Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Nationally accepting responsible human independence

Majority acceptance of the U.S. Preamble offers each citizen an achievable better future


"Acceptance" entails consideration, personal and civic comprehension, appreciation, and independent adoption of the U.S. Preamble's proposition. Each U.S. citizen should own and use a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.

Civic, civil, and legal subject, predicate, and object of the U.S. Constitution’s proposition:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


1.      Independently responsible citizens encourage the living people to public integrity.


2.      Responsible citizens maintain the U.S. Constitution.


Phil Beaver’s affirmative interpretation for living citizens, at least himself:

We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves and encourage fellow citizens to integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity in order to empower responsible human independence to living citizens.


Phil Beaver’s cautionary interpretation:

We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves and encourage fellow citizens to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence.

Discussion

“Liberty” to some citizens means license for tyranny, disruption, and bloodletting. Since June 21, 1788, tolerant citizens have allowed members of Congress[i] to neglect if not repress the U.S. Preamble.

Let self-interested voters choose candidates for election based on whether or not the candidate’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble as stated in his or her platform and past political conduct evince conformation to the voter's interpretation (both improvements of my interpretations, above).



Copyright©2020 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Updated 2/26/2020.

Sunday, February 9, 2020

America’s Revolution for Responsible Human Independence


Complex history is often obscured by popularly accepted labels affixed to events. Joseph Loconte, in “Two Revolutions for Freedom,”[1] presents scholarship about the American Revolution for independence from England, 1765-1783, as though America extended the English Revolution of 1688[2] and rejected the French Revolution of 1789.[3] The first replaced a Catholic king with his Protestant daughter, planting the seeds for “democracy” under the Church of England, and the second established a republican government with continual public disruption and rejection of churches. Loconte, perhaps to promote the Judeo-Christian God in competition with whatever-God-is, helps obscure the human repressed revolution that the U.S. offered on June 21, 1788: responsible human independence. 

The 1774 Confederation of States was not practical, and on September 17, 1787 framers proposed a Union of states to be disciplined by self-disciplined people. The framers considered political opinions from the world, especially those of the controversial 1774 “founders.” Only 39 of the 55 the U.S. Constitution’s framers signed the U.S. Preamble with its amendable articles. When the people of 9 of 13 states ratified the U.S. Preamble, the USA was legally established as a global nation. Ratification was predicated on the unfortunate promise that the first Congress would amend the constitution with an English-like Bill of Rights modified to colonial American traditions. The U.S. Preamble, America’s political revolution, proposes freedom-from oppression in order to encourage responsible human independence. Proprietary language represses the U.S. people’s proposition.

England, France, and the war for American independence from Europe


                European countries evolved in wars with dominance moving from country to country. Religious power influenced political conflict. England and France imposed their frequent enmity onto America and there dominated other colonizers such as Spain and Holland. War labels are so confusing it is a burden to learn European conflicts that eventually influenced America’s war for independence. Victory empowered an American proposition for responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens that has been repressed by conservation of colonial tradition.

Magna Carta,[4] in 1215 in England, was a charter of political rights that the king granted to the church and landowners but not to the working and artisan classes. A pope annulled Magna Carta, but Parliament resurrected it several times. In the 16th century, the Church of England rejected Rome’s “authority.”[5] The Church of England took over the Catholic dioceses.[6] In the revolution of 1688, the Church of England adopted tolerance for Protestantism and established several principles for human opportunity and protection yet maintained human classification. John Locke wrote about church-state partnership and English tolerance. Colonial Americans from England considered themselves Englishmen until they rebelled starting in 1763, replaced colonies with states in 1774, declared war for political independence in 1776, and won global recognition as 13 free and independent states in 1783. In 1788, the proposal for responsible human independence was ratified.

While Spain was first to settle in N. America (in St. Augustine in 1565), England dominated France and Holland in settling the eastern seaboard north of Florida. The first English settlement was at Jamestown, VA, 1607 under the First Virginia Charter.[7] The colonists were English subjects. The first French colony was Quebec, in 1608.[8] Spain, England, and France competed for interior land that became the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. France conducted the “French and Indian Wars” against England and loyal colonists. France ceded to England the contested lands in the 1763 Treaty of Paris.[9]

The final battle in the American war for independence, at Yorktown, VA in 1781, was strategically and militarily dominated by France with the continental army’s assistance against England. The treaty whereby England agreed that the 13 states were free and independent was signed at Versailles in 1783 and titled, “The Treaty of Paris.” The 13 free and independent states ratified the Treaty of Paris on January 14, 1784.

Thus, beginning in 1784, European if not global nations recognized 13 free and independent states by name on the eastern seaboard, east of the Mississippi and north of Florida. Internally, they remained the 1774 Confederation of States until June 21, 1788: 9 states legally formed a union of states, the USA.

In France, on July 14, 1789, worker-rioters stormed the Bastille, [10] beginning the bloody French Revolution. It’s development had little to no American influence. George Washington promoted the fact that the Atlantic Ocean shielded America from European wars, internal or not.

So far, we have reviewed the English Revolution of 1688—a preservation of Christianity in governance, the American victory for independence from England in 1783, and the French Revolution of 1789---an establishment of secular governance. Of the 1688 “Glorious Revolution” John Locke wrote of representative government to protect “life, liberty, and property.” The American Declaration of Independence extols “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The motto of the French Revolution is “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” Especially regarding the French Revolution, “liberty” can suggest “license” or bloody entitlement. There remains the 1788-ratified American revolution for responsible human independence that Congress took the liberty to repress in 1789. It’s been repressed ever since.

America proposes reform to discipline of by and for the people


                In the summer of 1787, 55 delegates from 12 of 13 free and independent states, negotiating to strengthen the founders’ 1774 Confederation of U.S. States, designed a republic predicated on both individual and collective public discipline to secure responsible human independence to living citizens. The proposition was stated in the U.S. Preamble with the amendable articles that complete the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Some of the sixteen delegates who did not sign the document on September 17, 1787 opposed the absence of allegiance to whatever-God-is; some opposed a Union of states rather than the confederation; some opposed “We the People of the United States” as the subject of the preamble’s proposition, and the people had not nourished the psychological maturity to accept being human let alone egocentrically embrace responsible human independence. In human independence, the individual admits to himself or herself that whatever-God-is may not conform to his or her God. I doubt many of the 39 signers grasped the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. Preamble.

                Like other abstract factual-evidence that encourages personal autonomy, the U.S. Preamble must be interpreted by the individual citizen. And, like traffic violations, ignorance of the preamble’s proposition does not shield the dissident citizen from subjugation to civic, civil, or legal imposition. Here is the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[11]

These words are familiar yet widely neglected in the USA. Some people on hearing the first four words erroneously think the sentence is from the Declaration of Independence and the subject, We the People of the United State, is an abstract entity from the past with no powers in the present.

                The benefits (blessings) of liberty “to ourselves and our Posterity,” applies to us as the framing generation’s posterity. In other words, living citizens are the “ourselves” to our descendants and future immigrants. This easily overlooked point may be regarded as “self-evident” or, as I prefer respecting human discovery of actual reality, the-literal-truth. After truth, your truth, my truth, God’s truth, absolute truth, ultimate truth, and the-objective-truth, there remains actual reality, discernable by the ineluctable evidence and, in perfect perception, humanly approaching the-literal-truth. Thus, responsibility for the entity We the People of the United States rests with the continuum of “ourselves and our Posterity.” Each citizen should own his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.

                My interpretation today of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for my way of civic citizenship is:  We the People of the United States egocentrically (selfishly) consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to establish and maintain 6 public disciplines to living citizens: integrity, justice, peace, strength, prosperity, and responsible human independence. Since the standard for none of the 6 disciplines is specified, it seems that the extension and depth of citizens practicing the proposition monitors progress toward individual happiness with civic, civil, and legal integrity. Most governments demand submission to arbitrary goals for the person, and so far, political regimes in the USA seem to use coercion and force to that end. Under the U.S. Preamble and pursuit of statutory justice, our generation has an achievable better future.

I share my interpretation hoping that fellow citizens will notice an improvement and suggest it to me. Additionally, I hope to encourage fellow citizens to establish their individual interpretations of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

                Interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is hard to take in 2020. Hard to take, because existing cultures do not encourage and coach children and beyond to prepare and intend to live a complete human life. Hard to take because the young slowly, if ever, perceive the personal benefits of pursuing integrity above nourishing human appetites. Hard to take because social democrats have dominated U.S. higher education for a half century, inculcating dominant struggles for identity politics. More about that in future essays, or study interesting issues on your own. Now, I want to list some of the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth that was suggested to the constitution’s framers, whether they could articulate it or not.

Some of the-objective-truth was suggested before 1787


                Several ideas suggested by the Greeks and other Europeans about 2,400 years ago were evident to some of the framers, whether framers shared their awareness or not. First, the civic citizen behaves for equity under statutory justice. Second, the civic human neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or association. Third, the human being humbly accepts that the God of his or her hope and comfort does not dominate whatever-God-is and ought not be presented to fellow humans for evaluation and consideration: discussion if agreed to, but no imposition. Fourth, it seems whatever-God-is assigned to humans, both individually and collectively, the responsibility for public discipline. Fifth, from Italy, as cultures have developed, belief in a personal God rather than whatever-God-is makes it difficult for an individual to accept human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity or to accept a civic agreement while pursuing personal happiness. I perceive these principles in my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and feel no need to consult the framers for affirmation; I benefit from another 230 years of human discovery and so not consign my integrity to other entities.

The 6 public disciplines do not include religion, leaving theism and other spiritualisms electable, private pursuits. In other words, under the U.S. Preamble, neither England’s partnership with the church nor France’s secularism is proposed nor is the founders’ vision of happiness---beyond mutual, comprehensive safety and security---proposed. Liberty, the goal held in common by those three revolutions can be in conflict with responsible human independence and can be bloody license as remarkably in the French Revolution. The individual citizen may develop integrity whether he or she embrace religious hopes and comforts or not.

My belief is in the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth, and I do not want anyone to consider my faith. Let each person choose motivation and inspiration on their own. Yet I encourage all fellow citizens to develop civic integrity, an achievable human character. An achievable better future can begin with acceptance and practice of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, especially under the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.

Some consequences of acceptance of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition




                I have yet to encounter a modern political issue that can be resolved by “the founders’” vision for us, the 12th generation of We the People of the United States. Can readers imagine imposing our vision of the future on living citizens 12 generations from now? However, living citizens can connect for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.

The 55-delegate convention of 1787 worked behind closed doors to consider and avoid observable mistakes from past governances, especially in the western world. The 5-member Committee of Style,[12] during September 8-12, 1787, abstractly expressed the resulting proposition. Only 39 delegates signed the preamble to the amendable 1787 U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Preamble has never failed my internal debate for civic integrity. The U.S. Preamble states the U.S. Revolution for responsible human independence. Future amendments to the U.S. Constitution and legal code so as to conform to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition may include the following:

1.       The First Amendment’s clauses that promote religion, an institution, may be revised to encourage integrity, a human duty.

2.       Freedom of expression may be reformed to independence of responsible human expression.

3.       Freedom of the press may be reformed to responsible press independence.

4.       Article IV may be revised to “. . . no religious Test shall ever be [allowed] as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” In other words, an individual’s spiritual hopes and comforts are private rather than public concerns. That is, civic citizens who are believers nevertheless retain humility towards whatever-God-is and therefore demand separation of church and state. In other words, an elected President may have a religion, but it does not apply to the duties of the office: The President serves the entity We the People of the United States according to the U.S. Constitution’s provisions.

5.       Citizens who cannot attest to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition’s influence on his or her life as he or she interprets its can neither run for office nor vote. Consequently, no government body has an oath of office that includes phrases like “so help me God” or “so help me whatever-God-is.” The candidate either intends to lawfully officiate or not and cannot consign the duties to whatever-God-is.

6.       Following U.S. Amendments VI and XIV.1, unanimous jury-verdicts are not allowable in the USA, even for capital trials. For example, lesser crimes may be decided on as 4:2 majority or 7:5 majority, life sentences on 9:3, and capital verdicts on 11:1. Thereby, organized crime has less influence on jury trials.

7.       The current generation cannot create government debt for posterity to pay.

8.       Personal opinion cannot civilly derail or overcall the-objective-truth in ignorance of the-literal-truth. For example, adults cannot legally compromise the equity and dignity of a human ovum or spermatozoon. Ova and spermatozoon cannot be marketed.

9.       The human infant cannot be denied the opportunity to develop integrity rather than nourish infidelity.

10.   The American Bar Association cannot promote English or other alien law or traditions to exclude conformity to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

11.   By accepting the U.S. Preamble’s potential to accelerate comprehension of the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth, the U.S. Supreme Court at last has a standard by which to guide amendment of the U.S. Constitution as human psychology advances. Furthermore, with the needed clarity of the U.S. Preamble’s legal power to end the Confederation of states, the court may recognize and respond to the entity We the People of the United States.

12.   Education Departments change their purpose to “Encouragement Departments” with early emphasis on persuading adults to accept both HIPEA and responsible human independence without losing urgency to encourage and coach children to accept being human---a member of the most powerful species for developing integrity. Inculcation of both modern identity politics and religious beliefs are ended in publically supported universities so as to promote mutual, comprehensive safety and security with personal happiness as “the common good.”

13.   Maslow’s hierarchy is re-constructed as egocentric responsibilities rather than needs.[13]

14.   Humankind considers physics, the object of all study, as the source of not only physical but also psychological reality, which can be discovered with ineluctable evidence continually improved by new instruments of perception so that the-objective-truth ultimately approaches the-literal-truth.

15.   The people’s alienation to a uniting proposition is resolved by the U.S. Preamble under the-literal-truth. Dissidents may necessarily suffer unjust written law if discovery of statutory justice would have relieved them.

These are only a few of the potential terminations of harmful traditions that have been imposed on U.S. citizens despite the U.S. Preamble’s proposition over 230 years ago.

A few comments on Loconte’s essay


Loconte reviews the tyranny to We the People of the United States when political regimes falsely labeled the U.S. Preamble “secular.” The preamble is neutral to religion. While the French Revolution tagged 1789 as “The Year of Terror,” it was no excuse for Edmund Burke to write, “. . . people are not fit for liberty, and must have a strong hand, like that of their former masters to coerce them. Men must have a certain fund of natural moderation to qualify them for freedom.” Burke had not the comprehension expressed by Rousseau: “Christianity’s spirit is so favorable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime.”[14] Let’s assume Rousseau read Chapter XI Machiavellianism[15] as irony but Burke did not. Burke might then have written: each human may develop the independence-to pursue integrity and benefits in freedom-from tyranny. Burke erroneously commended competitive theism to the hearts and hopes of humans, who ought to trust whatever-God-is. Tocqueville’s legacy cannot impose on whatever-God-is acceptance of ritual to bargain for favorable afterdeath. Even the U.S. Preamble came too early for freedom-from the proprietary term “liberty” so as to imagine responsible human independence.

            Loconte mentioned the Constitution several times, without sharing his interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. We the People of the United States humbly accepts whatever-God-may-be rather than arrogating “the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus,” slighting Muslim civic citizens with their God of Abraham, Ishmael, Kedar, to Adnan, to the Musta'riba, and to the Quraysh.[16] It is disingenuous to live in a nation that proposes civic integrity so that each citizen may pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than accept impositions by other citizens, never considering its people’s proposition for civic equity under statutory justice: here, the U.S. Preamble. Just as red-light runners beg woe, fellow citizens who neglect the U.S. Preamble’s proposition may suffer justice.



                Loconte does not consider that the U.S. Civil War was constructed on Christianity. He seems weakly remorseful for slavery and typically fails to understand Abraham Lincoln's lament that both sides pray to [whatever-God-is].[17] The Declaration of Secession concludes with the claim that the north is influenced by an erroneous religious opinion.[18] Bleeding Kansas, 1854 was by slavery promoters who were white against white abolitionists.[19] R. E. Lee's December 1856 letter to his wife referred to abolition as an evil pursuit.[20] These facts ought not be ignored.



                I encourage readers to consider Loconte’s arguments against my view of the U.S. Preamble’s untapped civic, civil, and legal powers. The U.S. Preamble is the undeveloped American political revolution.

Conclusion


                We reviewed each: the English Revolution as a point in the development of England’s partnership with its Church, the French Revolution toward secularism, colonial America’s war for independence from England, and America’s internal proposition. Scholars and political regimes suppress this American dream: private and public discipline so as to secure the benefits of responsible human independence to living citizens.

The reader is invited to ask, “Who neglects the U.S. Preamble’s proposition?” The list begins with people who may observe human development since June 21, 1788 and do not act. On that date 9 of 13 eastern-seaboard former British colonies established the USA as global nation. Today, the USA has fifty states still bound to many colonial-English traditions. Many citizens are voluntarily enslaved to identity politics. The U.S. Revolution for public discipline in order to secure responsible human independence to living citizens lies fallow. Our generation has the opportunity to establish a culture that encourages individual happiness with civic integrity. Let’s act now to establish and practice the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

Copyright©2020 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Updated on 2/10/20 to include the comments on the Civil War and on 2/11/20 for physics and Maslow’s heirarchy.



[1] Joseph Loconte, “Two Revolutions for Freedom,” National Affairs, Number 42, Winter 2020, Page 146.
[11] Online at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/us. I chose this reference because it erroneously implies that the framers agreed to it during six weeks. In reality, the draft preamble did not contain a people’s proposition, and the Committee of Style (5 delegates) wrote it beginning on September 8, 1787. Only 39 of 55 delegates signed it on September 17, 1787.
[12] Online at https://www.nps.gov/inde/learn/historyculture/the-committee-of-style-and-arrangement.htm.
[17] Online at https://www.nps.gov/linc/learn/historyculture/lincoln-second-inaugural.htm.
[18] Online at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp.
[19] Online at https://www.britannica.com/event/Bleeding-Kansas-United-States-history.
[20] Online at https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Letter_from_Robert_E_Lee_to_Mary_Randolph_Custis_Lee_December_27_1856.

Monday, January 27, 2020

Pelosi holiday from the rule of law: Judeo-Catholic theism


            About 20 months ago, Joe Lieberman called public attention to his seasonal celebration of the 10 commandments, titled, “A Holiday for the Rule of Law.” The phrase seems ironic for January 22, 2020’s unlawful exhibition by Adam Schiff when the Democratic Party’s Nancy-Pelosi unlawful impeachment of President Trump threatened to lessen the U.S. Senate.

Lieberman’s 2018 appeal to theism instead of responsible human liberty reflects America’s fairly rapid decline and potential to reform to the U.S. Preamble's 1788 proposition. Human responsibility cannot emerge from dependence on whatever-God-is, or government, or partnership of the two: it must come from the civic citizens---the entity We the People of the United States. 

The U.S. Preamble specifies the 5 public disciplines of the American dream: personal happiness with civic integrity rather than subjugation to tyranny, doctrine, or unity; in other words, human liberty grounded in the preamble’s 5 disciplines. Congress has not the power to consign to whatever-God-is the responsibility for human justice. Congress’s attempt to usurp whatever-God-is must ultimately be corrected.

                Perhaps justifiably, Lieberman draws attention to lawyers rather than the clergy to claim “a good legal system makes the difference between a civilized society and a chaotic one.” During the evolution of Western culture, lawyers have been instrumental in key events: Magna Carta, 1215, granting a church-Lords partnership political power previously held by the King of England; suppressing Nicolo Machiavelli’s irony in “The Prince,” Chapter XI; ratifying the U.S. Bill of Rights features that repress as much as possible the U.S. Preamble. Amendment I established American church-state tradition on par with England’s constitutional church-state partnership. Unfortunately, since each religious sect if not religious person has doctrinal definition of whatever-God-is (or is not), church-state partnership guarantees chaos. Civil theism assures chaos. The citizen’s liberty-to develop integrity must overrule freedom-of civil religion.

                Chapter XI Machiavellianism concludes that since the people are theists, their church-state partnership assures the clergy and political officials can live high on the hog and the theistic people will neither leave the country nor rebel: believers hope whatever-God-is will save them from the discipline required for responsible human liberty. The idea of discipline so as to earn human liberty is so unpopular that most people are willing to suffer the tyranny of coercion and force under high taxation.

In the USA, the U.S. Preamble is suppressed as “secular” whereas it is neutral to religion. It seems self-evident that whatever-God-is has assigned to humankind the responsibility for civic integrity. This possible interpretation of the U.S. Preamble cannot be discovered by someone steeped in his or her scripture about whatever-God-is. Thus, Lieberman honestly expressed infidelity to civic integrity as a member of We the People of the United States according to Lieberman’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble (not my interpretation).

For spiritual integrity Lieberman perhaps hopes for the Jewish messiah with humility toward whatever-God-is. By mentioning Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, perhaps Lieberman has expressed his view of Judeo-Christianity, which seems an oxymoron to me. I wonder how whatever-God-is views the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus or the God of Abraham and Ishmael or the God of Ethiopia.

                If the U.S. Senate is the wisest forum on earth, perhaps it will reform. Three changes are sorely needed in the U.S. Senate daily rules. First, the 100 senators should recite in unison the U.S. Preamble, verbatim, each individual reflecting on his or her interpretation of those 52 words. Second, their pledge of allegiance should say, “under whatever-God-is,” rather than “under God.” Third, in humility to both whatever-God-is’s powers and in acceptance of responsible human liberty, any prayers should express appreciation, perhaps for self-discipline, but no entreaty: Whatever-God-is is in charge and seems to hold elected officials responsible for their public office. Election to public office does not come with the power of consignment of the responsibilities to a supernatural power. Civic integrity by the U.S. Senate could influence the House of Representatives, the administration, the judiciary, the irresponsible press, and all fellow citizens to connect for an achievable better future.

                As a civic influence, the 10 commandments cannot compete with the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as each civic citizen interprets the literal preamble (not according to my interpretation). The first consideration is that in the continuum of time, “Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” is a moving connection among living citizens, present and future. That is, today, “ourselves” is living families and individuals and “our Posterity” is our future grandchildren and beyond.

The framers and signers of the 1787 US Constitution missed all that the successive generations discovered about civic, civil, and legal injustice and options for reform. My interpretation of the U.S. Preamble for my lifestyle today is:  We the People of the United States voluntarily consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect so as to establish and maintain 5 public disciplines in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. No standards are specified. Perhaps the extent and quality of responsible human liberty is the measure of future success.

                The 10 Commandments may be good for ancient Israel and for modern Jewish motivation and inspiration. However, as a civil proposition, its promotion cannot compare with a simple directive: civic citizens pursue equity under statutory justice. Statutory justice is perfect, written, law enforcement. In the USA, that proposition is stated in the U.S. Preamble, and each citizen owes it to himself or herself to interpret the preamble to guide his or her civic integrity and avoid infidelity.

                Every time I hear a member of Congress invoke “we, the people,” the rest of what he or she says may convince me that he or she is not of We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble. For example, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Gerry Nadler convince me that they have no interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Unfortunately, Lieberman’s imposition of his theism as a civic interest influences me to think he has not considered the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. I address not Lieberman’s person or his God but his public expression.

        I name these persons only to illustrate the general malaise or chaos the U.S. Government has fallen into by ratifying the 1788 proposition for responsible human liberty under five public disciplines but then allowing Congress to attempt consignment of the responsibility to whatever-God-is. Not only is the theism excluded from the 5 disciplines listed in the U.S. Preamble, the articles that follow the preamble specifically exclude the imposition of theism. For example, Article II, Section 1 specifies the presidential oath of office, and it does not call for theism. In the oaths I have heard, the Supreme Court Chief Justice traditionally presents the personal interrogative “. . . so help you God?” If he presented “. . . so help you whatever-God-is?” the offered humility could be followed by the President’s choice, such as “So help me Allah.” But I would prefer the opportunity to vote for Presidents who simply use the U.S. Constitution with no attempt to consign responsibility or imply that whatever-God-is may be absent unless prayed to. Article IV says “. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Civic citizenship is a public trust, and I do not submit to religious tests. Thus, I do not stand for public appeals to whatever-God-is.



                     It is not easy to accept that the First Congress’s “freedom of religion” is the impostion of theism. However, the makeup of the U.S. Supreme court is substantially Judeo-Christian if not Judeo-Catholic, and the justices often express in their propriety that their God demanded their actions. In the impeachment heardings today, one speaker attributed the errors of his expressions to British colonialism. Freedom of religion is a colonial tradition that must ultimately give way to encouragement to develop integrity.



                     Consideration of the U.S. Preamble’s object, “ourselves and our Posterity,” makes it clear that living citizens are oppressed by the systematic repression of the preamble’s 5 public disciplines that impower responsible human liberty. We the People of the United States have the civic, civil, and legal power to require political reform by voting only for politicians whose platform features their contributions to the achievable better future under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth. A person’s or institution’s spiritual pursuits are a private matter according to the U.S. Preamble’s propostion for responsible human liberty.



                     Fellow citizens who oppose when they could puruse improving the U.S. Preamble are aliens at least and traitors at worst. In the 2020 Donald Trump impeachement hearings, some speakers beg constraint and some beg expulsion. The Senate proceedure begs reform so as to begin with recitation of the U.S. Preamble in unison.  



Copyright©2020 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Hillsdale College's campaign against the U.S. Preamble's propostion to the people


Some traditional scholarship preserves ignorance rather than pursues the-literal-truth. Only civic living citizens can overcome the consequential lag between discovery and acceptance. For example, the Vatican admitted error in persecuting Galilio 350 years later; however, the egregious offense is modern acceptance of “conflict between reason and dogma, science and faith[1] rather than failure to accept ineluctable evidence to reject traditional speculation.

Hillsdale College management seems bemused by opposition to the neglected entity We the People of the United States. Here are a few American myths Hillsdale’s Larry P. Arnn promotes[2] in a non-profit campaign for donations:
1.   Most individual colonists had Christianity in common.
2.   Christianity is exempt from 1692 Salem “witch” executions.[3]
3.   The deist phrase “Nature and Nature’s God” refers to Jesus.
4.   The 1787 U.S. Constitution merely fulfills the 1774 Confederation of States.
5.   The U.S. Preamble is secular rather that neutral to religion.
The above are a few of my major concerns with Arnn‘s message. I will address others by suggesting definitions to perhaps add-to or modify “a civic glossary” we are developing.[4] Also, I may use some of the entries below to initiate a glossary we deem too proprietary for a civic glossary. Phrases in quotation marks below reference Arnn‘s essay. 

Glossary:
Appreciation: gratitude to or from someone for fidelity more than “allegiance” to civic integrity; in other words, to mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
Celebrating the dead citizens: awareness of past errors empowers living citizens to observe rather than experience woe.
Change: Since the object of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is liberty to us and our posterity, civic living citizens cannot consign the responsibility for human liberty to the Articles of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, founders, whatever-God-is, or government, and dissidents may discover subjugation under statutory law enforcement. The continuum of living citizens and their posterity is responsible for human liberty in the USA and must maintain the march toward statutory justice.
Civic citizens: fellow citizens who neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from each other or to/from civic institutions. “Founders” and “patriots” may not have qualified as civic citizens. Their errors are cited to support modern erroneous reasoning more than to avoid repetition.
College: a center for encouraging the development of responsible human liberty; in other words, for pursuing integrity to the-literal-truth.
Consent: is an erroneous “rational standard” used by English scholars to detract from civic discipline so as to establish government coercion and force using the falsehood that “all men are created equal.” Every person is unique, and some individuals oppose “common sense” including equity under statutory justice. Un-civic individuals must be constrained under written law enforcement until they reform to fellow citizenship.
Encouraged: seems preferred to “educated,” which is similar to “indoctrinated,” “civilized,” or “subjugated.” A civic culture perhaps features one indoctrination: to behave for mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that individuals may personally develop responsible human liberty.
Expert rule: By consigning Congressional responsibilities to the President, Congress has initiated an unconstitutional entity of a Greek utopia, the “philosopher king.”[5]
Final cause: The U.S. Preamble infers that the standard of human liberty is the level of responsibility ultimately practiced by We the People of the United States. As time unfolds, more citizens with more civic integrity, voluntarily discover and practice statutory justice.
Formal cause: the global civic citizen voluntarily develops human equity under statutory justice, and works to convince his or her country to establish a people’s agreement to that effect. In the USA, the agreement is offered to each citizen in the U.S. Preamble. As the 5 disciplines specified in the U.S. Preamble empower discovery of injustice, written law is examined and may be amended so as to conform to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Negligence of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as “secular” instead of neutral to religion has produced an impracticable U.S. Constitution, as currently observed in the U.S. House of Representative vs the U.S. Senate. We the People of the United States as defined in the U.S. Preamble ought to notify the U.S. Congress to join the USA as specified in the U.S. Preamble.
Golden rule: the false notion that accepting personal doctrine about whatever-God-is positions someone to impose theism on fellow citizens. It is not “fact that the Christian God . . . is the most open to thinking.” Whatever-God-is probably does not respond to revelation, reason, or beliefs.
Good humans: is a subjective opinion rather than the-objective-truth much less the-literal-truth. No one knows the ultimate responsible-human-liberty; in other words, no human knows perfect integrity.
Great books—old and new: “attempts to approximate truth that frequently differ from one another” perhaps detracting from the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth, which may be discover on ineluctable evidence.
Higher learning: pursues not “means but ends,” which are “higher than means.” The end for The U.S. Preamble’s proposition may be responsible human liberty and the means is 5 public disciplines.
Human liberty: is unavoidable and can be nourished by each aware human individual. Freedom-from oppression is essential to personal discovery of the liberty-to develop integrity. Inculcation into “civil and religious liberty and intelligent piety” is difficult to overcome and is the human objection to Chapter XI Machiavellianism.[6] Theism itself is the “first universal religion not to provide government to the faithful.” Theisms compete for church-state partnership so as to pick the people’s pockets with immunity. In a population of believers, only a dreamer would propose reform.
Independent executive agencies: that is, Congress has abdicated its responsibilities to the U.S. Preamble by consigning Congressional responsibilities to the administration under the President. The consequence is regulatory judges and “career officers” who have no ties to the U.S. Constitution. Recall that the U.S. Preamble specifies government by 5 disciplines rather than “by consent,” perhaps a Greek fallacy.[7]
Legitimate: law and institutions in the USA must conform to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Wherein they deviate from the U.S. Preamble, the articles of the U.S. Constitution must be amended. Amendment to establish statutory justice is inevitable. The deep state is not “more legitimate than the president and the Senate.” Arnn did not specify why he omitted the House of Representatives and the courts from the list of legitimate offices. In no fashion can the Declaration of Independence answer “What to do?” beyond using the U.S. Preamble’s proposition to distance ourselves from colonial-English tradition such as church-state partnership.
Nature’s God: This phrase from the 1776 Declaration of Independence is used by some people to overshadow the 1787 U.S. Constitution and its preamble. Mysteriously, this Unitarian God represents Christianity in its thousands of factions, Judeo-Christianity, and perhaps African-American Christianity. It falsely disparages the U.S. Preamble as secular whereas it is neutral to religion and theism.
“Partner”: The Declaration of Independence, 1776, is both no partner to the U.S. Constitution, 1787, and opposes We the People of the United States, the entity that 9 states ratified civically, civilly, and legally on June 21, 1788.
Pillars: means reliable provider of physical and psychological strength. Hillsdale College was founded on “learning, character, faith, and freedom” to describe “the complete human being” or “the well-lived human life” (1844). Gen. George Washington (June 1781) proposed 4-6 pillars: An indissoluble Union of the States under one federal head; public justice; peace; and civic goodwill so as to overlook local prejudices, to make mutual concessions for general prosperity, and to sacrifice individual advantages in order to establish a culture of integrity.[8] The U.S. Preamble (est. 1788) proposes integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens and their posterity.
Principles: ought to be grounded in the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth. The 1776 Declaration of Independence was an instrument of a war begun in 1774. It was a product of the 1774 confederation of the 13 English colonies that lived in less than 12% of America’s 2020 contiguous land area. Spain and France colonized most of the balance of land area. France won the revolutionary war with the Continental Army’s help, and the consequence was the treaties of Paris, 1783, one of which made the 13 former British colonies 13 global, free and independent states. The 1787 U.S. Constitution legally divided states into a global union of 9 states called the USA. The 4 remaining free and independent states were dissidents for political reasons. Before operations began in 1789, 2 dissident states had joined the USA. Part of the contention was the legal dissolution of the confederation of states under the principle of 5 public disciplines which encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens---under the U.S. Preamble.
Probity: Fidelity to a doctrine/civilization, not necessarily integrity to the-literal-truth.
Reason: “the essential element of human nature . . . a synonym for speech.” More important to the human individual is acceptance of the natural power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to the-literal-truth rather than nourish appetites.
Science: is a process, and its product is discovery based on ineluctable evidence. To “make society into what we want it to be” opposes both responsible human liberty and sacrifices the-literal-truth to satisfy desire. The tool of “social science” is manipulation of survey statistics by design and evaluation so as to disguise the “researcher’s” speculation.
Standard: human practice “that is complete and perfect.” Perhaps ultimate responsible human liberty is the civic standard. For all we know, complete and perfect human liberty would solve the mystery whatever-God-is.
Technology: “knowing how” cannot be the standard for what to do and human responsibility for liberty isn’t “an engineering project.” In addition to awareness and grammar, the human being has and may accept the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop motivation and inspiration to establish integrity; that is, fidelity to the-literal-truth.
Understanding: may be considered a process with a product. The process employs at each step integrity toward the ineluctable evidence. Without integrity, the discovery, evaluation, acceptance, practice, promotion, dialogue with fellow citizens, and open-mindedness may be ruined. Without integrity, the product will be misunderstanding and tyranny. For example, the human mystery of whatever-God-is cannot be resolved if every student intends to impose his or her God on whatever-God-is.
Valued: grounded in the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth rather than believed to be “eternal and transcendent,” dignified, persistent in virtue, worthy of permanence by an exclusive “identity group.” 

Conclusion

          With desire to not lessen even one person’s responsible human liberty, it seems essential to promote freedom-from oppression. Imposition of past understanding, such as “the founders’” vision of the American dream is oppression. 

The U.S. Preamble’s proposition seems to be: 5 public disciplines encourage responsible human liberty. Perhaps the measure of accomplishment with time is the extent and quality of fellow citizens’ participation. In other words, the continuum of We the People of the United States gradually approaches majority practice of responsible human liberty: civic integrity. That is, the minority who insist on their dissidence to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition gradually approaches a naturally small proportion of living citizens and their posterity. 

I hope this message reaches current and past students of Hillsdale College as well as its administrators and professors. Hard to examine as these ideas may be, the literal U.S. Preamble seems to propose responsible human liberty. It seems to me responsible human liberty is the shocking American dream. It is critical for each U.S. citizen to know the entity We the People of the United States as proposed in the U.S. Preamble, importantly, because no human can tell whatever-God-is what it is.

Copyright©2020 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.