Voluntary Civic People of Baton Rouge

Saturday, November 16, 2019

I'll retire my “Eddie Rispone for governor” sign

I agree with Sammonds and consider Prejean a dissident to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

Each citizen may choose to maintain human equity by behaving to develop statutory justice. U.S. citizens are offered, in the U.S. Preamble, the proposition to publically aid integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. Religion, not included in the U.S. Preamble’s goals, is relegated to individual privacy rather than civic, civil, or legal standing.

Citizens who accept the U.S. Preamble’s proposition also accept the responsibility to constrain dissidents. Some fellow citizens live here but want no civic responsibility. The U.S. citizen who grants life to a fellow citizen who committed aggravated murder breaches the civic, civil, and legal proposition in the culture he or she enjoys.

That’s my opinion. I write hoping to learn and perhaps approach the-literal-truth.

To Michael Norris:

Your opinion seems religious to me.

The clergy inculcate limited concepts that may influence people to eternally work to prove the religious doctrine. For example, “human life begins at conception” bemuses the woman’s obligations to her viable ova and the man’s obligations to his spermatozoa. However, the human resources to save threatened children, threatened conceptions, or threatened ova exponentially increase, respectively.

Ultimatums without the necessary resources seems like tyranny to me.

To JR. Madden:

JR, you cite anecdotal triumph in continual improvement of law enforcement. We the People of the United States pay the bills for continual improvement.

There remains a need for statutory justice that encourages responsible human liberty, and the death sentence is essential to that civic duty.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-kinship-provide-the-main-structure-of-social-action-in-many-noncommercial-societies?

While I don’t think of the genealogical family as a “noncommercial society,” I answer to appreciate the civic family.

The members of the living family may communicate, collaborate, and connect to establish and maintain integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage responsible human liberty to themselves and to the possible parent’s grandchildren (future married-children’s children).

In a civic culture, the parent’s grandchildren possibly have kinship through eight grandparents---may be kin to eight living families.

https://www.quora.com/In-which-way-will-political-correctness-do-harm-to-the-US-society?

“Political correctness” does harm by bemusing the people with new expression of an ancient debate: civic integrity as prevention of church-state partnership.

Consider religion, the practice: assuming that a heartfelt concern derives from the-literal-truth, developing a doctrine to support the assumption, and practicing the doctrine regardless of the-objective-truth---the ineluctable evidence that (with gradually better instruments of perception) asymptotically approaches the-literal-truth. Religion is like chasing an oasis and refusing to accept the evidence that it is merely a mirage.

Consider theism, the branch of religion that develops belief in the mystery of whatever-God-is. So far, discovery of the laws that control existence has not disproven a designing intelligence often referred to as “God.” The branches of theism are so numerous none is expected to dominate the world, yet having the correct beliefs is essential in some locations.

When I was a child, my community judged behavior on “the Christian thing to do” rather than human integrity. The Google Ngram shows that use of that political phrase has not peaked as of 2007. Its frequency is dwarfed by “chosen people,” which is doubled with “infidel.” Frequencies for “fidelity” and “integrity” are 3 times and 10 times higher, respectively.

For responsible human liberty, individuals acknowledge integrity and need integrity but many are bemused by voluntary fidelity to a doctrine. In a culture that fosters integrity, religion is reserved to private hope so as to encourage civic integrity.

It seems no known culture encourages the individual citizen to develop integrity. In fact, few people realize that integrity is a practice: pursuing the-literal-truth. Political justice is founded on the-literal-truth.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-justice-and-retribution?

It’s practical to start with selections from a dictionary, and I prefer Merriam-Webster online. Justice means “the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” Retribution referred readers to recompense “to give something to by way of compensation (as for a service rendered or damage incurred).” It seems retribution is the consequence of either a agreement or an injustice.

My opinions on this question can best be developed on the question of religion’s harm---initiation, toleration, and possible responsible human liberty.

It seems religion was common in recorded history, as evidenced by ancient cave-art and recorded in the Code of Hammurabi. The Greeks practiced religion but expressed two pivotal ideas I interpret as follows. First, humans may develop equity under statutory justice, a perfection that can be approached by discovering and correcting injustices in statutory law. Second, the just citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or society. The jury wrongfully convicted Socrates of religious harm, and Socrates accepted punishment so as to uphold statutory law and perhaps to establish the case for correction of the injustice---in other words, make the case for statutory justice.

The English colonies in America rejected the Canterbury-Parliament partnership that is constitutional in England. However, American church-state partnership has been preserved by tradition, perhaps to pose Congress in “divinity” on par with Parliament.

Fortuitously, the U.S. Constitution has a political-power purpose that is stated in the U.S. Preamble: majority public discipline. Each citizen may consider the U.S. Preamble and reject its proposition, but does so at individual risk. And rightly so, because it is a proposition for individual civic discipline: responsible human liberty.

My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble for today is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to maintain 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to practice and encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. The U.S. Preamble does not specify the standard by which compliance is measured. Therefore, discipline under the-literal-truth may be approached under the U.S. Preamble.

The-literal-truth exists, and humans have the awareness and grammar with which to discover actual reality. Human power to discover researches the-objective-truth. It improves with new methods of perception, such as increasingly powerful telescopes and microscopes. Psychological power increases with more definitive language and elimination of false assumptions/perceptions. For example, the sun does not come up in the morning. The U.S. is not “our democracy,” but a representative republic under the rule of law that increasingly satisfies the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

The 5-person Committee of Style created the U.S. Preamble’s proposition early in the month of September, 1787. Representatives of 9 of 13 states ratified it on June 21, 1788, when the USA was established as a global nation of civic people (We the People of the United States). Two more states joined before operations began on March 4, 1789. The first Congress, 1789-1793, established the American church-state partnership that evolved from Protestantism in 1791 to Judeo-Christianity in 2019. Perhaps We the People of the United States is in the process of accepting religion as a private hope rather than a public imposition.

When most of We the People of the United States accept that the US Preamble’s proposition for equity under statutory justice assigns religion to privacy rather than as a public discipline, none of the living people will want retribution for past injustices imposed by religion: the continuum of living citizens will celebrate responsible human liberty.

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.

Saturday, November 9, 2019

The Advocate’s abuse of the race card

1) Each person may develop human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA).

2) Each person may choose to use his or her HIPEA to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-literal-truth.

3) While the-literal-truth is often unknown, its discovery is available through the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence.

4) Each person may aid the development of human equity under statutory law.

In the U.S., fellow citizens are offered the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, as I interpret it for my civic guidance: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage living people to practice responsible human liberty.

I write this, a proposal for an achievable better future so as to learn improvements from the individuals who may practice the ultimate civic culture made possible because the U.S. Preamble did not specify the standards for achievement. Nor do I demand norms, beyond suggesting acceptance of the-literal-truth, unknown as it often is.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-can-sociology-benefit-democratic-societies?

MW online’s definition of sociology is “the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships specifically : the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings.”

So far, social science has taken the erroneous path of pretending that statistics is reliable rather than corruptible and designing subjective polls from selected groups of people to systemize studies. The consequence is chaos.

The remedy may be for sociology to change their intentions from 1) manipulating public opinion to 2) discovering the-literal-truth and encouraging most people to aid the pursuit of its ineluctable evidence. There are at least two fundamental principles to such a study.

First, each person may or may not develop his or her human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to practice integrity to the-literal-truth rather than drift into infidelity. While the-literal-truth is often unknown, the individual may avoid mistakes by behaving according to the-objective-truth when it is necessary to act and otherwise rely on accepting “I do not know what I do not know.” The-objective-truth ultimately approaches the-literal-truth because humankind gradually discovers and eliminates erroneous comprehension and consequential practices. For example, it is well known that integrity involves not lying, so as to lessen human misery and loss.

Application of this principle is not obvious. For example, if a liar approaches the President with a lie designed to learn the President’s intentions, only an astute response will distract the professional liar so as to fix him or her on an alternate line of discussion.

At least 2/3 of practitioners in each human endeavor should pursue the-literal-truth. Presently, it seems sociology has a business plan directed toward advising the media business plans for maximum revenues in both camps. To reform, sociology could re-direct itself toward discovery-of and encouragement-to-pursue the-literal-truth in all human communication, collaboration, and connection.

The media may live and die on their business plans.

https://www.quora.com/Which-political-thinker-or-theory-provides-the-most-plausible-framework-for-reconciling-individual-liberty-with-social-justice?

The U.S. Preamble literally offers an achievable public discipline that encourages responsible human liberty to both individuals and the voluntary collective, We the People of the United States.

Each human has the opportunity to consider, comprehend, and practice his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition to fellow citizens, even though the public discipline is for the nation of people. Uniquely, the U.S. Preamble leaves standards for performance to the individuals who practice responsible human liberty and dissident fellow citizens who reform.

Following the colonial-British norm, the First Congress ignored the U.S. Preamble (1787) to establish the British tradition of church-state partnership. Perhaps the 1789-1793 congressional majority was motivated to feel divine on par with Parliament, with its fixed number of Canterbury designees. Regardless of why, the 1791 First Amendment protects religion, an institutional business, instead of integrity, a responsible human acceptance. We the People of the United States must amend the first amendment so as to protect human integrity.

The U.S. Preamble interpretation that orders my civic life is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid 5 civic disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare,” respectively)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. Because the standards for performance are not restricted, no one can imagine how and when We the People of the United States will begin to approach statutory justice; that is, justice according to the-literal-truth.

Thus, the citizens who trust-in and commit-to their personal interpretations of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition make plausible “individual liberty with social justice.” Dissident fellow citizens are encouraged to reform by example more than by exhortation or law enforcement.

The world’s first majority citizenship that establishes the proposition may not be We the People of the United States, but I think the USA has the leading opportunity. For example, I do not think England could imagine public acceptance of the-literal-truth and faith in responsible human liberty.

https://www.quora.com/How-are-social-moral-standards-set-in-a-given-society?

Of course, I do not know. However, I think it is a matter of appreciation and acceptance by most, at least 2/3, of the members of the society.

The foremost society is the humans who accept responsible liberty. A couple Greek thinkers suggested 1) humans may pursue equity as statutory justice and 2) the civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from anyone. These two principles are implied in the U.S. Preamble.

It proposes that civic citizens aid 5 public provisions (Union, Justice, Tranquility, defence, and Welfare) in order to accept responsible human liberty. In other words, 5 collective disciplines empower individuals to responsibly pursue personal happiness.

Adding the U.S. Preamble’s proposition better than my interpretation to the two Greek suggestions, we have standards on which statutory justice may be pursued by most citizens. There is historical evidence that 2/3 of citizens are candidates for appreciation and acceptance of these principles.

Civic integrity can be established only by the people. In the civic culture, 2/3 of members of chosen societies must aid the public disciplines that encourage responsible human liberty. Each individual develops his or her standards for the disciplines for responsible human liberty, so the ultimate good of the U.S. Preamble is unforeseeable.

Merely by spreading this message, the USA, through the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is a candidate for establishing an achievable better future.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-equality-in-society?

I do not understand “society” so will answer respecting humankind, an evolutionary species with its leading psychologically-capable branch: the human being.

Each human person may accept the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to the-literal-truth, much of which is unknown. Thus, while we know that the earth is like a globe rather than a plane, we know not what it will be like tomorrow.

At any moment, we may consider the-literal-truth by accepting the-objective-truth; the ineluctable evidence we are able to perceive with the latest instruments. For example, while microscopes empower “seeing” atoms, radiation enables observing subatomic-particle traces.

Each human has the choice to pursue and benefit from the-objective-truth as the path to the-literal-truth or not. In other words, he or she may accept HIPEA and either pursue integrity to the-literal-truth or rely on individual reason to decide his or her behavior.

Human equality seems the opportunity to choose two acceptances: HIPEA (human individual power, energy, and authority), equitable as it may be, and the-literal-truth, unknown as it may be.

On the combined choice, humans diversify. Civic humans do not lie so as to lessen both individual and collective loss and misery. Equitable societies and associations encourage members to practice civic humanity.

https://www.quora.com/Should-aliens-or-even-illegal-aliens-be-allowed-to-vote-in-any-elections?

Fellow citizens who neither trust-in nor commit-to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition should be allowed to vote.

About 2400 years ago, Greek thinkers suggested, in my interpretation, 1) someone who wants human equity aids statutory justice and 2) the appreciative human neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person.

The person who does not accept and practice these two principles may anticipate neither equity nor security.

The U.S. Preamble offers fellow citizens a civic, civil, and legal agreement they may consider or not, trust-in and commit-to for civic order or not, interpret to order their individual civic life or not. Whether by neglect or by intention, the fellow citizen who ignores the U.S. preamble’s proposition risks lawful constraint if harm he or she caused is discovered.

My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is critical to my way of living and no other: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare,” in order to accept the benefits of responsible human liberty to living citizens.

Aliens to responsible human liberty ought not be allowed to vote.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-really-that-bad-if-you-do-not-want-to-contribute-to-society-in-any-way?

About 2400 years ago, Greek thinkers suggested, in my opinion, 1) someone who wants human equity aids statutory justice and 2) the appreciative human neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person.

The person who does not accept and practice these two principles may anticipate neither equity nor security.

There is more, but that is a start.

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/11/16/aristotle-and-the-seriousness-of-politics from January 2019

To Maximus:

Taking the hubris to think “this man” is me, I reject symbols of force.

The U.S. Preamble offers fellow citizens a civic, civil, and legal agreement they may consider or not, trust-in and commit-to for civic order or not, interpret to order their individual civic life or not. Whether by neglect or by intention, the fellow citizen who ignores the U.S. preamble’s proposition risks lawful constraint if harm he or she caused is discovered.

My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is critical to my way of living and no other: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare,” in order to accept the benefits of responsible human liberty to living citizens.

I speak, write, and meet to present my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble so as to learn from fellow citizens how to improve the interpretation and my civic behavior.

Fellow citizen

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_dede8994-ef8a-11e9-bd67-e3f6530f32bd.html

“. . . when she asked an elder in that church why they felt such hatred, she was told that they were expressing love.”

Michael Jinkins may have never encountered John 15:18-23, especially V. 23. It’s the Apostle’s John’s hate message to “God’s people” who are not elected by whatever-God-is. That is, all but the ones who believe the Jesus that the Catholic Church canonized in 405 AD to express their particular mystery of whatever-God-is.

I’d be interested in Jinkins’ and other fellow citizens’ opinions about that passage.

To JT McQuitty:

It’s a matter of personal awareness. In about my 13th year of weekly worship in both my Baptist Church and my family's Catholic Church and supporting our three children's catechism, I recognized that the parishioners’ words in the liturgy of the mass may inculcate, especially with transubstantiation, that only Catholics benefit from the mystery of whatever-God-is. The Baptist distinction seems to be choosing baptism by emersion.

I was concerned about “God’s people” (http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/) and asked the children to attend Baptist Sunday School and Church with me until they felt they understood the two practices and wanted to choose for themselves.

There were a few observations. Some of the Baptists were public-school classmates, but could not get over the belief that my children were Catholics. When the Lord’s Supper was served in Remembrance, my children asked if they should participate, and I erroneously said yes, “If you feel you should, as usual.” I had to take that back when I read that some Baptist opinion would hold me in contempt. The experience increased my commitment to not go to communion with my family. The last straw came when a Baptist erroneously claimed that Confirmation is not a sacrament, meaning my children would burn in hell because they had not been baptized by adolescent/adult emersion instead of sprinkling in infancy followed by adolescent affirmation.

One Sunday, my children asked for a family meeting at the kitchen table. Stephen was the spokesperson, and he said, “Dad, we have decided not to attend Sunday school. We are Catholics.”

They were surprised when I said, “OK. Thank you for your time and consideration.” Not long after that, I accepted my trust-in and commitment-to the-literal-truth, which humankind may approach by accepting the-objective-truth---the ineluctable evidence by which truth may be measured.

I am eternally grateful for my Louisiana-French-Catholic wife’s confident-serenity and our children’s confidence and for helping me discover my person. I am also grateful to my Baptist mom and dad, who somehow encouraged my sincerity toward the-literal-truth, often unknown yet discoverable as it may be.

To Citizens United For Good Morals Commands and love [John 15:10] are not that difficult for me. But hate, as in John 12:25, is what turns me against the thinkers who canonized the NT in 405 AD. I don't trust their work.

And John is not alone in alienating me. I cannot brook Luke 14:26, whether from an ancient medicine man or from interpretation as "desperate love" by a modern apologist.

To Citizens United For Good Morals, again. I disagree. Only Jesus can define a Christian, and no two Christians have the same explanation for the mystery of whatever-God-is.

My children did not agree with my Baptist peers that my children are going to burn in hell because they never did submit to baptism by emersion.

I agree with my children and accept that Jesus agrees with our family and not the Baptists who think as they do. My Louisiana-French-Catholic wife, in her faith, taught me to accept serene confidence in the-literal-truth, whatever it is.

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.

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Evidence says 4% to over 50% of Cadets stain West Point---not all veterans are affected

Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.

"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: “Willing citizens collaborate, communicate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions—integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living people.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equity in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.

Selected theme from this week

The Advocate seems honestly willing to fail integrity by not Googling the facts about Governor John Bel Edwards’ personal abuses against the people of Louisiana. Read my points below and vote Rispone for governor.

News

Writers for the press ought to be journaling the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (Will Sentell) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_ed458dfc-fcd7-11e9-8aca-af3180b3fdf4.html)

Edwards said, “I . . . defy you to find any bill that has passed the Legislature that I have signed into law that actually benefits trial lawyers since I have been governor.”

I cite 2018 Louisiana Constitutional Amendment 2, an unconstitutional authorization by the Louisiana Legislature that was supported by trial lawyers and enacted by John Bel Edwards. The lawyers and judges involved knew that 2/3 votes could not be obtained in the Legislature, but 50% plus one vote was possible with the voters, especially when lobbyists imposed on voters the perception that they were voting for unanimous juries when they were unbelievably accused of crime rather than the possible victim of crime. The deception is statistically harmful to black victims of black criminals.

The trial lawyer and criminal-judge costs that bill imposed on the people of Louisiana were well known at the time. The fact that unanimous juries favor criminals competing with their victims and We the People of the United States, a civic entity, was well known at the time. England, the source of unanimous British juries against colonial-British-Americans, terminated the practice in 1967 to lessen organized crime’s influence on jury trials.

Louisiana’s legal compliance with U.S. Amendment VI’s requirement of impartial juries was upheld in the early 1970s by both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme court in 1972. See the additional information cited at https://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_Amendment_2,_Unanimous_Jury_Verdict_for_Felony_Trials_Amendment_(2018).

I hope John Bel Edwards’ offense against the people of Louisiana regarding termination of an 1880 Louisiana treasure, the non-unanimous criminal jury verdicts will become a U.S. Supreme Court case based on U.S. Amendment XIV.1, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Imposing unanimous jury verdicts where 10:2 verdicts provide impartiality is egregious tyranny.

John Bel Edwards made it happen. I commend the Louisiana Legislature to start work now on reform to 9:3 verdicts for lesser criminal trials, 10:2 for intermediate criminal trials, and 11:1 verdicts for capital trials.

Columns

Republicans encourage responsible human liberty (Wayne Parker) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_a01e5484-ef92-11e9-9e41-43b05abbae93.html)

Fellow citizens may thank me for voting for Trump/Pence both in the primaries and to prevent Hillary. I am on deck to vote for Trump/Pence a third time and a fourth time. Neither Trump nor Pence clearly oppose my view of civic fellow citizens. I know of no Democrat I’d expect to claim membership in We the People of the United States as defined by the U.S. Preamble.

The Democrats present themselves as aliens to We the People of the United States, an entity that is defined by each citizen’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble for themselves. Fellow citizens who oppose human justice are dissidents.

I know Wayne Parker from common interest in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s writings, from https://www.unitarianchurchbr.com/programs/socrates-cafe, and from https://www.facebook.com/socratescafebr/. I doubt he’s unaware of two Greek suggestions. First, individuals may aid human equity by developing and practicing statutory justice. Second, the civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person. I’d be interested in Parker’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.

Mine, today, is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid 5 public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare,” respectively)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens.

According to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, fellow U.S. citizens have the obligation to firmly stand up for themselves in order to aid equity under statutory justice.

BTW: Parker was slamming Louisianans’ elected Congresspersons, excepting the Democrat. It seems The Advocate agrees that Louisiana majority voters may be dissed.

John Bel Edwards’ lies to We the People of the State of Louisiana inspired me to Google West Point honor a couple years ago (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_e472fb60-fce1-11e9-b35a-4bc356e5fbb0.html?)

It seems evident that The Advocate honestly does not consider let alone practice integrity. Ignorance about the insufficiency of honesty does not exonerate the offender. John Bel Edwards seems part of a 3.6% to over 50% faction of West Point privilege takers.

Published reports show that anywhere from 3.6% to “over half” of some West Point cadets are on record for breaking the honor code. See https://www.theadvocate. com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_e472fb60-fce1-11e9-b35a-4bc356e5fbb0.html.

Quoting, “In August 1951 . . . 90 of the Academy's 2,500 cadets were facing dismissal for mass violations of the honor code related to ‘cribbing’. In August 1976 . . . possibly over half of the junior class at the Academy had violated the honor code . . . .”

These offenders stained the reputations of all West Point graduates, including those of 1988. However, West Point privilege-takers do not stain all military veterans.

Mr. Rispone knows this and expresses the same evidences I perceive: John Bel Edwards has no integrity regarding his military privileges. If my perception reflects the-literal-truth, Edwards is a stain to all veterans, and The Advocate is right in there with Edwards.

Most of all, Edwards’ pride in Louisiana’s largest budget ever demonstrates that the people of Louisiana are not the beneficiaries of Edwards-service. Trial lawyers and judges are principle beneficiaries, for example, with the Louisiana tyranny of unconstitutional, unanimous criminal jury verdicts.

It’s not too late to help establish We the People of the United States (George Will) (https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/27/george-f-will-weak/)

“ . . . reactions against modernity — against an open society ‘founded on compromise, toleration, and impersonal rules and institutions.’"

Most individuals are on a path George Will has not imagined---humankind’s journey toward communication, collaboration, and connection rather than compromise; commitment to neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone who opposes statutory justice rather than toleration; and work to comprehend the-literal-truth by discovering and benefitting from the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence that may be better understood as new instruments of perception are invented rather than contesting human reason.

It seems scholars bemuse themselves by competing for the better opinion about meaningless catchwords like “modernity.” With their debates using a myriad of proprietary words and phrases, many scholars lose their personal perspective as a member of We the People of the United States.

That is the body of citizens who earned a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. I think the U.S. Preamble specifies 5 public institutions intended to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. Anyone who makes reference to what “the founders” demand of living citizens has not considered “[responsible] Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” U.S. citizens divide over responsible liberty either by neglect or because they oppose development of statutory justice.

Shame on George Will and other columnists for promoting proprietary scholarship when each could have encouraged and journaled the establishment of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as he or she interprets it. It’s time for scholarly reform.

Printed at the above URL.

The Advocate news belies its opinions (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_12471be0-f745-11e9-b100-4f730928774e.html)

Readers are well informed of Rispone’s intentions. For example, Will Sentell gave us the comparison of John Bel Edwards’ focus on the education bureaucracy versus Rispone’s focus on the children being educated. See https://www.theadvocate. com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_94a6d816-f5cc-11e9-a841-ff6c04720c51.html.

I guess The Advocate editors don’t read Sentell’s articles. Or maybe they have an agendum. Anyway, such articles bely The Advocate’s cry “where’s Eddie?”.

When I read of Rispone’s interest in education, I called and asked for a yard sign.

The Advocate may eventually accept that mass communication’s social scientists devise polls to influence voters but the adage “you can’t fool all the people all the time” holds. Polls don’t control the people.

The Advocate owes it to itself to focus on the-literal-truth, which can be approached only with acceptance of the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which justice is measured. The Advocate ought to be journaling the path toward We the People of the United States approaching the-literal-truth.

Tonight, I doubt John Bel Edwards can distract us from the World Series 7th game.

The Advocate and the Louisiana Legislature abuse the people using the Louisiana State Bar Association (Dane Ciolino) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_20051df6-f67b-11e9-ba03-0b879dab84fa.html)

Often, The Advocate deludes a letter writer’s impact by expressing The Advocate opinion in the caption. Sometimes the letter writer is chagrined. I know, because I have suffered The Advocate’s freedom to oppress letter writers.

The Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA), not “bar associations” is the object of Boudreaux’s lawsuit and Ciolino’s desire to quit.

I suggest that Boudreaux and Ciolino apply their expertise for greater causes: defense of We the People of Louisiana from abuse by the Louisiana Legislature and Governor John Bel Edwards. My suggestions follow, below.

First, Boudreaux and Ciolino consider that more than lawyers they are voluntary members of We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble as each of them interprets the U.S. Preamble. My interpretation this morning is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid 5 public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare” respectively)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living people.

Second, they initiate a systematic application of their interpretations of key amendments including the First, the Sixth, and the Fourteenth; Paragraph 1. A few issues I have in mind in order of priority are: 1) revocation of Louisiana’s imposition of unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials and restoration to 10:2 verdicts (1974) if not 9:3 (1880); 2) national amendment of the First Amendment so as to a) protect individual and collective integrity rather than religion, b) protect responsible freedom of expression, c) require responsible media and d) publicize media ownership by foreign investors.

I commend the LSBA to confess their part in maneuvering a public vote against constitutional law that could not be overturned in the courts. I commend The Advocate to return their Pulitzer Prize for collaborating with the LSBA and others to fool some individual Louisiana voters into thinking they might somehow be the accused in a criminal trial and want the well-known criminal-protection of jury unanimity. (England, the founder of unanimity, revised to 10:2 criminal verdicts in 1967 to lessen organized crime's influence on jury trials.) The U.S. Sixth amendment requires impartiality whereas unanimity both statistically and organizationally favors criminals. Impartiality protects the victim, the accused, and the civic people who support law and its enforcement. Both the LSBA and The Advocate have access to these facts.

Best wishes to Boudreaux, Ciolino and all lawyers who may claim membership in We the People of the United States as each of them interprets the U.S. Preamble.

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/2013/06/10/the-propriety-and-necessity-of-natural-law-to-originalism/

Professor Upham seems not alone in propriety constraint by 18^th century principles that may also prevent unbiased consideration of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition: responsible human liberty under standards that may or may not be developed as the future unfolds.

Events since the September 17, 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution reflect that the 4-month convention of 55 delegates concluded that knowledge was insufficient to specify norms. By what standards would future citizens know to amend the articles that follow the preamble’s proposition? The draft preamble was erroneous in fact and had no proposition. The 5-person Committee of Style composed the proposition.

Each U.S. citizen may interpret the U.S. Preamble and either order his or her civic life accordingly or not. Those who think crime or tyranny pays may face law enforcement.

Today, my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare,” respectively)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. The standard by which justice is measured is not specified, as it is left to the ultimate discipline of the people rather than to either government or the mystery of whatever-God-is. Religion is reserved to individual privacy rather than civically, civilly, or legally imposed.

My interpretation has me and my descendants and contemporaries including legal immigrants as “Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Therefore, in my efforts to aid the five public institutions, the 18^th century founders have no standing. My obligation is to know-of and not repeat their mistakes. I am obligated to fellow citizens to encourage responsible human liberty without arbitrary limits.

Here’s exemplary limiting language: “. . . natural-law theory affirms not only that the existence of certain universal norms, but also the capacity of human beings, by natural reason, to apprehend these norms (to some extent). Natural law is a theory of recognition as well as validity. For all their differences, Aquinas, Locke, and Blackstone each agreed on this point.”

It seems some scholars freeze human reason at 18^th century England. Albert Einstein (d. 1955) reasoned that physics and psychology have the same source. His only example was that humankind does not lie so as to lessen misery and loss rather than to follow some rule. Rudyard Kipling suggested Einstein’s physics-proof against lies in the short story “The Man Who Would be King” (1888).

In another example, abortion can be addressed with integrity when the evaluation begins with the dignity and equity of the viable human ovum rather than the doctrine of life at conception. And love can be better understood when the argument includes mutual appreciation.

Thought problems derive from scholarly language: natural-law rather than physics, the object of undeniable discovery; universal norms rather than ineluctable evidence; understanding and application rather than apprehension; acceptance rather than recognition; and reliability rather than validity.

The study of physics and its progeny (including biology and psychology) uses ineluctable evidence to discover the-objective-truth. It may be held in doubt, because future instruments or technology may change human understanding. However, the-objective-truth asymptotically approaches the-literal-truth, which does not yield to human reason. Thus, physics, the object of discovery, corrects human doctrine and is the standard by which both truth and justice are pursued.

Traditional, proprietary language attempts to establish standards that the U.S. Preamble’s proposition excluded. “Judicial fidelity to a popular Constitution . . . demands not humility before the masses, but piety before nature’s Author. The piety of the faithful originalist might thus represent a virtue that can rival the glamorous creativity of the judicial artist.”

By developing and promoting their individual interpretations of the U.S. Preamble for the continuum of living citizens, scholars may aid the establishment of the USA rather than insistence on colonial-British tradition.

https://www.quora.com/May-God-with-integrity-practice-infidelity-and-abuse/answer/Simon-Binks-2/comment/73410777?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=3250589111 from last week

“The . . . Constitution is a frame of government granting limited, enumerated powers to separate branches according to their functions and intended to mediate among, rather than to rule and transform, states and other more local, natural associations. Thus, it allows for, indeed positively encourages, cooperation between religious and political institutions, assumes a “thick” set of moral beliefs and practices, and rejects the likening of liberty to license. It cannot do many (indeed most) of the things Progressives, libertarians, or even many contemporary conservatives might wish.”

The U.S. Preamble refutes this claim and is a powerful proposition for individual discipline rather than the people’s self-governance.

I intended to address 1) accepting the U.S. Preamble’s proposition instead of “law-abidingness” or “judicial reality”; 2) the citizen’s right to develop human integrity rather than “rights brought over from England”; 3) “human laws . . . have no power over . . . original justice” because the-literal-truth does not respond to opinion; 4) in “historical reality” marriage is decided by two individuals, who may or may not want civil affirmation; 5) hatred for abolitionists as in Bleeding Kansas in 1856 sparked the Civil War in 1861; 6) as expressed by the U.S. Constitution’s provisions for amendment, “standards of judicial duty” must conform to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, introduced by the 5 member Committee of Style perhaps to appreciate the Framers’ accomplishments; 7) We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble is living citizens who volunteer to “secure . . . Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” rather than to preserve past citizens’ traditions; 8) the U.S. Constitution must ultimately conform to the U.S. Preamble, and its object is responsible human liberty rather than “unenumerated constitutional rights”; 9) the-literal-truth is the standard by which “the people” discipline themselves to responsible human liberty; 10) rather than self-governing, the people pursue the-literal-truth by discovering the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which justice is measured; and 11) the U.S. Preamble does not propose “cooperation between religious and political institutions.”

However, I only want to comment on the U.S. Preamble’s exclusion of religion from civic integrity. Civic citizens are obligated to comprehend their interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, because it is this country’s public contract to aid development of equity under statutory justice. We the People of the United States approach this noble work is by amending the law so as to lessen injustice when it is discovered.

Today, my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble is: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to aid five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (original nouns “Union . . . Justice . . . Tranquility . . . defence . . . Welfare,” respectively)---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. The standard by which justice is measured is not specified, as it is left to the ultimate discipline of the people rather than to either government or the mystery of whatever-God-is. Religion is reserved to individual privacy rather than civically, civilly, or legally imposed.

With enough citizens joining We the People of the United States according to their individual interpretations of the U.S. Preamble, establishment of the USA rather than colonial-British tradition may begin after erroneous repression since June 21, 1788 begun by Congress on March 4, 1789.

Reform may seem impossible; don’t overlook the power of acceleration.

To Allan Kahan:

” . . . believing orthodox Christians of one form or another? Yes.”

I don’t think so. In the first place there must be approaching 10,000 Christianities and at least 4 major orthodoxies if you count Unitarianism, miniscule as that population may be.

The reform that is needed can be contemplated by focusing on theism. Over these 231 years, the U.S. promotion of theism has led to Judeo-Christianity with willful abuse of non-theists, for example, revising the motto to theism and adding it to the pledge.

I can think of two significant reforms. First, rather than a pledge of allegiance, practice acceptance of the U.S. Preamble by repeating it in unison in public events with the 52 words visibly displayed. Second, amend the First Amendment so as to protect development of integrity, a human duty, rather than promotion of religion, a business, leaving individual pursuit of spiritualism as a private matter. This second provision is implied in the U.S. Preamble by omission of spiritualism as a civic proposition.

To Nancy D.:

Representatives of 13 free and independent eastern seaboard states, formerly British colonies, ratified the Treaty of Paris on January 14, 1784. It states: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Shays' rebellion convinced the U.S. that they could not survive as free and independent states. On June 21, 1788, 9 of the 13 globally free states ratified the U.S. Preamble with its amendable Articles, leaving four globally free states, two of whom joined the U.S. before operations began on March 4, 1789.

The U.S. Preamble civically, civilly, and legally proposes 5 public institutions to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. Neither colonial-English-tradition nor religion nor spiritualism is involved. They are left to privacy rather than civic, civil, or legal pursuits. On the U.S. Preamble, citizens decide, either cognitively or by default, whether they are of We the People of the United States or not.

England has no influence on the U.S. Preamble's proposition, and the sooner most Americans begin to establish the U.S. rather than attempt to preserve colonial-English tradition, the better.

The entity We the People of the United States uniquely shares an achievable better future, and every U.S. citizen should consider joining under her or his interpretation.

Book I am reading

Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, 1980, 1990, Harcourt, Page 172.

The book quoted Kenneth B. Clark “. . . the objectives of public education---producing a literate and informed public to carry on the business of democracy---and to the goal of producing human beings with social sensitivity and dignity and creativity and a respect for the humanity of others.”

Using “A civic glossary,” (promotethepreamble.blogspot.com) iterative response to Clark's idea may be: Public education continuously encourages humans to transition to persons who exemplify responsible liberty to fellow citizens.

Since application of the glossary takes no responsibility for Clark’s views, which I do not share (for example, I oppose democracy as chaos), I see no reason to further credit either Clark or the Friedmans in my future writing.

In general, I think the modern age with Internet search that can discover sources of words and phrases, writers need not confuse readers by citing old ideas that prompted the writer’s response. In this case, I am left wondering if the Friedman’s approved of democracy as Clark did, but feel no obligation to research the question.

A wonderful participant in our June 21 commemoration of 9 states establishing the USA in 1788 (followed by operations beginning with 11 states on March 4, 1789) asked “What’s wrong with things as they are?” I encourage anyone with that question to read the Friedmans’ book.

Phil Beaver does not “know.” He trusts in and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. Conventional wisdom has truth founded on reason, but it obviously does not work.

Phil is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, and consider essays from the latest and going back as far as you like.