civic citizen would spend money, reputation, or personal
capital to destroy public property, especially, when the driving-opinion, such
as a racial supremacy, is not worthy.
Bleeding Kansas demonstrated how hated the white slavery
abolitionist was in 1856. R. E. Lee’s letter to his wife in December, 1856
demonstrates how misguided his religious beliefs were. The CSA’s declaration of
session demonstrates that their “more erroneous religious beliefs” motivated
them to fire on their own country, the USA.
The U.S. Civil War demonstrated a fundamental human error:
developing the hubris to hold a person God as supreme without reserving
sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is.
The world would be served well by attaching plagues to such
effect on all U.S. monuments to great humans who overlooked humility.
First, civic citizens must consider the prudence of
accepting humility toward whatever-God-is. There will always be citizens with
dissidence toward human justice and some of them have neither integrity nor
humility.
https://www.quora.com/Are-secular-ethics-intended-to-be-interpreted-as-an-objective?
I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics#:~:text=Secular%20ethics%20is%20a%20branch,of%20ethics%20in%20many%20religions
for an idea of your topic, and found, “a branch
of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, empathy, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from belief in supernatural revelation or
guidance.” To me, this is nonsense. Actual-reality yields not to “logic,
empathy, reason or moral intuition” no matter what beliefs are driving the “human
faculties.”
I think “secular ethics” is an oxymoron. I have pondered the
word “secular” for decades and at best view it to mean areligious.
Actual-reality is areligious, so “secular” seems a vain attempt to elevate
religion by bemusing the thinker. A religion may purport to represent a God. If
the religion does not reserve sufficient humility to whatever-God-is, it is
unlikely to persuade humankind.
Religion’s problem is that the human being has the
individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA)
to develop either integrity or infidelity to his or her person. If he or she
chooses integrity, he or she perceives that attempts to consign integrity to
another entity, such as a personal God, are futile. He or she accepts that
whatever-God-is understands infidelity, and therefore, the individual reserves
sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is.
Integrity has as standard actual-reality, and any attempts
to substitute that authority are futile.
I can only speak for my experience and gratitude for the
training I received in school and in the profession. Most
engineers learn to be reliable no matter what they decide to do.
Senior seminar in Chemical Engineering at the University of
Tennessee in 1966 had to do with integrity. Somehow, the experience gave me the
notion that ethics is the journal of the discovery of integrity. I the journal
is erroneous, the engineer is expected to discover and correct the error.
A second idea was that my 5-year cooperative engineering
scholarship program had, in the classroom experience, focused on physics and
its progeny (mathematics, chemistry, and unit operations in chemical
manufacturing) more than human psychology. Therefore, I would help myself by
reading the world’s most important non-fiction books. The AIChE list was
impressive with the promise of developing a renaissance person. The struggle to
live retarded my intentions to read those books, yet the list of titles
influenced my pursuit of self-improvement. Let’s say it opened my mind to Phil
Beaver’s ignorance.
In my 35-year career, I worked in 5 foreign countries and
with individuals from over 40 ethnic backgrounds. In addition to starting each
assignment by reviewing the problem for comprehension then consulting the
chemical engineering literature to understand what had been done before with
similar problems. Then, I listened to my colleagues as I tackled the challenges
and applied my skills. Listening with an open mind is the most important
activity in engineering.
For example, the operations supervisor for a plant to be
expanded answered my questions as to whether there had ever been a reported
incident. He said, “No.” Then, a thought came.
“There may have been a case before my time. The reactor
experienced an overpressure and pressure release, and people smelled the gas in
the ball park.” I envisioned a nearby community park.
I kept taking notes and thinking about next questions on the
list. Then I wondered if “ball park” meant a major league stadium more than two
miles away. That was his meaning.
Six months later, we had done thermal runway reaction
experiments and designed an alternate reactor with more internal cooling and
much more pressure relief. The pressure relief device is described in a U.S.
Patent that has expired.
The public still benefits from the chemical manufacturing
and there is no risk of uncontrolled overpressure. This is only one of many
stories about the benefits of integrity.
I am grateful for the education that integrity is the human power to discover ethics and journal the progress in professional literature. Many so called “professions” don’t teach integrity yet pretend to be ethical. Everybody knows the professions to suspect. See https://news.gallup.com/poll/245597/nurses-again-outpace-professions-honesty-ethics.aspx. I can’t tell how engineers compare with nurses.
It’s a perfect illustration to debunk the profession of social “science,” an obvious hoax, wherein statistics is used to influence public opinion. Survey design and evaluation aid the cause for which a professional falsifier was hired.
Most engineers know that success with statistics requires inclusion of the “red variable” among the yellow ones. In this case, we don’t know if engineers would be red or yellow.
I am surprised by this evidence about the survey’s author.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-is-tolerance-necessary-to-make-a-product?
Religious tolerance is a false opposite of
intolerance. Tolerance a substantially English imposition on the USA.
The U.S., under its purpose, would establish mutual, comprehensive safety and
security rather than tolerance of a dominant society.
In actual-reality, humankind must conform to what-is rather
than what-could-be, in order to survive. For example, perhaps humankind must
conform to whatever-God-is.
It seems self-evident that whatever-God-is assigned to
humankind the responsibility for human independence. In part, humankind must
develop the civic integrity to retain sufficient humility toward
whatever-God-is. In other words, the fellow citizen who nurtures the hubris
that his or her personal God ought to be imposed on the nation’s population may
wonder if he or she rebukes whatever-God-is.
As humankind ponders the unknown and discovers
the-objective-truth, new viewpoints made possible by newly invented instruments
for perception motivates some cultures to doubt discovery. There’s now
ineluctable evidence that the continual improvement of the-objective-truth
empowers humankind to approach if not acquire the-literal-truth. For
example, humankind holds a globe-like model of the earth in orbit to the sun
and rotating on its axis reliable: the
visual perception of a flat earth (unless viewed from a body of water with no
land in sight) is today only evidence of harm when someone takes perception as
reality. Exploration was delayed 1000 years because of the flat-earth paradigm,
and all the while sea-goers “knew” but could not articulate that no one who
sailed into the horizon would “fall off the edge of the earth.”
Western culture has developed on the collection of theories
recorded by John Locke. The Google ngram (relative phrase frequency in books
digitized by Google) for John Locke (d. 1704), Thomas Paine (d. 1809), and Albert
Einstein (d. 1955) has the relative ranges from zero in their respective years
of entry (1775, 1790, and 1915, respectively) to, in 1995, 8.4, 3.4, and 9.0,
respectively. The graph-bands are steady upward to the right except Paine’s,
which has two valleys, with a peaks at 9.5 in 1816 and 8.5 in 1944. Perhaps going
forward Locke is on the decline relative to the other two.
In 1788, representatives of 9 free and independent states of
the 12 who sent delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and of 13
states according to their 1783 Treaty of Paris ratification on January 14, 1784
established the USA as a global nation under the U.S. Preamble and its
citizens’ propostion.
The proposition is abstract, and each living citizen may
interpret it for his or her use to order civic, civil, legal, and spiritual
living. The latter is tacitly specified as private rather than public, and the
other three---civic, civil, and legal issues are public. Broadly, the U.S.
Preamble’s propostion specifies 5 public disciplines in order to encourage
responsible human independence. Being my interpretation, this is my message to
fellow citizens rather than a dream or a mystery.
I am intolerant of the English-American tolerance that holds
that since I disagree with John Locke’s style of tolerance. In fact, I consider
Locke religiously proud and intolerant to whatever-God-is and thus a bad
influence; I admit I could be wrong about Locke’s opinions.
Also, I am intolerant of the notion that Abraham Lincoln had
it right when he spoke the Gettysburg address. The year 1776 marked the
announcement to the world that in 1774 the former British-American colonies had
codified the liberation of Worcester MA by styling themselves as states and
forming a confederation to conduct the war for independence from England.
Nature’s God would defeat England’s Christian Trinity, regardless of
whatever-God-is. (Was France’s military power play a role?) And self-governance
is merely a John Locke fallacy. The U.S. Preamble, an abstract consequence of
the framer’s arguments, negated acceptance of the fallacies the founders,
former loyal British subjects took for granted. The U.S. Preamble proposes
pubic discipline of by and for civic citizens so as to encourage responsible human
independence to living citizens.
Further, I am intolerant of judges and lawyers who attempt
to impose reason or revelation in order to distract U.S. citizens from the
propostion they are offered in the U.S. Preamble: development of statutory
justice under the-objective-truth rather than arbitrary judicial rules. The
most egregious rule I am aware of is “freedom of religion” when what citizens
need is opportunity if not encouragement to develop integrity.
Tolerance is claimed by a speaker who wants other citizens
to submit to the speaker’s opinion. Having experienced this tyranny, I am
intolerant of speakers who ignore civic open-mindedness. Good will requires an open
mind in civic discussion and privacy respecting hopes and
comforts in a personal God or none.
Beware tolerance.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-justice-more-important-than-the-rule-of-law?
Bad laws make injustice systematic. For example, U.S. law
calls for unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials. However, statistics
inform us that with a population that is politically split 50:50, 7:5 majority
verdicts are more likely to render justice than 12:0 verdicts.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered laughable
hypocrisy in voting 6:3 to require Louisiana to retroact 12:0 verdicts for
criminal cases that allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts. See Ramos v. Louisiana
(2020).
Barry Gold:
Jury verdicts should not depend on politics. If they do,
that’s a symptom that the state has a lot of bad laws — laws enacted by a slim
majority without any real “consent of the governed” as listed in the
Declaration of Independence.
And what do you mean that 7:5 verdicts are more likely to
render justice? Justice as you define it? Or just more
likely to occur, with 12:0 verdicts leading to hung juries?
Define your terms. And then let’s discuss which laws are
affected.
Phil Beaver to
Barry Gold:
Let’s start with definitions for your comments. First,
“consent of the governed” is an erroneous John Locke attempt to impose Bible
interpretation on civic, civil, and legal justice; see https://walkernewsdesk.wordpress.com/consent-of-the-governed-john-locke-thomas-jefferson/#:~:text=Consent%20of%20the%20governed%20was,environment%20and%20what%20they%20experience.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution replaces this English
imposition with public disciplines: Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and
Welfare. Thomas Jefferson using Locke’s ideas in the Declaration of
Independence (DoI) is not unlike asking an author of the oppression to eat his
own words. And the DoI’s deist language is not unlike: “whatever-God-is”
is on our side and will help us defeat your God in battle. Turns out France
supplied overwhelming military power and strategy at Yorktown, VA, September
1781, causing Cornwallis to surrender to Rochambeau and Washington. In Paris,
England’s treaty with France was negotiated before England treaty with 13 free
and independent states, former British-American colonies. The 13 states
ratified their global status on January 14, 1784. The purpose of the 5
disciplines in the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is responsible human
independence to living citizens.
I know the preamble says “Liberty.” However, as
the 2020 “ourselves” to the coming generation of “our Posterity,”
we are obliged to discourage the liberty to either initiate or tolerate harm to
or from fellow citizens or their responsible institutions. Also, “responsible
human liberty” seems as contradictory as “consent of the governed,” so I choose
“responsible human independence” to interpret the U.S. Preamble and suggest it
to fellow citizens, including Mr. President, for their consideration. But in
public, I want to recite the original preamble and let fellow citizens mentally
reflect their individual interpretation. Congress should start each session
with unison recitation/reading the U.S. Preamble, with neither prayer nor
pledge as part of the ceremony. Let Congress accept humility before whatever-God-is.
As for non-unanimous juries, perhaps consider a case last
year. A jurist “did not believe” the DNA evidence that the accused was the
rapist. See https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_20754176-e46a-11e9-abd4-07cfcedeaaff.html.
However, the majority jury-view was upheld. With one erroneous jury member,
whether by innocence/ignorance or by bias, the end of a long process of justice
to the accused can be ruined; the intentions and provisions of We the People of
the United States to provide statutory justice (the perfection of
constitutional law) are defeated. Either way, jurist hubris against DNA
evidence is negated when majority verdicts are allowed. With 5 DNA-proud
jurists, a 7:5 rule would still render justice.
The U.S. Supreme Court is an admittedly two-party group of
nine: discerning conservatives versus particular liberals; Republican nominees
vs Democrat choices; traditionalists vs progressives; etc. Their rules make 5:4
decisions law.
However, they have no standards by which to discern justice.
Not only are they considering the U.S. Constitution. Some of them apply
English-law precedents as old as 1215’s Magna Carta to the 1787 framers’
decisions, words, and phrases. At a minimum, the Supreme Court ought to be held
to the proposition that is stated in the U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth
if not the-literal-truth. For example, despite the exorbitant gender-change
business, a human cannot will a sex change. And the government that pretends
the taxpayer consented to pay the bill imposes tyranny.
Scholars who refer to “the founders” are attempting to
impose on the U.S. Preamble erroneous intentions from the past. For example,
the DoI was global announcement of ongoing war with England, whereas the U.S.
Preamble and its supporting articles offers organization and written law to
provide domestic civic, civil, legal, and spiritual order to living citizens in
the USA.
Some of these well-grounded observations would have been
shocking to me two decades ago. The fact that the U.S. would impose unanimous
juries on a state that recognizes the impartiality of majority-jury verdicts
was a shock to me until it happened in 2020. Two decades ago, I was
discovering details like “The Salem Witch Trials” actually being executions; https://www.biography.com/news/salem-witch-trials-facts.
I welcome your interest in this topic and hope to learn more from you. Only an
engaged civic citizenry can provide the statutory human justice that
whatever-God-is seems to have assigned to citizens.
Barry Gold:
I guess it depends on which you think is more important: not
letting guilty people go free, or not convicting innocent people.
The requirement for a unanimous verdict is supposed to make
sure that people really are “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Almost every authority on jury verdicts I can find says some
form of “it is better for ten guilty men to go free than to convict one
innocent man.” And some say a hundred instead of ten.
Phil Beaver to
Barry Gold:
The way Quora composes email notice of your comment
presented this to me:
"Why is justice more important than the
rule of law?"
Your comment begins, “I guess it depends on which you think is
more important: not letting guilty people go free, or not convicting innocent
people.”
When the law is unjust, Civic Citizens of the United States
demand reform for ultimate justice. The problem is that judges and lawyers
enjoy English-American precedents that pick the citizens’ pockets with
immunity.
Of course, in the above quote, you are commenting on
criminal juries deciding guilt. Because the U.S. criminal system is designed as
competition between prosecutor and defense the possibility of ineluctable evidence
being missed or abused is high. Leaving evaluation of DNA evidence up to an
individual juror is tyranny against the entity Civic Citizens of the United
States.
See criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/criminal-trial-overview.html
to grasp the burden of justice and its statistical impossibility (just
verdicts being outliers) under a unanimous jury requirement. Unfortunately, the
legal system thrives on Chapter XI Machiavellianism: when the people believe
they’d want unanimity in the proof of their personal guilt, that belief can be
used to favor organized crime. Quoting Findlaw, “In a criminal trial, a jury
examines the evidence to decide whether, "beyond a reasonable doubt,"
the defendant committed the crime in question.”
My interpretation is not a
dream, and it is that when “evidence” in that sentence means anything beyond
the presentations by the prosecution versus the defense, injustice is invited.
Allowing a jury-member to “disbelieve” DNA evidence empowers rapists.
I mentioned before Ramos v
Louisiana (2020), supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf .
“Justices recognized that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimity.” The
amendment reads,
In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by
law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.
The key word is impartiality,
which is statistically impossible with unanimous jury verdicts.
Supreme Court rules call for resolution of dispute rather
than determination of justice. Justice can ultimately come when a civic citizen
with standing (according to the court) challenges an injustice.
The basis of Ramos v Louisiana tyranny over 1791 U.S.
Amendment VI “impartiality” and 1868 U.S. Amendment XIV.1’s “No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States,” is British-American precedent. In other words, a 6:3 opinion that
imposes English precedent for unanimity rather than U.S. constitutional
impartiality imposes 12:0 criminal verdicts on Louisiana.
The irony is
that in 1967, England reformed to allow 10:2 criminal-jury verdicts in order to
lessen organized crime’s influence on trial outcomes. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/1140839?seq=1.
America is held hostage by judges and lawyers who benefit
from the laws they impose on a Chapter XI Machiavellian population despite
Civic Citizens of the United States.
Based on the ineluctable evidence from world cultures,
neither option works. However, there exists a 232 year-old viable-proposition
for a better future.
Develop your interpretation of the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution, an abstract sentence. Notice that in the 12 generations since the
framers of 1787, the 2020 generation is “ourselves” to the coming generation of
“our Posterity.”
So far, subjecting themselves to Chapter XI
Machiavellianism, most U.S. citizens have not engaged their interpretations of
the U.S. Preamble. The First Congress re-established English-American
partnership of church and state, mimicking by tradition Canterbury’s
constitutional seats in Parliament. Most Americans assume that whatever-God-is
and government will eventually provide civic integrity. Consequently, the 2000
to 2020 generation has lived high in the hog on an increasing $26 trillion national
debt.
Nearing the end of several decades’ study, my interpretation
of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is:
Civic citizens of the United States nurture and practice 5 public
disciplines (integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity) in order to
encourage responsible human independence to living citizens.
I share my interpretation hoping fellow citizens will
suggest improvements in my way of living. I practiced no bad intentions but
will not repeat my errors. Regardless, I accept that developing integrity is in
my self-interest.
The US Constitution never managed to
franchise its entire population in 200+ years of waddling around. As long as
3/4s of the people are essentially slaves or subhuman females, as is legal
formula under the US Constitution, a white, male society of “citizens,” the US
functions just fine. Let even a few of those essential (non-white, non-male)
slaves fail to lock step with the constitutional order, and the economy and
social order break down. It obviously needs refreshment, not to mention the
Bill of Rights, what a mess. I recommend the South African Constitution as a
good place to start revising the 200+ year old US Constitution. I doubt something
as out of step with the times as the US Constitution could survive even 50%
enfranchisement of the citizens. Today, a prison system and a police force
armed with military equipment is the only thing holding the US Constitution
together.
Phil Beaver to Anglyn Hays:
Civic citizens of the United States
nurture and practice 5 public disciplines (integrity, justice, peace, strength,
and prosperity) in order to encourage responsible human independence to living
citizens.
The U.S. Preamble is the greatest
political sentence in the world. It is neutral to religion, race, gender, and
conversion of personal work into wealth. It is in the civic citizens’ genes and
memes. Aliens, both foreign and domestic cannot appreciate it, because they
don’t live it.
I spent a few minutes with Constitution of South Africa - Wikipedia and radically oppose Chapter 2, Bill of Rights. A
government can’t even guarantee the right to life.
What I recommend government focus on is
mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that the civic citizen has the
opportunity to dedicate his or her living to the development of integrity,
first personally and second as an engaged citizen.
The US has never been
“neutral” as far as race goes. Only real ignorance of the past could lead one
to conclude such a thing. The right to life is exactly the issue at work in our
little police brutality problem. These 5 public disciplines don’t exist in US
culture, nor are they taught in US school systems, anywhere. Where does this
fantasy originate?
Phil Beaver to Anglyn Hays:
Both the U.S. Preamble and the articles
signed on September 17, 1787 are neutral to race and gender.
Quoting my first post, “I
share my interpretation [of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition] hoping fellow
citizens will suggest improvements in my way of living.”
I “nurture and practice 5 public disciplines (integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity) in order to encourage responsible
human independence to living citizens.”
In fact, a responsible human being need not be a U.S.
citizen to promote and practice their personal interpretation of the U.S.
Preamble’s proposition. I would delight to read your interpretation by which
you would be willing to order your civic, civil, legal, and spiritual life.
Your interpretation would not be fantasy . . . nor is mine.
Every phrase that expresses that another human being is an object
lessens civic integrity. For example, “my wife” meaning the person who agreed
to monogamy for life with me and any progeny we produce is alright, but “my
wife” meaning a possessed woman is infidelity to the mutual appreciation she
and I deserve and maintain.
I’m not certain how “my child” could express justice. The human
being originates from a unique ovum in a unique woman’s body inseminated by a
unique spermatozoon from a unique man’s body. Nothing that happens from the
conception of a single-cell fetus, to gestation, to delivery, to infant care,
to rearing, to education, and to young adulthood lessens the dignity and
appreciation originally due the unique ovum and the unique spermatozoon. The
inseminated ovum deserves his or her unique opportunity and encouragement to
develop integrity.
Come to think of it, this afternoon, I have an appointment
with the balance therapist assigned to my case. In a few weeks, I’ll see again
the internist who accepted me as a new patient a few years ago.
Perhaps the most egregious phrase I know is “my soul,” as
though an afterdeath entity is a certain actual-reality.
I don’t know. I don’t choose to believe, because I have
learned belief can delay discovery. However, I have pondered the question and
would like to learn of a better book than H.S. Overstreet’s “The Mature Mind,”
1949.
It seems to me humans are born totally ignorant; in kinder
terms, uninformed. There may be some feral instincts, but I’m not certain. For
example, a baby does not emerge from the womb and slap his or her behind to
start the lungs. Also, a baby can’t find a tit and takes a year to learn to
walk, whereas a foal stands within a couple hours and finds a tit in a couple
more hours. Left without “spiritual” imposition on humankind’s year 2020 awareness,
a person might retain enough humility to accept whatever-God-may-be and still
nurture hopes for his or her afterdeath, that vast time after body, mind, and
person stopped functioning. My hope is that I leave one idea that aids an
achievable better future.
I write all the time to encourage every education department
to accept that their first responsibility to children is to coach and encourage
them in a nest of acceptances, which only the human being has the awareness and
grammar to develop. First, accept being human. Second, it takes a human about 3
decades to acquire the comprehension and intention to live a human life. Third,
each human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (HIPEA) to either develop integrity or tolerate infidelity. Fourth,
when a person uses HIPEA for integrity, he or she is likely to accept that a non-civic
citizen resists human equity under statutory justice and ought to be encouraged
to reform. Fifth, the civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or
from a fellow citizen or their responsible institutions. Sixth, the person who
is dissident to these principles yet is a fellow citizen may either reform or
risk subjugation to constitutional law.
This is the first time I completed this catalogue of
acceptances with that 6th statement as it is. Two days ago, I
listened to Mozart’s opera, “Die_Zauberflöte”, and caught Sorastro’s suggestion
respecting revenge/forgiveness, I recall, “He who scorns our noble plan does
not deserve the name of man.” To claim copy-write-censoring demands me to
credit Mozart for my similar yet original thoughts would be a stretch of the
accuser’s knowledge. Yet I am grateful for Mozart’s harsh, direct thought.
The reader who wants to explore my past use of special
phrases can use Google Chrome and search. For example, "phil
beaver"+"acquire the comprehension and intention" yields several
URLs to my work. Similarly, "phil beaver"+"nest of
acceptances" finds several URL’s. One dated 2016, perhaps reflects a
recent update, but I am not certain.
The above ideas were developed during 6 years of biannual
public library meetings. The 2020 meetings are on hold due to the virus. The
purpose is to encourage every U.S. citizen to develop his or her interpretation
of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition so as to order his or her civic, civil,
legal, and spiritual life in integrity according to the-objective-truth if not
the-literal-truth.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-possible-solutions-for-the-challenges-facing-public-administration?
Influenced by the 1789-1793 Congress and those that have
followed, so far, We the People of the United States, the continuum of living
citizens, have toyed with “we, the people” and neglected if not ignored the
U.S. Preamble’s proposition for public discipline so as to encourage
responsible human independence to living citizens.
The U.S. owns an achievable better future if a supermajority
of voters reform to trust-in and commit-to the U.S. Preamble and
the-objective-truth, which often amounts to the acceptance: We don’t know.
Each voter develops his or her interpretation of the
preamble’s proposition so as to order his or her civic, civil, legal, and
spiritual life. The preamble tacitly assigns spirituality to a private pursuit
if at all.
I share my interpretation so I can LISTEN for aid from
fellow citizens to make my life better. Today, it is: Civic citizens of the United States develop
and practice 5 public disciplines (integrity, justice, peace, strength, and
prosperity) in order to encourage responsible human independence to living
citizens.
Neither the preamble nor my interpretation specifies
standards, so I expect posterity to always improve both the physical and the
psychological safety and security so as to approach statutory justice---perfect
constitutional law.
In this process, fellow citizens who are dissident to human
justice are encouraged to reform by example, by exhortation, and if necessary
by constraint or expulsion. Elected or appointed officials who demonstrate that
they are not working to lessen the dissidents to We the People of the United
States, the totality of U.S. citizens in some stage of practicing the preamble
in civic integrity, get fired.
In summary, U.S. administration has an achievable better
future under the U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth instead of the colonial
British-American Chapter XI Machiavellianism America holds dear as tradition.
The essence of Nicolo’s message is: under freedom of religion, the clergy-politician-partnership
lives high on the hog, and the citizens neither rebel nor expatriate, hoping
that whatever-God-is will relieve their misery and losses.
Citizens who accept that responsible human independence has
been assigned to them can live with civic integrity as well as do all they can
for their afterdeaths, that vast time after body, mind, and person stopped
functioning.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-take-ownership-of-your-own-learning?
There are countless ways to apply this principle.
First, if you are taking a class, learn the material completely;
if you don’t comprehend, seek other sources of instruction. Once you comprehend
what’s been taught, consider the teacher’s bias. Learn other sides of the same
story.
If you are in a philosophy class on Socrates, consider it
your once in a lifetime opportunity to establish your opinion as to the
significance of Socrates volunteering to take the hemlock. I think he died to
uphold the rule of law, even when the jury is arrogant to justice. I also think
he died to express humility toward whatever-God-is rather than egocentric
“wisdom.” (Atheism is a leap of faith I cannot take.)
Take for example the British-American colonies self-styling
themselves states and forming a Confederation against England in September,
1774 but celebration of America’s “244th” birthday on July 4, 1776.
The war for liberty from England ended in September, 1781. Since at Yorktown,
VA, France was the dominant military power against England, the treaties were
negotiated in France and the 13 free and independent state’s document is dubbed
the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The Confederation held together until June 21, 1788,
when 9 of the 12 states with delegates attending the 1787 Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia ratified the U.S. Constitution, establishing the
U.S. as a global nation and terminating the Confederation of states. The USA as
a global, national republic is 232 years old.
Furthermore, tomorrow, the earth’s rotation on its axis will
un-hide the sun again. And Santa is a real metaphor for an annual encouragement
to practice good will to everyone.
I am not empathetic to the language of this question.
Therefore, I will answer as I perceive the concern.
At issue are patience, wrong, justice, and I’d like to add
human citizenship.
About 2400 years ago, some humans recorded a thought I
interpret like this: Civic citizens behave
for human equity under statutory justice. About 230 years ago, a nation was
established on the proposition that fellow citizens divide themselves on by
behaving for equity under justice or misbehaving.
Settlement of disputes requires a basis for civic, civil,
and legal behavior, constraints, and adjudication. The reliable behavior is
conformity to physics and its progeny more than to human constructs such as
civilizations.
Physics and its progeny, electro-magnetic fields,
mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination demand humankind’s
conformity. For example, buildings that are not designed for expected
earthquakes will fall sometime. Political plans that are negotiated on lies
fail. Marriage without mutual intentions to monogamy for life usually fails.
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