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: We the willing citizens of the United States collaborate for self-discipline regarding integrity, justice, goodwill, defense, prosperity, liberty, and grandchildren and by this amendable constitution limit the U.S.'s service to the people in their states. I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs. I 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. Equality 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.
Our Views
The Advocate personnel have no shame in advancing their mythologies (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_06c2a956-de00-11e8-a3ca-0f77dd464d0d.html)
“. . . few critics have offered a plausible reason why voters shouldn’t approve the measure.” The “few” seems so, but the “plausible reason” every individual may verify, including the following truths about Louisiana’s impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdicts:
The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, No. 8, states “That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to . . . a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. . . that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.”
The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2 states, “The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed . . .”
U.S. Amendment VI, 1791, states, “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 . . . ”
*Given a group of fellow citizens who agree to “equal justice under law,” some will be habitually impartial, some will be persuadable one way or another, and some will be indecisive. With courtroom excellence, the habitually impartial plus the jurors who are persuaded toward impartiality form a unanimous majority that negates the erroneously persuaded and indecisive jurors. In actual reality, some fellow citizens do not want justice, and therefore the impartial unanimous-majority it critical for both the victim and the accused and the rest of the potential victims of injustice. The 10:2 verdict is critical for fellow citizens who agree to equal justice under law, and the 9:3 verdict allows for one juror who does not believe in justice. These considerations have always been true, and that is why Virginia’s “unanimous consent” was excluded from both the 1787 U.S. Constitution and U.S. Amendment VI.
In 1868, U.S. Amendment XIV.1 stated, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In 1880, French-influenced Louisiana enacted impartial 9:3 unanimous-majority felony verdicts.
In 1898, an individual made boastful statements about white supremacy.
In 1964, the U.S. passed the Civil Rights Act against discrimination.
In 1967, England mimicked Louisiana, enacting 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdicts to lessen organized crime’s influence on trials.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana’s 9:3 unanimous-majority felony verdicts.
Provision of impartial juries is not constrained by skin color, and anyone who construes impartiality to be so constrained has done a grievous injustice to both the Great State of Louisiana and the United States.
Act 493 is a shameful bill by the 2018 Louisiana Legislature, and both the Louisiana State Bar Association’s instigation and The Advocate personnel’s role in the event are egregious.
I encourage fellow citizens to vote “No” on Amendment 2.
The Advocate personnel have no shame in advancing their mythologies (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_7fa9264e-dd2c-11e8-9265-53e07e710e05.html)
There’s no doubt: The Advocate personnel think Calvin Duncan’s photo depicts the righteous fellow citizen.
I do not question Duncan’s motives, but object to The Advocate’s use of his photo to promote absolute juries. The nine steps leading to trial are questionable and will always be subject to jury innocence.
However, the judicial system exists only because criminals victimize the people. “Equal justice under law” comes only from the people who agree to equal justice under law, not from organized crime. Absolute jury verdicts, like 12:0 or 501:0, are known to aid crime.
I do not question Duncan’s motives, but object to The Advocate’s use of his photo to promote absolute juries. The nine steps leading to trial are questionable and will always be subject to jury innocence.
However, the judicial system exists only because criminals victimize the people. “Equal justice under law” comes only from the people who agree to equal justice under law, not from organized crime. Absolute jury verdicts, like 12:0 or 501:0, are known to aid crime.
The Advocate personnel who collectively push the unconstitutional bid to undo Louisiana’s provision of impartial juries through the unanimous-majority verdict, now 10:2 but a candidate for reform to 9:3, beg woe. The most likely woe is a 2/3 vote against Amendment 2, because, as The Advocate personnel claim, satisfaction with the voters’ opinion would not satisfy the people who want to help organized crime.
England originated unanimous juries as a means of imposing empirical will on British colonists. James Madison’s loyalist-side motivated him to draft in U.S. Amendment VI (1791) that states must provide unanimous juries, but the Senate revised to impartial juries. That facilitated Louisiana-French thinking to create the impartial 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict in 1879, just 88 years later. Another 88 years later, England revised its rule to allow 10:2 verdicts so as to lessen the influence of organized crime. Five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Louisiana Supreme Court’s affirmation of the unanimous-majority verdicts.
These are facts, rather than myths. But The Advocate personnel are undaunted against actual reality and promote their myth without expectation of consequences. I think they err in their assumptions.
I may rebut their constructed list of myths if I have time.
Second post: My comments on The Advocate personnel’s mythological construct.
Construct 0: “. . . unanimous verdicts [preserve] your freedom.”
First, it’s not a matter of unanimity, which applies with an impartial majority, say 10:2 or 9:3: 12:0 is absolutism. In other words, statutory justice seeks an impartial jury, and that is provided with a 10:2 rule.
The Advocate personnel imagines a Louisiana reader is dumb enough to assume absolutism (12:0 verdicts) address his or her freedom, even though he or she will never be accused of a felony. I’ve been here for five decades and cannot name one fellow citizen who is that dumb.
Fellow citizens relate to the woman who was a victim of rape fifteen years ago and whose rapist was convicted in an 11:1 verdict a couple weeks ago; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6354f0a4-cd9b-11e8-89c3-877571df8a47.html. Louisiana’s 10:2 verdicts saved all victims from a bigoted juror and the judicial system that seated her. If jury absolutism was required, the victims would be the woman who was raped and her family, the rapist’s family, and the people of Louisiana who collaborate for justice. The winners under absolute juries are the criminals and the entire roster of judicial workers, especially judges and lawyers. Judges, lawyers, and writers for the newspaper care not about victims' expenses for hung juries.
Also, Louisiana fellow citizens are aware that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt comes in the nine procedures before a jury trial, and jury duty requires only a decision on how convinced they were by either the presentation of evidence or the plea for doubt.
Construct 1: DA’s want absolutism (12:0) according to The Advocate personnel’s 3:12 accounting. That’s not reliable reporting by the newspaper for either Louisiana fellow citizens or those DA’s who uphold both the Louisiana Constitution and the US Constitution regarding impartial juries.
Construct 2: The Advocate personnel’s statistics showed 40% of trials were decided by unanimous-majority, 10:2 or 11:1. With 500 cases a year and 12:0 absolutism there'd be 200 hung juries per year instead of The Advocate personnel’s 12 hung juries per year.
Construct 3: If Amendment 2 passes, the Louisiana Legislature will not move to make it retroactive in the name of “fairness” to organized crime.
Construct 4: The Advocate personnel claim Louisiana ADOPTED unanimous-majority verdicts. Louisiana CREATED unanimous-majority verdicts in 1879 to meet U.S. Amendment VI’s 1791 requirement that states provide impartial juries. Both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court (1972) approved Louisiana’s impartial unanimous-majority verdicts. In 1967, England reformed from absolutism to 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts to lessen organized crime’s influence on juries.
Construct 5: Civic people in the 48 states that have the 12:0 absolutism that blesses judges and lawyers need not reform so as to provide impartial juries.
Fellow citizens may and should save future victims from 12:0 jury absolutism by voting no on Amendment 2 so as to maintain Louisiana’s impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts.
Third post: PAR Louisiana joined the bevy of influencers who think social trend rather than civic integrity guides statutory justice. Also, I think the proposition is unconstitutional: A civic faction cannot impose injustice when justice has been established under the U.S. Constitution. I hope the people solve a dilemma by voting no on Amendment 2.
Despite the U.S. Senate’s reform from the British absolutism in jury verdicts, in U.S. Amendment VI (1791) requiring states to provide impartial juries, PAR erroneously cites 1786 John Adams. See http://parlouisiana.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/PAR-Guide-to-2018-Constitutional-Amendments.pdf.
French-influenced Louisiana created the 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts to provide impartiality in 1879, but PAR cites 1898 in order to incorporate white supremacy language that would have embarrassed the 1873-1893 reformed P.T.G. Beauregard; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._G._T._Beauregard#Beauregard_and_Black_Civil_Rights.
PAR personnel can complain that they were merely mimicking mendacities drummed by The Advocate personnel, but the facts are easy to find for any influencer who wants reliability; I want reliability but only today discovered the pertinences of a Frenchman, Beauregard, who psychologically matured as chronology progressed. I am still searching for the 1879 proponent of impartial 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts. Who proposed 9:3 verdicts?
PAR personnel can complain that they were merely mimicking mendacities drummed by The Advocate personnel, but the facts are easy to find for any influencer who wants reliability; I want reliability but only today discovered the pertinences of a Frenchman, Beauregard, who psychologically matured as chronology progressed. I am still searching for the 1879 proponent of impartial 9:3 unanimous-majority verdicts. Who proposed 9:3 verdicts?
The PAR statement “The racial motive behind the origin of this law is something we can all agree that Louisiana got wrong,” seems to be mendacity by false premise. Face it, social-justice-constructors for PAR and for The Advocate: Impartial jury verdicts came up at the beginning of Jim Crow years but from a former French colonial state’s integrity, Louisiana integrity, regarding U.S. Amendment VI. Here there’s opportunity to celebrate Louisiana history, but influencers work hard to denigrate Louisiana greatness in gifting the world with the impartial, unanimous-majority jury verdict.
PAR goes on to interpret some prosecutors’ failures in integrity as “gamesmanship.” For any past or present prosecutor to claim manipulation of the law as accepted practice rather than egregious error invites disbarment, and I’d like to see it happen. A fellow citizen is constrained to wonder why some lawyers perceive immunity and why The Advocate personnel and PAR personnel exonerate them. What do writers for the press have to gain from privation of integrity? Where’s the money?
PAR’s attention to “efficiency” is a distraction from the vital issue: the victimizations that occur with jury absolutism, 12:0 verdicts. When absolutism is used, juries get it wrong: In one study, “. . . the judge filled out a questionnaire detailing what his or her verdict would have been had it been a bench trial. The verdicts only matched in 77 percent of cases”; https://www.innocenceproject.org/study-juries-often-get-it-wrong/. If Louisiana has 500 cases a year, absolute 12:0 verdicts would be wrong 115 times. The victims of absolutism are the victim and family, the accused person’s family, and the people. The beneficiaries are the workers in the judicial system, especially judges and lawyers. A resident is constrained to ask why many judges, lawyers, and writers for the press don’t consider themselves fellow citizens. Fellow citizens are the chief victims of 12:0 absolutism.
Congratulations to PAR for the paragraph on the fact that Louisiana’s impartial unanimous-majority verdicts are constitutional law (made so 8 years after the non-discrimination Civil Rights Act, I note). Also, they note that the erroneous 48 US states are singular among many developed nations. Most of those nations followed Louisiana’s 1879 lead on U.S. Amendment VI (1791). Louisiana created impartial unanimous-majority verdict 88 years after the U.S. required states to provide impartiality instead of absolutism, and 88 years later, England reformed from absolutism to impartial unanimous-majority verdicts at 10:2.
PAR also stated that “The unanimous vote requirement includes verdicts to convict as well as to acquit.” Absolutism is a shameful waste when an accused innocent cannot receive acquittal by an impartial jury. On this point alone, the constitutionality of Louisiana’s 2018 Act 493 seems challengeable. Under U.S. Amendment XIV.1, a state cannot impose injustice when justice uniquely exists. In other words, it matters not that 48 U.S. states have not reformed from absolutism to impartiality, Louisiana did so 138 years ago.
PAR, under a seal claiming “Independence, Integrity, Results,” fails to note that the proponents of absolutism act against both the U.S. Constitution and impartiality.
Regardless of how the vote turns out, the proponents have created a record of mendacity in multiple ways. Civic unreliability is not good; civil unreliability doesn’t correct civic immorality; legal unreliability can ruin.
I hope the people reject Amendment 2 by 2/3 or 67%.
Addendum:
Quoting John Adams out of context is egregious, even if PAR was merely mimicking the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) in their Resolution; http://files.lsba.org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf. In the complete quote from December, 1786, Adams favored an impartial unanimous-majority verdict: “An assembly of five hundred men are totally incapable of this order, as well as knowledge; for, as the vote of the majority must determine, every member must be capable, or all is uncertain: besides, it is the unanimity of the jury that preserves the rights of mankind—must the whole five hundred be unanimous?” See https://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/FOEA-03-01-02-0830. The person who constructed the misquote misguided all the copiers who did not bother to discover the rest of the quote: “must the whole five hundred be unanimous?” But each influencer is responsible for his or her integrity or none.
I wondered where LSBA got the 1797 date for the Adams quote and found https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-jury-systems-are-vestiges-of-white-supremacy/2017/09/22/d7f1897a-9f13-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9c029a66be57, which did not give a reference. However, I found “John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States 376 (Philadelphia, William Cobbett 1797) at http://volokh.com/2010/09/09/unanimity-as-a-requirement-of-the-trial-by-jury-from-1765-to-1833/. Apparently “Cobbett 1797” refers to a 3-volume set of writings by Adams; https://www.lawbookexchange.com/pages/books/65282/john-adams/a-defence-of-the-constitutions-of-government-of-the-united-states.
I think the Adams quote is from 1786 rather than 1797. Adams recommended a unanimous-majority verdict.
Fourth post: A vote for Amendment 2 to force absolutism rather than impartiality in jury service is a vote to waste revenues for living in Louisiana. Fellow citizens prevent their own victimization by upholding the impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdict.
The cost burden of jury absolutism is born by each: the victim of crime and his or her family, who incur additional expense for the extended judicial proceedings; also the family of the accused face additional expense; all fellow citizens suffer additional cost, because state revenues from taxpayers must be re-distributed from other services to the judicial workers, especially judges and lawyers; finally the jury pool must suffer more expense and, moreover, frustration with folly under absolutism instead of unanimity.
In fact, the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) is the originator of this Louisiana and U.S. unconstitutional proposal to change from statutory justice to injustice in Louisiana. The message from LSBA is that they are somehow above both fellow citizens and equal justice under law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law.
A lot has happened since Louisiana enacted 9:3 verdicts in 1880, but key to the LSBA movement against the impartial 10:2 unanimous-majority felony verdict is the resolution signed by Ed Tarpley on May 11, 2016; http://files.lsba.org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf. Objectionable whereases in the resolution include reference to: Magna Carta, 1215; “sacred rights” rather than impartiality in U.S. Amendment VI (1791); misquote John Adams from 1786 rather than 1797, wherein he favored impartial unanimous-majority verdicts exaggerating the absolutism is not possible from the judicial system much less 500 commoners; 48 states providing absolutism rather than reforming to impartiality; denigrate Louisiana brilliantly providing 9:3 impartial juries in 1880; and prejudicial support of the ABA. The LSBA resolution makes no mention that the U.S. Supreme Court made Louisiana’s provision of impartial juries constitutional. It appeals to the Louisiana Legislature to change the Louisiana Constitution (such that it would rebuke the U.S. Constitution per Johnson v. Louisiana, 1972). I think the government requires lawyers to uphold the U.S. Constitution or lose their license to practice.
LSBA approved the resolution on June 9, 2016; http://files.lsba.org/documents/minutes/bd7f6271-19ed-45ce-a259-cffb1f93e01d.pdf. Tarpley was zealous in his presentation to the Press Club on July 30, 2018, calling miraculous the Louisiana Legislature’s conversion of a failed bid to get majority votes in both chambers to a referendum for the voters; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4A4eSyiyP0.
I just discovered that the ABA issued a prejudicial resolution in August, 2018; https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/2018-AM-Resolutions/100b.pdf. It is not surprising that the erroneous 48 U.S. states are in tension over the reform that Louisiana started, other former British colonies mimicked and England itself copied at 10:2 in 1967.
This is a case of a faction---trial judges and lawyers---using their influence to impose injustice on fellow citizens, and that seems to me a violation of U.S Amendment XIV.1.
It is interesting that in the late stages of the bid for jury absolutism and the attendant increases in judicial costs to the state, The Advocate personnel have stopped referencing the trial judges and lawyers and Gov. John Bel Edwards approval. Why would The Advocate personnel want prime responsibility for this constitutional fiasco?
Regardless of ulterior motives by the promoters, fellow citizens who want to avoid redistributing Louisiana revenues from current services so as to line the pockets of the judicial workers especially judges and lawyers will vote no on Amendment 2.
The Advocate personnel seem like the blind leading the blind (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_0e3a6e46-db97-11e8-8b93-83bb74def457.html)
The Advocate personnel write for their views on the audience (in other words, for their impression of what will appeal to the audience), are constrained by their dictionary, have a business plan, and therefore do not think with civic integrity.
Consider invoking David Duke to mindlessly claim “we reject anyone's continued involvement with sectarian or racial hatred.” Why exclude some fellow citizens by choosing the word “sectarian?” Is the usage broader than the indications in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence? What violence is done by a pledge of allegiance with the imposition “under God?” What violence is done when the U.S. Supreme Court holds my objections to Greece v Galloway (2014) niggling?
The Advocate personnel and other people have motives in continuing 230 years’ repressing the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered fellow citizens in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Recently, a motive that appeared in my search is the preservation of the Chapter XI Machiavellianism (1503) evident in the English constitutional documents (1706, ff); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom. One of the most blatant supporters of British colonialism was James Madison, perhaps the author of the infamous sectarian statement, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe . . . with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign”; https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163. The statement would be alright if it included me, a fellow citizen who trusts-in and commits-to the-objective-truth, but James Madison did not assure me that is so, nor did Thomas Jefferson with his “altar of God.” Today, perhaps 30% of Americans, or a hundred million fellow citizens, are independently motivated and inspired individuals.
Perhaps the abyss (to which Blackstone and the American mimic of Canterbury seem to have brought the U.S. in 229 years) was needed to motivate psychological break from British colonialism so that most Americans may put aside the prejudices and temporal advantages they perceive under British traditions. Perhaps the preamble’s proposal to collaborate for individual happiness with civic integrity may be established at last. (Most importantly, consider “Posterity” to be “grandchildren” and behold the debt living adults propose for them.)
The Advocate personnel could encourage and coach fellow citizens if The Advocate personnel could imagine being fellow citizens with the shared need for equal justice under law---in this country using the preamble, the first legal sentence in the U.S. Constitution.
Under the preamble, every responsible sect may flourish on the wishes of believers.
To Fumio De La Flambé:
Do you have a clue as to what the first sentence meant to you?
Do you have a clue as to what the first sentence meant to you?
To John Smith: Speaking of new, worn out, and always insincere, try "unconditional love," an idea that is about as wanted as a clergyperson's interest in a child.
Try this 2,400-year-old idea: Appreciation is an individual's greatest strength; thereby he or she neither initiates nor tolerates actual harm to or from anyone.
My ideas annoy some people because they harbor ulterior motives for dismissing the U.S. preamble, this country’s agreement by which wiling people collaborate for equal justice under law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law.
I read, write, and speak in order to LISTEN. I hope for your enlightenment but do not react to egocentric whining. You wasted your time reading my post then made it worse by responding.
To John Smith: The reality that appreciation is more important than love has been known for over 2,000 years.
Phil Beaver You have a remarkable ability to string together ordinary words to create passages of unsurpassed nonsense. It's difficult to know if that's a consequence of lead exposure at Ethyl, age, or just lifelong narcissism that disposes you to believe there is no need whatever to stop and reflect on whatever comes out of your mouth or keyboard.
Your ideas don't annoy people because they harbor ulterior motives about anything. That's pure delusion on your part. If your ideas annoy anyone at all, it's because whatever minimal information content they hold has been repeated endlessly, day after day, week after week, year after year.
You claim that you yadda-yadda to listen, but in fact, you don't. You're utterly impervious to input of any kind or any observations that are in any way discordant with your very narrow worldview. Here's some news for you Mr. Beaver: no one gives a shit about your views of the Preamble. While the Preamble is unarguably important as a guide for interpreting the Constitution, Jacobsen v Massachusetts (1905) made clear that it has little or nothing to say about laws that govern us. [PRB: I read the Wikipedia article about vaccination and the 14th amendment and see no connection, so the statement was ineffective.]
You can choose to see in the Preamble whatever you want to see, and you can choose to live however you wish, but it is height of arrogance and pomposity for you to hold forth on how the rest of us should interpret the Preamble an live. That's not practicing civic integrity at all, yet that's what you do, incessantly.
There's a rise in anti-Semitism. Phil says take a Preamble and sleep well!
There's an increase in hate speech and racist violence. Phil says try a Preamble!
We're facing serious problems with a changing climate. No worries! Phils says the Preamble will fix that!
Experiencing sexual harassment at work? What about a Preamble?
Can't get an erection? Phil reads the Preamble before jumping in the sack.
Preamble, it's the new miracle cure! Mows your lawn, sells your car, takes care of the old lady when you can't, makes out with Alexa, picks up the kids from school, walks the dog, shines your shoes, does the dishes!
Phil's new and improved Preamble! Get yours today at a library meeting near you. And while your at it, why not pick up a few extras for the holidays! When those unpleasant inlaws start up, just shut them up with Phil's all new Preamble.
Your ideas don't annoy people because they harbor ulterior motives about anything. That's pure delusion on your part. If your ideas annoy anyone at all, it's because whatever minimal information content they hold has been repeated endlessly, day after day, week after week, year after year.
You claim that you yadda-yadda to listen, but in fact, you don't. You're utterly impervious to input of any kind or any observations that are in any way discordant with your very narrow worldview. Here's some news for you Mr. Beaver: no one gives a shit about your views of the Preamble. While the Preamble is unarguably important as a guide for interpreting the Constitution, Jacobsen v Massachusetts (1905) made clear that it has little or nothing to say about laws that govern us. [PRB: I read the Wikipedia article about vaccination and the 14th amendment and see no connection, so the statement was ineffective.]
You can choose to see in the Preamble whatever you want to see, and you can choose to live however you wish, but it is height of arrogance and pomposity for you to hold forth on how the rest of us should interpret the Preamble an live. That's not practicing civic integrity at all, yet that's what you do, incessantly.
There's a rise in anti-Semitism. Phil says take a Preamble and sleep well!
There's an increase in hate speech and racist violence. Phil says try a Preamble!
We're facing serious problems with a changing climate. No worries! Phils says the Preamble will fix that!
Experiencing sexual harassment at work? What about a Preamble?
Can't get an erection? Phil reads the Preamble before jumping in the sack.
Preamble, it's the new miracle cure! Mows your lawn, sells your car, takes care of the old lady when you can't, makes out with Alexa, picks up the kids from school, walks the dog, shines your shoes, does the dishes!
Phil's new and improved Preamble! Get yours today at a library meeting near you. And while your at it, why not pick up a few extras for the holidays! When those unpleasant inlaws start up, just shut them up with Phil's all new Preamble.
Fumio De La Flambé You have my sympathy.
Phil Beaver Congratulations. That's the first comment you've posted in ages that actually makes some sense. It's one of the singular comments that avoids Preamble pontification. Yet in offering your unwanted sympathy, you also demonstrate your narcissism. Your sympathy has no privileged place in my thoughts. Offer it instead for victims of violence and homophobia. Offer it for those who suffer sexual harassment and assaults. Offer it for those who are hungry, have little access to health care, and live on the fringes of our society in poverty. Set aside your Preamble preaching and exhortations about how people should live, and simply offer help to the great many who need it. When you do that, then come back and talk to us about civic integrity and whatever.
To Elaine O. Coyle: I support your idea.
"Equal justice under law" is an accepted basis for fellow citizens to discover statutory justice; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law. In this country, the preamble is the civic, civil, and legal agreement on which fellow citizens either collaborate for justice or not. Every person who runs for elected office should declare trust-in and commitment to the U.S. preamble.
Heretofore, my research on this topic has been lame, because I did not include the word "scholarly" in my searches. That changed yesterday (after five years), and my future knowledge will be stronger. However, the essence of the message is well known and resisted not only in these parts but in national scholarly forums. Yet there is global interest in my preambling blogs.
By all means, a jury of my peers would demonstrate that they trust-in and commit-to the agreement for equal justice under law that conforms to the U.S. preamble.
To John Smith: I’m sorry for the bruhaha but do not claim sole responsibility.
In civic collaboration, fellow citizens may explore on their own a suggestion or rebuke from another.
I just Googled "Is appreciation greater than love?" and found many nice articles. One article suggests that spousal love follows mutual appreciation. Some people prefer “gratitude,” for example https://garymdouglas.com/is-there-anything-greater-than-love.
Thanks to you, I read Gary Douglas’s opinion: “Is there anything greater than love? In a simple answer, yes there is. Gratitude.” Must I change to “gratitude” to think Douglas and I agree?
Similarly, I do not perceive the need to say how I concluded that appreciation is greater than love. I learned from my feelings toward MWW. Concurrently, it occurred to me during twenty years’ occasionally re-considering Agathon’s speech in Plato’s “Symposium.” Some scholars say Agathon’s speech is too poetic to be of value, and the original Great Books Reading and Discussion Program left it out altogether!
I write opinion only because I do not know the-objective-truth. A close acquaintance stopped collaborating with me when he said I was condescending and I responded, “How does a person establish the certainty to accuse another of condescension?” I never claim to have constructed the-objective-truth but rather declare “I do not know” what has not been discovered. Nevertheless, I prefer to say or write that the earth will unhide the sun again tomorrow.
The-objective-truth is challenging, and the best way to explore it is to admit to self, “I don’t know,” when that is the case. Is it too much to assume a writer on this forum may learn from fellow citizens? If so, I am the anomaly, because I sometimes learn from the silliest of rebukes.
One person told me to stop acknowledging what I had learned from him. I dropped his last name but kept the acknowledgment with the first name. Public notice can be denied, but appreciation survives.
The Advocate personnel urge fellow citizens, especially black fellow citizens, to vote against themselves (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/)
Without sentiment about The Advocate personnel’s hopes and dreams, I think fellow citizens will reject Amendment 2, perhaps with a 2/3 vote “No,” so as to preserve the established civic integrity of unanimous-majority, 10:2, verdicts.
For about half my lifetime, about 4 decades, I have deliberately read, written and spoken to answer two questions: 1) with some many wonderful people responsibly pursuing the happiness they want how can the world be so conflicted and 2) with such a wonderful constitution how can the U.S. be so divided?
On June 21, 2014, good friends, Hugh, Holly, and I started local library meetings to promote the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. We proposed to collaborate with fellow citizens to develop an achievable better future. Rebekah sang the National Anthem, and MWW attended the luncheon. Our immediate motivation was to use the preamble to keep Baton Rouge whole rather than observe the creation of St. George City, much as the 1860’s fellow citizens could have applied the preamble’s agreement to prevent the Civil War.
We call willing citizens “a civic people,” where “civic” refers to collaborating for living here and now more than to impose past citizens’ hopes and dreams on current fellow citizens. We felt the need for a standard by which fellow citizens may collaborate and proposed the-objective-truth rather than a dominant opinion. We asserted that both imagination and discovery come from the-objective-truth. I doubt many of the over seventy people who participated know that the leading edge in continuing meetings is the proposal to develop civic integrity.
Another proposal, about a year old now, is to develop mutual, comprehensive safety and security. We are aware that this goal threatens the arbitrary advantages some fellow citizens perceive for themselves, and therefore, we expect dissidence forever, much as human history indicates. People who think crime pays may be among the least of the dissidents, as there are more effective abuses in play, many of them erroneously honored as philanthropy.
There is lots of evidence that at least 2/3 of fellow citizens want and expect civic integrity. For example, 1/3 of delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were dissident and therefore did not sign the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Some of the dissidents opposed the legal change from a Confederation of states to a Union of the people in their states. Some wanted to re-establish British tradition with Blackstone and church-state partnership. That unjust partnership is constitutionally required in England and unconstitutional in the U.S. but upheld as traditional by the U.S. Supreme Court; Greece v Galloway (2014).
The purpose and goals stated in the preamble created the world’s first nation predicated on self-discipline by most citizens and laws and institutions that empowered the willing people to develop statutory justice or civic integrity rather than arbitrary opinion.
The purpose and goals stated in the preamble created the world’s first nation predicated on self-discipline by most citizens and laws and institutions that empowered the willing people to develop statutory justice or civic integrity rather than arbitrary opinion.
In the quest for independence from England, the Senate finalized the U.S. Sixth Amendment in 1791. James Madison’s suggestion that states be required to provide British-traditional unanimous juries was brilliantly changed to impartial juries. When formerly French-colonial Louisiana regained state governance after reconstruction, someone added to the U.S. brilliance the Louisiana light that jury impartiality is enhanced with unanimous-majority, 9:3, verdicts. The practice was enacted in 1880. Dissidents to impartial juries fought the unanimous-majority verdicts ever since, and it came to constitutional challenge in Louisiana in 1970 with U.S. approval in Johnson v Louisiana (1972). England reformed to 10:2 verdicts in 1967 so as to lessen organized crime’s influence on trials. In the U.S., 48 states have yet to enact this reform.
Louisiana citizens already demonstrate that they know how to manage individual happiness with civic integrity. If I were yet a citizen of my birth town, Knoxville, TN, and had not met, in my hometown, Baton Rouge, MWW, who helped me discover Phil Beaver, I think I would have continued to neglect the preamble’s power and promise for an achievable better future. I celebrate the people of Louisiana but not the judges, lawyers, judicial workers, and writers for the press who propose to pick fellow-citizens’ pockets with 12:0 jury absolutism.
I doubt the people of Louisiana will vote to end 138 years of legal excellence provided by the impartial, unanimous-majority felony verdict, 10:2, in order to join the obsolete, erroneous British colonial absolutism of 12:0 verdicts.
Writers for The Advocate personnel have no shame for their mendacities (John Simerman) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/elections/article_4471ec24-dd44-11e8-a0eb-036f91192718.html)
“Days before voters weigh in on the state’s unusual non-unanimous jury law, Landry is declining to say anything about the referendum on a 120-year-old staple of Louisiana criminal justice.”
Two mendacities: First, Louisiana’s impartial unanimous-majority verdict was enacted 138 years ago, 18 years before an awful white-supremacy quote from 120 years ago. Second, perhaps Simerman resents learning elsewhere that Landry sees no need to repeat his first message. I agree with Landry: once is enough when the Attorney General expresses civic integrity.
I hope The Advocate personnel discovers a reason to reform.
Regardless of The Advocate’s desire to impose injustice and unconstitutional regress, I hope fellow citizens reject Amendment 2 by a 2/3 or 67% vote.
Letters
The Civil War was fought over more erroneous religious beliefs which still are not settled (Charles Marsala) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_7e38b0aa-dc63-11e8-a9e6-1fe044e47c1b.html)
I’m interested in what Marsala would inscribe on the plaques.
The CSA’s declaration of secession concludes that it was over “more erroneous religious beliefs.” See https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Letter_from_Robert_E_Lee_to_Mary_Randolph_Custis_Lee_December_27_1856, wherein R. E. Lee expresses opposition to abolitionists’ attempts to interfere with God’s plan. In the most recent decades, more religious error has been discovered (clergy abuse) and other has been constructed (liberation theology).
I doubt plaques will stop the actual harm that is still on the march.
To Joe Diogenes: Sorry.
I erroneously paraphrased the pertinent quote in the citation.
I amend my statement to: ". . . wherein R. E. Lee expresses opposition to abolitionists’ attempts to interfere with Lee's ministers' gods’ plans," which is more expressive than “interfere with ‘God’s plan’” for my intentions.
I appreciate your help and will make certain my friends Doug and Hugh, who like to constructively quibble over usage including punctuation, sees this use of “g” for accuracy.
I could edit my original "idiocy" but would not want to reduce this celebration of your alacrity. On the other hand, I edited the last sentence to clarify my intentions.
To Darren Miller: Would you recommend whiting out the Holy Bible?
The Civil War was a white-on-white crime inspired by the Holy Bible.
Consider for example Bleeding Kansas, which began in 1856. Whites who listened to their church ministers killed abolitionists who had moved to Kansas to establish a "free soil territory" and then state, admitted on January 29, 1861.
Individuals may perceive that the Holy Bible’s treatment of slavery (especially 1 Peter 2:18-25) proves that its canonization was an erroneous human choice. On the other hand, individuals may hold that slavery is intended by Christianity and the favored Christians are determined by military power. (“Don’t tell me my god is not all powerful!”)
I dropped out of Christianity once I realized that MWW’s religion is more important to me for her than religion ever was to me for me; I will not adopt a religion I do not believe. I trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, whatever actual reality is.
I dropped out of Christianity once I realized that MWW’s religion is more important to me for her than religion ever was to me for me; I will not adopt a religion I do not believe. I trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, whatever actual reality is.
You won’t find me collaborating about someone’s god or none, but I do want to collaborate for civic integrity or mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Therein, for example, an adult individual who responsibly provides a civic service is paid enough to cover the cost of living and to accumulate enough wealth for retirement. (That’s certainly not an original idea.)
A judge begs doubt despite the facts (Paul A. Bonin) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_2096ef22-dc66-11e8-98b0-73f6416c8900.html)
Some judges seem to have lost contact with fellow citizens, for example, take for granted that they can support victimization of women without begging woe.
The judicial process has about nine steps leading to a jury trial, and jurists are screened and seated in a matter of a couple days. The process is competitive, with lawyers for the victims trying to seat favorable jurors and lawyers for the indicted party (the subject of the nine-step process leading to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt). If the defense lawyer can seat a biased or criminal juror, he or she will, and some judges allow it.
A couple weeks ago, an 11:1 unanimous-majority jury convicted a rapist in a 15-year past event; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_6354f0a4-cd9b-11e8-89c3-877571df8a47.html. A juror who does not believe DNA science voted to acquit. That bigoted juror’s presence was the fault of the judicial system; not the jury’s fault. The unanimous majority would have been dismayed to see judicial nonsense prevail. Good grief; in these transitional decades, DNA evidence is now used to exonerate falsely convicted citizens!
Another woman wonderfully identified her offender from 1998, and DNA proved her accusation; https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_dbd11016-d3b4-11e8-b640-e7d7093d8d2e.html. Judge Bonin wants to subject her to arbitrary uncertainty beginning on January 1, 2019.
Judge Bonin wants fellow citizens, the primary victims of Louisiana crime, to lessen jury impartiality, which is U.S. Constitutionally required of states in 1791’s Amendment VI. Louisiana created the unanimous-majority felony verdict in 1879 and it was made constitutional in Johnson v Louisiana (1972).
England mimicked Louisiana in 1967, adopting unanimous-majority verdicts at 10:2 in order to lessen the influence of organized crime. Judge Bonin invites fellow citizens to increase crime’s influence on victims, primarily fellow citizens!
Voters may reject Judge Bonin’s wishes, and I hope they do. Fellow citizens including Judge Bonin may vote “No” on Amendment 2 in order to protect their individual interests against crime.
BTW: The Advocate personnel reserve the right to compose the captions to fellow citizens’ letters.
The Advocate personnel advertise for Sister Prejean (Cynthia Brown) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_736a4792-db9b-11e8-a0a8-8b4ddd869441.html)
The Advocate personnel exercise arrogance I have been observing but had not yet articulated.
They took advantage of Brown, a proponent for the death penalty, to advertise for a nun’s obsolete sensationalisms. What an abuse of The Advocate’s collective IPEA (individual power, energy, and authority)!
I agree with Brown’s viewpoint, but think she has not offered a solution for her heartfelt concern, “there is something terribly wrong with our judicial system.”
I think what’s wrong is that most fellow citizens neglect civic self-discipline. “We, the people” have, for 230 years neglected We the People of the United States, as defined in the civic, civil, and legal statement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble is the agreement on which willing fellow citizens in this country may collaborate for equal justice under law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law.
Dissidents to the agreement have ulterior motives. For example, priests, ministers, and other clergy label the preamble “secular,” which at best means areligious. But the preamble is not areligious: it is neutral to religion as well as gender, race, ethnicity, and responsible individual happiness. By responsible, I mean behaving for civic integrity or collaborating for statutory justice.
In a culture with at least 2/3 of the people collaborating for equal justice under the U.S. preamble, every no-harm religion may flourish according to the hopes of the believers. Also, workers in the judicial system may regard themselves as fellow citizens and therefore collaborate to fulfill the U.S. preamble’s purpose and goals.
Expressions from an aloof professor (reprise) (J. Gerald Kennedy) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_f69bf2e4-d878-11e8-972d-8b2335f5897a.html)
To Fumio De La Flambé:
Your comment made me curious about your moniker. It seems a combination of Japanese and French, perhaps meaning; underneath the flaming facade, there’s a more or less cheerful, deeply emotive and hypersensitive person. Of course, I don’t know anything about it, but if that is approximately your intent, I celebrate.
Nevertheless, your comment expands my message, a civic activity I like to call collaboration. (I oppose compromise, civilize, socialize, coercion, force, and other means of trying to control fellow citizens beyond collaboration for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, which requires a book to unpack.)
Here’s what I work for. A culture wherein most fellow citizens trust-in and commit-to the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Fellow citizens may reject the agreement, but if they are responsible for actual harm, they may face statutory law enforcement.
Other nations may encumber their people with documents like the UN list of human rights, but in the U.S., equal justice under law is practical under the preamble and the statutory justice evolves under its purpose and goals: most fellow citizens practicing self-discipline. Abraham Lincoln may have referenced the preamble when he famously said, “. . . that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” I know of no fellow citizen who wants to govern, but most people I know welcome encouragement and coaching for self-discipline.
The preamble divides fellow citizens into two major groups: people who adopt the agreement even when they are working to identify an injustice and propose correction (“a civic people” for brevity) and dissidents. “Civic” refers to fellow citizens who collaborate for living now and here rather than to fulfill some tradition or religion. There’s lots of evidence that the split is 2/3 civic citizens but it could be 9/10 among actual citizens and permanent residents.
Among dissidents to the agreement, a few special interest groups I think of are: traditionalists who think that if they adopted the preamble they would lessen personal advantages they perceive, illegal aliens, people who believe in crime, people who submit to evil, people who develop and nourish banal appetites, many philanthropists, people who don’t accept that the monopoly on force is authorized by the people for survival, and people who can discipline themselves but won’t.
To your languages comment: the preamble translates, but its essence is not evident in its words. Penman Gouverneur Morris created the preamble perhaps to reflect what the 1787 constitutional convention had accomplished but certainly not so as to please James Madison; https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_preamble.html.
The preamble is an agreement which each new citizen or permanent resident may ponder (or not) and adapt (or not) to his or her responsible pursuit of individual happiness (my interpretation of the preamble’s purpose and goals). Two phrases in particular beg adaptation to 2019. First, “to form a more perfect Union” is obsolete now that the Confederate States of America discovered that religious zeal is insufficient; that is, only with military power can a state’s independence from the Union be restored. I regard the perhaps obsolete Union phrase as “to establish civic integrity.” Second, “to ourselves and our Posterity,” represents spouses and their offspring (ourselves), in other words, the family, collaborating to provide for the parents’ grandchildren to live a better life. This commitment incorporates the grandchildren’s four collaborating grandparent-in-laws for more diverse cultures from which the grandchildren may benefit. I think with 2/3 of the people thinking for grandchildren, the nation would not have accumulated $21 trillion debt so as to satisfy adults.
The point is that I have pondered the preamble, collaborate to use it for happiness, and want to listen to fellow citizens for the opportunity to improve my commitment and trust so as to responsibly live together.
I have experienced firsthand that some legal immigrants understand the above paragraphs better than some citizens with family records reaching colonial America, whether British, Spanish, French, African (principally Florida), indigenous peoples or other. I feel certain I can benefit from civic collaboration with fellow citizens who lend to the preamble’s essence their ethnic experiences and observations.
Working to promote the preamble’s power to establish civic integrity motivates me, and collaboration to discover statutory justice based on the-objective-truth rather than aggressive opinion comes with equal justice under law.
Thank you for prompting these thoughts, and I consider your concern collaborative to my work.
To Kyle Juneau:
Mr. Juneau, I was starting my eighth decade when I noticed the common knowledge that the deciding battle in the eastern seaboard states’ war against England was moreover a French battle on this continent in their Second Hundred Years War against England.
The alliance by France and the Confederation of States was negotiated, and the strategy to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown was French strategy imposed on George Washington, who wanted to fight on Manhattan to avenge and earlier defeat there; https://www.historyisfun.org/learn/learning-center/colonial-america-american-revolution-learning-resources/american-revolution-essays-timelines-images/the-french-alliance/.
France's military might at Yorktown numbered 30,000 with 11,000 from the Continental Army against 9,000 English with Hessian mercenaries. (Numbers including the navy with references would be appreciated; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown.)
The thirteen eastern seaboard states sent representatives to Versailles to negotiate the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which names each of the thirteen free and independent states, barely acknowledging Congress. It states that England’s treaty with France had to be completed first, and names the thirteen states accepted by England as free and independent. Congress ratified the treaty on January 14, 1884, and the confederation lasted until Shays’ Rebellion, beginning in August 1786, made it obvious that the Confederation was insufficient; https://www.google.com/search?q=shays+rebellion&oq=Shays&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.7120j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.
During all this British colonization of the eastern seaboard and war for independence, the Louisiana territory was under French then Spanish then British then French governance before France’s sale to the U.S. History shows why French influence in Louisiana is not so sympathetic with maintaining traditions from British oppression during eastern-seaboard colonialism.
Someone tell me why the U.S. has not honored France with an equivalent of the Statue of Liberty (provided my statement is true). I visited Normandy, and recognize what the U.S. meant to France and western Europe during WW2, but the U.S. could separately honor the French allied victory ending the U.S. Revolutionary War. That way, I might have become aware during K-12 so to speak.
To Kyle Juneau: I did not intentionally fail.
I mentioned Shays Rebellion, which brought to a head 3-4 years' failure of the thirteen free and independent eastern seaboard states to get along with each other.
The thirteen states were independent countries after the French victory at Yorktown and according to the treaty negotiated with England in Paris.
Again, I was into my eighth decade before I wondered why the consequence of the Revolutionary War was the 1783 Treaty of Paris. I do not blame myself for such enduring ignorance.
Now, I tend to write “the American Revolutionary War” to appreciate other peoples’ struggles for individual happiness with civic integrity.
To Kyle Juneau again: ". . . brought to a head 3-4 years' failure of the thirteen free and independent eastern seaboard states to get along with each other."
To Kyle Juneau again: ". . . brought to a head 3-4 years' failure of the thirteen free and independent eastern seaboard states to get along with each other."
The next major event was the U.S. Constitutional convention in Philadelphia, 1787, especially the writing of its preamble, which stated the intentions for the legal transition from Confederation to Union. The people of nine states effected the change on June 21, 1788, leaving four free and independent countries in minority isolation.
News
DA Hillar Moore III errors (Gordon Russell) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_d656730c-d20a-11e8-9036-cfd509895b09.html)
“Moore said he hopes changing the law will help restore fractured confidence in the criminal justice system. Moore cited the law’s racist origins as a valid basis for seeking change, saying that despite subsequent constitutional revisions, the law was never cleansed of those origins.”
“Moore said his support for the change, which he expects to pass, is not without reservations. He fears an uptick in hung juries, for instance.But the potential upside is bigger ‘We are at critical times between police, prosecutors, courts and our community. Changing the verdict scheme hopefully will restore some trust and legitimacy in our system and take away some of the criticism of our current jury system.’"
I am practically home bound but make arrangements to attend events wherein I might collaborate for civic integrity. My esteem for Moore is excited when I see him there too. Therefore, I struggle to understand the above expressions as they relate to realities he experiences daily and from which I am directly shielded. For example, any racist opposition to impartial juries as Louisiana provides impartiality was negated by Johnson v Louisiana (1972), eight years after the non-discrimination Civil Rights Act.
I also see Moore in TV news coverage of crime scenes and at public meetings to collaborate for less gun violence in Baton Rouge.
If my dream came true, at least 2/3 of citizens would be aware that “equal justice under law” applies to an individual if and only if he or she personally trusts-in and commits-to the law. But Moore constantly interacts with people who have no desire to collaborate for justice. Rather many fellow citizens incessantly vie for dominant opinion. Some claim they are victims and Moore is in the class of victimizers. Like the rest of us, Moore would like to relieve that tension. I do not trust writers for The Advocate and doubt if Moore actually said, “Changing the verdict scheme hopefully will restore some trust and legitimacy in our system and take away some of the criticism of our current jury system.”
If he said that, I think Moore errs to express, perhaps even have that hope. Vigilantism by justice workers, especially judges and lawyers, may be addressed among justice workers, and that is not the direct responsibility of jurors. Nor is providing impartial jurors the direct responsibility of jurors. On the other hand, equal justice under law is every fellow citizen’s duty, and only those who oppose justice or practice vigilantism need to reform.
The best data I could find says victims of murder wherein the FBI is confident of the racial information are 120% black victims among the persons including whites; https://www.usnews.com/.../race-and-homicide-in-america.... However, blacks are only 13.3% of the population compared to 77.1% whites. Thus, black suffer 700% disproportionally to whites. Also, 90% of murders are within the race. In other words, in two ways, the primary victims of 12:0 jury wrongs are blacks. I think this anomaly among fellow humans who are black arises from systematic failure to trust-in and commit-to equal justice under law. Maybe Moore knows facts fellow citizens ought to know.
Moore’s assertions without supporting data do not convince me at all. For example, I think “fears an uptick in hung juries” means he expects ten times more re-trials than predicted, meaning high cost to the people. My estimate is 120 hung juries a year instead of The Advocate personnel's 12. And where does “potential upside is bigger come from”? How can there be upside when the system gets bogged down with re-trials? Will eliminating impartial juries inspire people who do not believe in justice to reform? I doubt Moore’s claims.
I appreciate Moore and perceive I am writing as a friend first and as a fellow citizen second.
Senator Cassidy’s error (Bryn Stole) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_1fa0b058-deeb-11e8-b6e6-73f9f12ceba5.html)
“Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental principle of our society, and a split-jury law undermines that principle,” said Cassidy, the state's senior senator, in a statement. “Louisiana should join Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi and every other state but one in requiring unanimous jury decisions in all non-capital felony cases.”
Cassidy misrepresents U.S. Amendment VI (1791), “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,” and Johnson v Louisiana (1972) wherein Louisiana’s provision of impartial juries was made constitutional.
Furthermore, Cassidy lobbies to empower criminals to rape women and then finagle onto the jury a person who claims DNA science is false and therefore votes to acquit the rapist despite the unanimous-majority of eleven impartial jurors; https://www.theadvocate.com/.../article_6354f0a4-cd9b....
The above cited rape case, FBI crime data, and a study showing unanimous juries get it wrong 23% of the time show that Louisiana’s 10:2 rule provides impartiality. The fact that neighboring states have not reformed is no reason for Louisiana to regress. England caught up with Louisiana’s excellence and instituted 10:2 verdicts in 1967 in order to lessen organized crime’s influence on the judicial process.
Lastly, “innocent until proven guilty” is the aim of the entire judicial system from discovery of statutory justice and provision of the necessary enforcement to gathering evidence, arraignment, grand jury indictment, second arraignment, and jury selection. The jury duty is to observe the competitive presentation of evidence versus plea for doubt. Does Cassidy really want victims to face juries wherein one errant, bigoted, criminal, or evil fellow citizen can extend the victims’ misery unto another trial?
Does Cassidy understand who the victims of crime are? They include the victim and his or her family and friends, the criminal’s family, fellow citizens who collaborate for statutory justice, and lastly, fellow citizens who pay the taxes that support the judicial system. With jury absolutism, the jury pool also becomes an extra victim. Cassidy could imagine what it is like to serve on the jury for a woman who was raped 15 years ago, identified the rapist, and heard witness that his DNA matches her rape kit evidence, but witnesses a fellow citizen vote for acquittal because DNA science can err. What horror if that jury person prevails!
Good grief that's cold to me, Dr. Cassidy!
BTW: The Advocate personnel shares mendacity so profusely it becomes common: Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdicts have been practiced for 138 years. I suppose The Advocate personnel drum the 120 years to try to associate it with inflammatory racist remarks in a constitutional convention.
Fellow citizens who understand that Dr. Cassidy erred will vote no on Amendment 2.
To Scuddy Leblanc: Also, blacks are the primary victims of jury absolutism (12:0 verdict requirement).
Cassidy misrepresents U.S. Amendment VI (1791), “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,” and Johnson v Louisiana (1972) wherein Louisiana’s provision of impartial juries was made constitutional.
Furthermore, Cassidy lobbies to empower criminals to rape women and then finagle onto the jury a person who claims DNA science is false and therefore votes to acquit the rapist despite the unanimous-majority of eleven impartial jurors; https://www.theadvocate.com/.../article_6354f0a4-cd9b....
The above cited rape case, FBI crime data, and a study showing unanimous juries get it wrong 23% of the time show that Louisiana’s 10:2 rule provides impartiality. The fact that neighboring states have not reformed is no reason for Louisiana to regress. England caught up with Louisiana’s excellence and instituted 10:2 verdicts in 1967 in order to lessen organized crime’s influence on the judicial process.
Lastly, “innocent until proven guilty” is the aim of the entire judicial system from discovery of statutory justice and provision of the necessary enforcement to gathering evidence, arraignment, grand jury indictment, second arraignment, and jury selection. The jury duty is to observe the competitive presentation of evidence versus plea for doubt. Does Cassidy really want victims to face juries wherein one errant, bigoted, criminal, or evil fellow citizen can extend the victims’ misery unto another trial?
Does Cassidy understand who the victims of crime are? They include the victim and his or her family and friends, the criminal’s family, fellow citizens who collaborate for statutory justice, and lastly, fellow citizens who pay the taxes that support the judicial system. With jury absolutism, the jury pool also becomes an extra victim. Cassidy could imagine what it is like to serve on the jury for a woman who was raped 15 years ago, identified the rapist, and heard witness that his DNA matches her rape kit evidence, but witnesses a fellow citizen vote for acquittal because DNA science can err. What horror if that jury person prevails!
Good grief that's cold to me, Dr. Cassidy!
BTW: The Advocate personnel shares mendacity so profusely it becomes common: Louisiana’s unanimous-majority verdicts have been practiced for 138 years. I suppose The Advocate personnel drum the 120 years to try to associate it with inflammatory racist remarks in a constitutional convention.
Fellow citizens who understand that Dr. Cassidy erred will vote no on Amendment 2.
To Scuddy Leblanc: Also, blacks are the primary victims of jury absolutism (12:0 verdict requirement).
FBI murder data for 2015 shows that among blacks and whites, 120% of the time the victim is black. That reality feels worse when you consider that blacks are only 13.3% of the population with 77.1% whites. Thus, jury absolutism 700% disproportionally hurts blacks. About 90% of the murderers are of the same skin color as the victims.
The effective way to address this problem is to self-discipline ourselves not to behave with vigilantism---advancing personal laws unto independent law enforcement.
This is basically what The Advocate personnel have done with their incessant imposition of "Jim Crow" sensationalism to oppose the U.S. Constitutional requirement that states provide impartial juries and Louisiana brilliantly created the impartial 9:3 unanimous-majority verdict for that purpose.
Jury impartiality developed during the 400 years this country suffered African slave trade and initiated the ongoing process of recovery from the British Empire’s tyranny. Judges and lawyers oppose the British revolution, because their faction benefits from the Canterbury-Blackstone partnership, an English-constitutional requirement made into an American tradition; see Greece v Galloway (2014). One of the chief celebrants of Magna Carta (1215) is the ABA.
Jury impartiality developed during the 400 years this country suffered African slave trade and initiated the ongoing process of recovery from the British Empire’s tyranny. Judges and lawyers oppose the British revolution, because their faction benefits from the Canterbury-Blackstone partnership, an English-constitutional requirement made into an American tradition; see Greece v Galloway (2014). One of the chief celebrants of Magna Carta (1215) is the ABA.
Writers for the press ought to be journaling the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (Olivia McClure) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_d0ae3544-d704-11e8-b1b6-735ad9c857ad.html)
Baton Rouge has no chance to establish civic integrity with a mayor who insists on the platform: dialogues on racialism and church.
Broome has not the decency to attend the celebration of “One Blood” yet stay out of Wicker and Welch’s bid for a perhaps factual implication: Each human being has his or her opportunity to use his or her individual power, his or her individual energy, and his or her individual authority (IPEA) to develop either integrity to the-objective-truth or infidelity.
I doubt Mayor Broome and staff could unpack and use the above sentence in ten years’ time. However, I challenge the Metro Council to apply the sentence or better according to their collective IPEA.
To WJoe Hicks: Your thought is alright for you, but I do not agree.
When I read Page 1 of the event announcement at https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_07dfe056-d6df-11e8-b310-b7366fcc5cad.html, I made arrangements to attend.
On Friday evening, I read the rest of the article to learn exactly where to go. I read Mayor Broome’s remarks: “One of the fundamental principles of Christian faith is to love one another regardless of skin color. If God wanted us all to have the same color, we'd be the same color."
I cannot be a part of such blatant ignorance and arrogance! One of the greatest civic persons of the last hundred years, Albert Einstein, informed humankind that physics (the object rather than the study) and integrity (understanding the-objective-truth) come from the same source. Unfortunately, he listened to scholars and wrote for the audience, using misleading terms: science and ethics; https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.
Broome’s god is like over three hundred million other gods in this country: none can withstand civic collaboration. Who wants to meet and collaborate about their god’s characteristics? Not Mayor Broome. She, like both the lowest and the highest of our fellow citizens has a private god.
Some fellow citizens admit to self that he or she does not know if anything controls the unfolding of actual reality. Some such people trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, whatever it is. About such issues some say, “I don’t know and that’s alright for my person at least.”
Columns
A profane simile (Stephanie Grace) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/stephanie_grace/article_3bad3af0-db99-11e8-a4f9-2f2c5f95795c.html)
Grace connecting the slaughter of eleven people in Pittsburg with a lame political prank to segue to her political agendumb is unforgiveable.
If The Advocate personnel were not collectively in the same abys of civic morality, they would fire her, and she could no longer find a job as a public writer.
To Mary Bryan: It gave Grace then you the individual opportunities to equate a public, criminal nuisance to eleven people killed. You and Grace each have the scorn of this fellow citizen.
Other fora
I posted this question.
The words “abolish” and “society” would limit my response, but I will work around it merely by using my expressions.
The most immediate improvement in civic integrity would come with the revision of the First Amendment so as to promote civic integrity, a human opportunity, rather than religion, an institutionalized mystery.
Longer term, perhaps requiring a decade or two to fully take root is most fellow citizens using the preamble to the U.S. Constitution to collaborate for equal justice under law based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion. There are two civic practices involved: use of the U.S. preamble’s offered agreement and collaboration to discover the-objective-truth in order to develop statutory justice.
https://www.quora.com/Should-all-people-have-equal-rights-1?
Civic integrity ineluctably constrains arbitrary prerogatives.
It’s not widely appreciated, but each human being has the opportunity to discover his or her IPEA: individual power, individual energy, and individual authority. With IPEA the person may develop integrity or not. For example, a person may commit to “crime pays,” but invites woe if actual harm he or she caused is discovered. Failure to appreciate IPEA is not a fault of IPEA but rather of the mendacities of the political regimes and families that suppress IPEA.
With integrity, the individual uses the-objective-truth to manage lesser authorities: appetites (banality); societies, associations, and civilizations (coercion); and governments (force). With individual civic-integrity, there is no question of rights, only the question of justice.
Also not widely appreciated is the fact that humankind is divided by an agreement to equal justice under law; Equal justice under law - Wikipedia. Some fellow citizens are aware of their peoples’ agreement and accept it. The other fellow citizens invite subjugation to the law; in other words, by not learning and accepting the agreement, citizens lessen their claim to equal justice or “rights.”
For fellow citizens in the U.S., the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is the civic, civil, and legal agreement under which the people develop equal justice under law. This actual reality is not only not widely unappreciated, but it is also suppressed by political powers and many individual’s failures to use IPEA to develop civic integrity. So far, the U.S. preamble, which is offered to the living people rather than for inhabitants of the past, has been neglected by about twelve generations of fellow citizens. Thus, our generation has the privilege of establishing the power of the U.S. preamble.
For fellow citizens in the U.S., the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is the civic, civil, and legal agreement under which the people develop equal justice under law. This actual reality is not only not widely unappreciated, but it is also suppressed by political powers and many individual’s failures to use IPEA to develop civic integrity. So far, the U.S. preamble, which is offered to the living people rather than for inhabitants of the past, has been neglected by about twelve generations of fellow citizens. Thus, our generation has the privilege of establishing the power of the U.S. preamble.
Sometimes the judicial system errs or falsely convicts. Even then, the accused victim may use IPEA to prevail. For example, the court falsely convicted Socrates of teaching a false god to the youth of Athens, even though Socrates factually refuted the claim. Socrates’ friends urged him to go into exile so as to continue questioning opinion as a means to approach and perhaps discover the-objective-truths. I speculate Socrates chose to die in order to uphold the rule of law even when justice is failed by the system.
The human being is both physically and psychologically the most powerful species on earth. While some species instinctively perform wonderful, specific feats, the human being is limited only by how he or she employs IPEA. Instincts come at birth and many species mature quickly. Lions take about 3 years and elephants about 25 to reach psychological maturity, but a human matures in about 65 years if at all. For humans, the development of IPEA is as critical to psychological maturity as the thumb is essential to physical power.
For a person to claim rights when he or she has not trusted-in and committed-to the civic agreement the people use to develop statutory justice is a declaration of human immaturity. Just as not knowing traffic signals does not authorize running red lights, immaturity is an insufficient basis for resisting statutory law enforcement, erroneous as the specifics may be.
I wrote a pretty good intro and the site swallowed it.
I wrote to Facebook: I posted a message on this site (https://www.facebook.com/ClubBlueBR/) this morning. I did not expect it, but it was a good, brief introduction to my work, and pertinent to a public event they are sponsoring tomorrow morning at La Divina.
To my surprise, when I posted it, I got a message saying the proprietors would review the message for posting. So far, they have not approved it for posting.
I liked my creation. I liked my introduction to my work. Is there a way I can recover it?
Facebook then announced they cannot respond individually. Wow!
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.
