Saturday, January 24, 2015
A civic people may establish domestic goodwill 10/18/16
This letter was submitted to The Advocate on January 14, 2015, but was not suitable for them. Since submitting this letter, I realized that, respecting the literal meaning of the preamble, “We a People of the United States” is not the grammatically correct subject of the sentence. Only people who commit to the preamble's goals should be included.
We suggest a people’s dysfunction can be ended, through domestic friendship. Using both attainable goals and candid discussion, we may achieve domestic friendship. The news article, “Jindal to go to event shunned by others,” (The Advocate, Jan. 14, P. 3A), typically expresses the view that if political opinion differs, it is appropriate, even for an elected official, to shun the group. If anyone knew the objective truth, there’d be no need for opinion. Domestic friendship among a people should overcome the will to exclude real-no-harm special-interest groups. Also, many people cite a failure in founding principle, expressed eloquently by Steve Monaghan (letter, Jan. 12): “for a government to really be of the people, by the people and for the people, the people must be included in the legislative process.” Clarity may result by admitting that 100% political agreement is unattainable. Therefore, the tacit subject in statements of founding principle should be “A Civic People of the United States,” instead of “We the People of the United States.” In other words, only the people who are willing to commit to and trust the goals stated in the preamble are of a civic people, and hopefully, a civic people can influence most people to join. Perhaps eventually the totality We the People of the United States will happen.
It’s been 229 years since the preamble to the US Constitution was written. The civic debate in 1787 was over “We the States,” referring to the thirteen states who in 1774 founded the Continental Congress, versus “We the People of the United States,” who would continue to govern the states and also limit the powers of the USA. The literal preamble restricts membership in “We the People,” to those who agree to the stated purpose as well as the actions to be taken. That civic sentence was approved by only 70% of the delegates in Philadelphia, and with only 12 of 13 states represented there, the representation was 65%: How can 100% agreement among the people be expected by 65% of their delegates? In other words, if the creators of the nation had only 65% agreement, how can they expect the totality We the People of the United States to adopt the preamble?
Understandably, many citizens consider her/his person of “We the People” regardless of personal commitment to civic morality. However, some lose their quest for personal liberty. Criminals may face incarceration or even death. People who do not govern themselves (a duty that is tacitly implied in the preamble), may experience early death, for examples, running red lights or using illicit drugs, committing capital crime, or contracting deadly STDs.
Today, in domestic competition, voters vie for the 50% plus one vote hoping to impose their will for an election cycle. That could change to 65% who candidly negotiate civic collaboration that facilitates each no-harm person’s private pursuit of liberty according to their personal opinion. Through domestic friendship, a people may happily govern their real-no-harm lives so that they and all neighbors may each pursue their private lives.
Without amending one word of the US Constitution, a people may realize that “We the People of the United States” sets unattainable goals and, therefore, personally practice being of “A Civic People of the United States.”
Copyright©2015 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. Revised October 18, 2017