Impartial-Majority Verdicts: Louisiana Led Reform
England’s unanimous juries reformed by Louisiana in 1880 then by
England in 1967
In 2018, it seems
evident that social opinion, or emotional politics, threatens the 1787 U.S.
Constitution’s civic[1]
promise: individual liberty with civic
morality. The purpose of this essay is to 1) alert Louisiana residents to November’s
opportunity to preserve singular independence from the obsolete English tyranny
of unanimous rather than majority juries; specifically Louisiana’s 10:2
unanimous-majority verdicts and 2) suggest that a jury of peers is
characterized as We the People of the United States rather than some faction of
the population, popularly called “special interest group.”
The 2018 Louisiana Legislature,
in Act 493, unconstitutionally created a popular vote to upend the state’s
unique provision toward impartial juries. Among the 50 states, Louisiana
conforms to U.S. Amendment VI. Oregon does, too. The other 48 states require
British traditional 12:0 unanimity and thereby often fail impartiality.
Act 493 further threatens
civil justice by breaching U.S. Amendment XIV.1. There’s no reason to think the
Louisiana Legislature, the governor, and the capital city newspaper, The Advocate, are insincere in their actions
against America’s representative republic. Perhaps they favor liberal democracy
or socialism. Yet, it seems significant that The Advocate does not report
opinion from the LSU Law Center, who contractually advises the Louisiana
Legislature. Perhaps they are letting Ed Tarpley speak for them. However, the
people of Louisiana may act in their own best interest by voting, in November,
to preserve Louisiana’s constitutional impartiality by providing the 10:2 majority
verdict. Impartial 10:2 verdicts are especially
important to black fellow citizens, because blacks disproportionately attack
blacks.
Residual English oppression
of U.S. citizens runs deep and long. The 1787 Constitution’s promise to
posterity starts in the preamble, which nine states ratified on June 21, 1788. But
when federal operations began in 1789 with ten states, Congress, a political
regime that knew only Blackstone common law and Canterbury partnership lessened
the Revolutionary War victory by re-instituting English practices We the People
of the United States still struggle to terminate. England in 1967 rendered
obsolete their unanimous verdicts, but the tyranny remains in 48 U.S. states.
Many people accept this
country’s challenge, but few articulate that the heart of the U.S. citizen’s
promise is individual opportunity to discover and develop integrity during his or
her one and only human lifetime. Here, each citizen has the authority to
responsibly develop individual happiness rather than accept the dictates of
another entity.
The
First Congress re-instituted erroneous English traditions
In the years 1789-1791,
Congress empowered colonial politics that had been minority opinion during the
constitutional convention in Philadelphia and admitted four states to the
beginning ten states. The signers had framed explicit separation from England,
and the generations since then have left it to us to effect needed reforms.
In 1789, perhaps 5% of
free citizens (80% of the people) could vote and 99% were American factional
Protestants. Therefore, English traditions the First Congress re-instituted
were not at odds with most free citizens. Among them was the unanimous jury
verdict, which, England, reformed in 1967 to judge-managed unanimous-majority
verdicts (11:1 and 10:2) to accomplish practicality and impartiality despite
organized crime impositions and bigotry.[2]
Moreover, America’s
evolving church-state partnership, originally mimicking England’s Protestantism[3] but with factional
Protestant ministers, empowers U.S. civic misery and loss. England’s
Canterbury-Parliament partnership is constitutional while America’s is
traditional, according to Greece v Galloway (2014). Today, America’s
Judeo-Christian ”tradition” is represented by 6 Catholic and 3 Jewish Supreme
Court justices.
Now, with 50 states and 6 territories, only
14% attend the traditional Protestant churches, and 100% of non-felon adults
may vote. Also, there’s a new church that calls itself African-American
Christians, a divisive title preferably kept private with good civic behavior.[4] The largest oppressed
minority in 2018 is the non-theist or “unchurched” people, about 25%[5] of the people, or 82
million traditionally subjugated[6] citizens.
It seems in all ages
nobody wants to be governed, but many people desire self-discipline. Yet some
people practice immorality. Some people use their humanity for crime and are
“street smart.” The citizen who never expects to be the object of a criminal
court, whether the victim or the accused, may not pay much attention to the
provision of impartial juries. However, the
civic citizen wants his or her authorized statutory-law enforcers to provide impartiality to both the victim and the
accused.
How can most people
collaborate for civic morality? The civic agreement that is offered in the
preamble to the U.S. constitution invites citizens to develop civic integrity.
Widespread use of the preamble’s agreement has been available for 230 years,
but the agreement has been neglected if not repressed. Perhaps the preamble’s
time has come.
The
preamble’s power: mutual civic discipline
The first legal
statement in the U.S. constitution is the preamble. It is legal on at
least two grounds, one a federal purpose, and the other an individual choice. Some
fellow citizens take the other side of this argument, but I do not encourage
it.
First, the preamble
states the purpose and goals of the United States. Second, it offers a civil
contract for mutual self-discipline
that citizens may use to both empower the nation to survive and to collaborate
for the benefits. The articles the preamble empowers limits the United States’
services to the people in their states. The people discipline both their
individual state and the United States.
Citizens who are
dissident to the agreement have equal liberty and dignity unless they cause
actual harm that is observed. The offender may then suffer statutory law
enforcement. The willing citizens behave for civic morality, and some of them,
call them civic citizens[7], collaborate for statutory
human justice. Eventually, statutory justice may conform to actual reality.
Hopefully, the preamble empowers the people to discover and practice human
justice; in other words, create civic integrity. The military result
of the Civil War is an example of the ineluctable march to human justice.
These two legal
provisions in the preamble are hidden by political regimes and factions. Resolution
of my controversial opinion might require a Supreme Court case. Promoting
integrity is perhaps the most important idea in this essay. The
attainability of civic integrity refutes 400 years of Western scholarship that
asserts that the human being is naturally bad and good: conflicted. On
acceptance of human authority, each individual may choose to develop integrity
or not. Perhaps an experiment in trusting the preamble would demonstrate that a
better future is achievable: most people would choose to develop integrity
rather than nourish infidelity.
The
preamble’s offer to each citizen
The preamble offers
this voluntary agreement:
We the People of the
United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
The nation serves the states according to the
state constitutions, and a civic people discipline both state and national governments.
Discipline
rather than governance is critical to voluntary
collaboration: No one wants governance, but many people want individual
self-discipline. Since few citizens consider, much less adopt, the
preamble’s agreement, individual liberty
with civic morality has regressed in recent half-centuries, especially the
latest, during which “civil rights” have been at the same time extolled and
lessened. The foremost human right is the opportunity to develop integrity
rather than submit to lesser, oppressive authorities.
Paraphrasing
the preamble for personal use in modern times
To perhaps facilitate collaboration,
I convert predicate phrases to nouns and today paraphrase the preamble as
follows:
We willing citizens of
the U.S. collaborate for mutual self-discipline regarding integrity, justice, goodwill,
defense, prosperity, liberty, and children and, using the amendable U.S.
constitution, restrain both the nation and our state in services to the people.
I work to collaborate with fellow citizens to
incorporate their improvements on this paraphrase yet preserve the original,
1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.
I speak of
collaboration. It’s an iterative process to discover mutual, comprehensive
safety and security for all citizens, both civic citizens and dissidents. “The
people,” both civic and dissident, never adopted the preamble, perhaps because
it was never viewed as an opportunity for mutual self-discipline rather than
governance. I do not think civic collaboration has ever been viewed as a tool
for responsibly pursuing individual happiness with civic morality rather than
personally submitting to a social authority.
Individual
human power, energy and authority (IPEA)
The preamble tacitly asserts
a revolutionary vision of the human being that seems refuted by 400 years of
European scholarship.[8] The sentence asserts that
the reader is capable to consider, commit to, and perform the agreement. That
is, the reader is an authentic human. If not, perhaps the act of considering
the preamble’s agreement will motivate the individual to develop authenticity. The
phrase “We the People” is generic, but the modifier “of the United States”
appropriately limits to citizens the opportunity that is offered.
Every human being has
the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority
(IPEA) to either develop integrity or not.[9]
Personal opinion may be honest, but integrity requires the work to discover and
comprehend the-objective-truth or actual reality. Integrity is a process: the individual uses actual evidence
to continually acquire understanding that often negates the old comprehension.
Humankind collectively discovers the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth,
discovered or not, does not respond to human constructs such as reason,
revelation, doctrine, coercion, or force. Fellow-humans reduce misery and loss
by collaborating (without deceit[10]) to discover
the-objective-truth.
The signers of the 1787
Constitution nourished collaboration for individual happiness with civic
morality. Recognizing but not articulating that not every person during every
decade of their life’s journey would employ IPEA to develop integrity, the
signers specified broad yet sufficient goals for the laws and institutions they
imagined. The signers did so between May and September 1787.
The preamble’s unique,
civic proposal is one of the most
promising political statements ever written. It is a legal statement that is
neutral to gender, to race, to ethnicity, to religious beliefs, and to responsible
personal preferences---responsible individual happiness. It offers the civic
agreement to the individual more than to his or her state.[11] For this reason, the U.S.
protects each person from tyranny within or by his or her state.[12]
The preamble is legal in
that the willing people, call them civic people, ineluctably[13] collaborate to discover
human injustice and amend the law so as to develop statutory justice. The
collaboration does not diminish the citizenship of the unwilling/dissidents
beyond the fact that dissidents do not express civic preferences. Someone else
is acting on the dissident’s behalf, perhaps
not in the dissident’s best individual interest. Much as not attending to
water can lead to dehydration, not collaborating for civic morality more than
religious hope,[14]
begs woe.
The preamble’s civil
and legal power is suppressed by the political regimes, with complicity by the
people. This has been exacerbated by those Western scholars who have during the
past 800 years used “nature” to represent the-objective-truth and “reason” to
represent scholarly, proprietary wisdom, often sophistry. By proprietary I mean
using IPEA to impose dominant opinion on unsuspecting people. The education
system discourages IPEA to develop integrity. Indolent people and innocents subjugate-to
or cooperate-with this Machiavellian tyranny.
Massachusetts: from English common
law toward individual liberty with civic morality
Massachusetts was
still under and sympathetic-to British common law when the state issued its
1780 Constitution.[15] The Massachusetts’
constitution uses “impartial” six times, does not include the word “unanimous,”
and thus does not refute Glasser’s bid for impartiality using unanimous-majority
verdicts rather than absolutely unanimous verdicts. [16]
Massachusetts’s controversial
declaration of human equality was the official break from its origins as the
first slave colony and major African trader, perhaps dating from 1624.[17] Farmers in the militia
liberated Worcester from the British on September 6, 1774,[18] and the British attacked
Concord and Lexington on April 19, 1775.[19] In other words, the
military revolution started in Worcester. Some Massachusetts citizens became
major abolitionists and a group created Lawrence, Kansas, and became the focus
of “Bleeding Kansas” in 1856.[20]
English colonialism reflected in the Massachusetts preamble
We
advocate the agreement offered in the 52 word preamble to the U.S. Constitution
as goals for collaborating for civic integrity. English colonial past seems
expressed in the 263 word preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution (my
emphasis in the following quote):
The [purpose] of the institution, maintenance, and
administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic,
to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the
power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and
the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the
people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for
their safety, prosperity and happiness.
The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals:
it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each
citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by
certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in
framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws,
as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of
them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with
grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in
affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity,
deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering
into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming
a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity;
and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon,
ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and
Frame of Government, as the Constitution
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[21]
The U.S. preamble is devoid of all I refute in the above prose. The
Massachusetts preamble, in that last paragraph, reflects John Adams using
personal god mystery to dismiss IPEA. Government may respond to but cannot
grant IPEA. The last paragraph egregiously imposes theism into the civic
contract when what the people need is integrity.
Comparing the
two preambles, the U.S. sentence seems advantageously brief, understanding,
whole, and humble. The 1787 signers, specifying a national government to serve
the people in their states, chose not to address recourse when the purpose is
not met, leaving it to the people. The voluntary association is expressed as
“We the People of the United States” plus the predicate “in order to” and the
goals. Equity, impartiality, and fidelity are granted to those who adopt the
agreement and are offered for those who dissent but do no harm. The 1787
signers invoked no authority beyond the people and their agreement. Thus, the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution both admits to the people’s authority in their
states and limits powers of the nation. Both preambles tacitly admit to IPEA,
the signers citing only the people and Massachusetts citing “the great
Legislator of the universe,” a mystery that may motivate IPEA but I doubt
mystery motivates integrity. [22]
In his first
inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln, unintentionally expressed collective IPEA
as “the people”. Slyly confronting the Confederate States of America, he
expressed a mystery of the people, perhaps manifest as military power:
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice
of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present
differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the
Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side
of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely
prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.[23]
Lincoln’s
“the Almighty . . .” equivocated to “great tribunal of the American people” and
emerged as military power rather than divine power. Lincoln reflected on the
preamble again at Gettysburg: “. . . and that government of
the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” I
think we would be better off if Lincoln had said, “mutual self-discipline”
rather than “government.” Anyone who approaches me to govern is offensive but
motivation/inspiration for me to discipline myself is always welcomed: neither
coercion nor force nor love substitutes for mutual appreciation.
Collaborating for civic morality is better than mindfulness for love.
Christianization
of Africans sold into slavery by Africans
England
was the largest slave trader and also competitor with the Catholic doctrine of
discovery[24]
with the Catholic-African-slave trade.[25] Many writers in America before
1688 objected to slavery,[26] but none more famous than
Thomas Paine. Born in Thetford, England[27] and moving to
Philadelphia in 1774, Paine wrote:
That some desperate wretches should be
willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather
lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage
practice, is surprising. [28]
In this regard, “Americanized” seems synonymous
with Catholic “Christianized.” But there were many new factions throughout the
centuries and half-centuries, perhaps the latest, the divisive African-American
Christianity,[29]
whatever the title means to the speaker.
Christianization
continually arrests America, but a better future is achievable
Christianization
seems an art of constructed power using fabricated fear. The circular,
psychological harm is expressed by John Newton in his song “Amazing Grace.” [30] Newton’s expression
reverses Christianity’s formula in the second stanza: “’Twas grace that taught
my heart to fear.” It’s an imposed fear of life then a hope
for everlasting life in the afterdeath.[31] I once suffered that fear.
When the believer adopts fear of the afterdeath, he or she may be influenced to
foolishly rebuke actual reality during life. There’s no example more sincere
than the Civil War.[32] Believers gave their all
for the Holy Bible’s approval of slavery.
An alternative to U.S. participation in global theism wars
There
is, among the community of theists a global competition regarding “chosen
people.” It’s a racial conflict: the Jews, the Arabs, the Caucasians, and the
African-Americans each compete. Non-theists are excluded from the god wars, not
by civic choice but by default. In other
words, the individuals who do not claim to have a personal god suffer popular
god wars yet have no war-champion.
Non-theism
crosses all racial and gender lines, and in America, non-theists are the
largest oppressed minority, about 25% of the population or 82 million people.5
What could create a supermajority who individually nourish their
spirituality, whether alone or in association, yet collaborate for mutual civic
discipline? I propose an existing, legal, civic contract: the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution combined with collaboration using the-objective-truth rather than
competition for dominant opinion.
Transition
So far, I attempted to present the impact of America’s
eastern seaboard revolt and war against England’s oppression, then erroneous
re-establishment of the way of living the English colonials knew. The nine
states that ratified the 1787 U.S. Constitution established the offer of mutual
civic discipline with federal laws and institutions by which willing citizens
may discipline both their state and the nation. But the First Congress
erroneously undid the promises by re-establishing Blackstone and a Canterbury
surrogate. People in territories south and west of the eastern seaboard did not
contend with the British colonial errors until they applied for statehood. That
included Louisiana.
Louisiana,
a unique past
It
seems clear that framers of the Massachusetts Constitution (1780) influenced
the 1787 U.S. Constitution, sometimes negatively, especially denying IPEA.
However, during that era, Louisiana was fought colonized by France, England,
and Spain. Louisiana was dominated by French colonization from 1724 until 1803,
when the U.S. bought Louisiana from France. When the U.S. admitted Louisiana to
statehood in 1812,[33] only 24 years after nine
states established the U.S., Louisiana political treatment of both slaves and
free blacks was under France’s Code Noir:
[Louisiana]
colonial officials in 1724 implemented Louis
XIV of France's Code Noir, which regulated the slave trade and
the institution of slavery
in New France and
French Caribbean colonies. This resulted in a different pattern of slavery in
Louisiana . . . compared to the rest of the United States.[30] As written, the Code Noir gave
some rights to slaves, including the right to marry. Although it authorized and
codified cruel corporal punishment against slaves under certain conditions, it
forbade slave owners to torture them or to separate married couples (or to
separate young children from their mothers). It also required the owners to
instruct slaves in the Catholic faith.[34]
When the thirteen Eastern seaboard colonies
mostly detested religion other than American factional Protestantism, Louisiana
was substantially Catholic. Additionally, Louisiana is unique with its
French-Catholic Cajun population: “The
Acadians' migration from Canada was spurred by the Treaty
of Paris (1763).” [35]
The relationships between ethnic peoples in Louisiana was unlike anywhere else
in either the USA or in the former Confederate States of America after the
Civil War.
For
a humble[36] non-theist, the preamble
to Louisiana’s constitution contains both a contradiction and tyranny against
non-believers:
We,
the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political,
economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual
rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest
development of the individual; assure equality of rights.[37]
“Opportunity for
the fullest development of the individual,” especially to develop integrity more
than honesty is constrained by “grateful to Almighty God,” a controversial
mystery. It is difficult for theists to imagine the tyranny over non-theists in
both that sentence and the “freedom of religion” provision in the declaration
of rights that follows. I would like to see civil appreciation for the
opportunity to develop integrity. Otherwise, the Louisiana preamble seems
brief, like the nation’s preamble, which, again, is neutral to race, religion,
and gender.
Two
notes about pertinent articles in Louisiana’s constitution: First, an excellent feature of Louisiana’s
“freedom of expression” is reference to responsibility for abuse.[38]
Second, a unique provision is 10:2 unanimous-majority verdicts to provide
impartiality[39] in non-capital criminal
jury trials.[40] Only Oregon provides
similar impartiality. The other 48 states are at a significant disadvantage in
their U.S. constitutional[41]
obligation, requiring obsolete-British absolutely-unanimous consensus rather
than unanimous-majority verdicts.
How
unanimous majority provides an impartial jury
We
have asserted that the U.S., through its first legal statement, the preamble,
is specified for both voluntarily civic citizens and dissidents to the extent
they cause no actual harm. Offenders beg subjugation to statutory law. All citizens,
each with diverse IPEA, knowingly or not, collaborate for statutory justice
using actual reality rather than dominant opinion. Habitually impartial people
collaborate for mutual civic discipline, and authorize officers to constrain
fellow citizens who dissent or offend for reasons from ignorance to criminality
and worse.
The intention is that willing
citizens discover injustice and amend laws for statutory justice according to
actual reality. Fellow citizens, whether passive, dissident, or criminal, develop/reform
so that posterity approaches the totality, We the People of the United States. In
other words, the intention of the agreement in the preamble is progress rather
than regress.
Yet
everyone is aware of factions within the fellow citizens. It seems since 1788
the factional intensity has increased rather than lessened. Thus, whereas the
fraction of the people’s representatives who signed the 1787 Constitution were
about 2/3 of delegates, and people’s delegates in 2/3 of the 12 attending states
ratified the constitution, the 2016 presidential election had a 51.1% popular
majority between the top two candidates. Subsequently, for the first time in
history, many men and women in the popular majority are in political rebellion.
How is jury impartiality possible with the unwillingness of fellow citizens to
collaborate for civic morality? The negation of bigotry is evident, but what is
possible if there is only passive dissidence?
Predicting
an impartial jury
One
data point: including those 48 states that require 12:0 jury unanimity for
criminal trials, 87% of verdicts are accurate according to the judge.[42] Most citizens aren’t affected
by the 13% inaccuracy, because they are neither criminals nor victims nor
family. However, for every criminal there’s a victim and when the wrong verdict
is reached, both the victim suffers and the people lose, contrary to a civic
culture’s intentions. A civic people’s obligations do not stop with defending
criminals, rather start with preventing victimization---protecting the public.
Learning twenty years later that the wrong person was accused, indicted, and
convicted is double victimization, both for the victim and for the public are
victims.
Using
the 87% accuracy, we may expect unanimous-majority
verdicts fail at 12:0 and 11:1, but succeed at 10:2. (To require an impartial
unanimous-majority of 12 requires a 14 person jury or 17% added expense.) The unanimous-majority must be reduced by one
for each bigoted juror to be accommodated. Thus, the unanimous-majority for
impartiality would be 7:55 with 3 bigoted jurors.
Recalling the practical U.S. preamble more than un-civic (theistic)
preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution, it seems imperative that each of
the 48 states who do not provide unanimous-majority verdicts for impartiality
may benefit from a statistical study in their state. To do so, they need the
data for their state: How frequently does
the jury reach the wrong verdict?
I have no idea how someone in Louisiana in 1779 derived the 9:3 unanimous
majority rule, but it is brilliant. Data that is blind to race might show that
Louisiana should keep its 10:2 unanimous majority for now and consider
restoring the 9:3 verdict. Revision to 7:5 unanimous-majority may be considered
and preferred. Glasser18 presents qualitative arguments for
unanimous majorities in all jury functions, reasoning 11:1 for capital cases
and 8:4 for civil cases.
Actually real crime numbers
I hope I have made the case that the U.S. is
plagued by freedom of religion whereas there should be opportunity and
encouragement to develop integrity. The preamble, being neutral to religion
is a civic rather than secular civil agreement. It also seems clear that “freedom
of the press” is a fundamental flaw in the First Amendment. The press ought to develop integrity both
internally and publically and if not, suffer penalties according to statutory
justice: freedom does not come without responsibility.
There is widespread
debate from “journalism” and political science schools who teach[43] that public policy
springs from liberal democracy and the media determine liberal opinion. There’s
no place for integrity. Also social “sciences” have promulgated policy-based
evidence construction.[44] Modern proprietary
scholars don’t seem to like “statistics.”[45] However, according to
actual reality, statistics can be manipulated to refute the simple numbers in
an issue.
Personnel who work for
the Baton Rouge newspaper The Advocate
published on April fool’s, 2018 and thereafter for a few weeks an elaborate
public hoax asserting that statistics show Louisiana’s 10:2 jury rule has been
maintained to disadvantage black citizens[46] rather than to provide
impartial juries, as constitutionally required. Their emotional sensationalism
is that the jury impartiality Louisiana offers through the unanimous-majority
verdict, which the U.S. Supreme Court approves, is Jim Crow’s last stand.[47] The entire scheme by The
Advocate seems like collaboration with partisan non-profit groups that have
fought for decades to negate the unanimous majority rule for reasons they may
or may not understand.[48] For example, one article
had contributions from Maurice Chammah, of
The Marshall Project.[49]
I cannot imagine why
the Louisiana Legislature is so willing to forsake the unanimous majority
provision for jury impartiality and rebuke U.S. Amendment VIX.1. However, the
legislature routinely exhibits adolescent camaraderie, and they could easily be
fooled by The Advocate partnering with the partisan non-profits to form a
bigoted faction.
Other Louisianans can
be glad they did not create a resolution like the one Ed Tarpley presented to
the Louisiana State Bar Association.[50] It ignores that
Louisiana’s 9:3 impartial-majority verdicts are constitutional according to
both the Great State of Louisiana and the U.S. Supreme Court. It overlooks that
U.S. Amendment XIV.1 prevents a state from imposing injustice when justice is
established.
Louisiana Attorney
General Jeff Landry announced[51] preference for the 10:2
impartial-majority. “While [10:2] lowers the bar for acquittal as well as
conviction, most lawyers see it as an advantage for the state because juries
tend to convict far more often than they acquit. [P]icking juries is more efficient . . .
because lawyers on both sides don’t have to worry about the possibility that
one stubborn juror might keep a trial from ending in a verdict.”
The
12:0 unanimity rule disproportionally hurts black fellow citizens
Black victims, because
of cultural vigilantism, suffer disproportionally the 13% error-effect of 12:0
verdict requirements in the 48 states (outside Louisiana and Oregon). Blacks
who collaborate for civic justice would be disproportionally hurt by approval
of Act 493, contrary to The Advocate’s “Our Views” on August 12, 2018. [52]
Consider FBI data on 12,253
murder reports in 2013.[53] Of 5500 reports involving
blacks and whites, 3009 victims were white, with 409 black offenders and 2509
white offenders; 2491 victims were black, with 2245 black offenders and 189
white offenders. Black offenders victimized a black 84.6% of the time, and
90.1% of black victims suffered a black offender. White offenders victimized a
black 7% of the time.
The population in 2013 was 73.7% white and 12.6% black.[54]
Yet among murder victims who were either black or white, 45.3% were black and
48.2% of murders were black.
If we apply the 13% U.S. inaccuracy to acquittals in these cases,
then 61 and 337 black offenders, respectively, (398 total), were erroneously acquitted. If so, 1.8% of
white victims and 11.7% of black victims, respectively, suffered trial
injustice. That’s 665% more trial injustice to black victims than to white
victims. If all 398 dis-agreements were convictions, black victims increased to
2889 or by 13.8%. Accounting for demographics, blacks practice black on black
vigilantism 600% more frequently than whites practice white on white
vigilantism. As mentioned above, in 1967, England reduced vigilantism by allowing
10:2 majority verdicts.
In other words, the importance of Louisiana
providing impartial juries is more vital to blacks than to whites, because
whites don’t offend each other as frequently. Civic citizens, especially
blacks, will vote to preserve Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous majority verdicts.
What the judicial system needs to
work on is persuading blacks not to offend fellow humans regardless of skin
color. When blacks read Frederick Douglass, they may consider Douglass’s warm
humanity, ferocious opposition to domestic slavery, acceptance of IPEA, and
approval of both the preamble and the body of the U.S. Constitution. Divisive blacks
may decide they are human beings with IPEA and collaborate with We the People
of the United States for the mutual discipline required for individual liberty
with civic morality.
Civic integrity despite factions
Never has it been more evident that
a civic culture constrains its factions. Sound principles are a starting point,
but the people may neither willfully nor indolently allow political regimes to
suppress or abuse civic integrity. Largely through the use of conflicting
definitions of singular terms, a major faction is attacking, to institute
social democracy, the republican form of government the U.S. Constitution
stipulates.
“Democracy” in America means one
qualified citizen, one vote. However, a vote for Senator in Wyoming is 68 times
more politically influential than a vote for Senator in California. The U.S.
Constitution deliberately disrupts popular vote. The purpose, to prevent the
majority from abusing minorities and vice versa is discussed in Federalist 51,[55]
Federalist 9[56]
and Federalist 10.[57]
The U.S. representative republic purposefully disrupts both democracy and
monarchy.
Louisiana Act 493 Violates U.S.
Amendment XIV.1
In
Federalist 10, Madison presents a civic dilemma without proposing a solution,
an unforgettable political failing. However, U.S. Amendment XIV, Paragraph 1
seems to cover Madison’s problem: “No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges . . . of citizens of the United States . . .
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.” Amendment VI requires citizens of a state to provide an impartial jury.
I am a citizen of Louisiana, which uniquely offers impartial juries. I do not
want the people including me imposed on to approve an unconstitutional act by
the Legislature.
Each citizen may accept
or reject the civic, legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the
U.S. Constitution, including the goals “establish justice” and “insure domestic
tranquility.” The need for domestic justice is invoked when a citizen has
actually harmed a fellow citizen---created a victim. The people intend the
system that would exact justice to be impartial in actual reality rather than
opinion, so that bias or bigotry is not a factor. Eliminating bias is difficult
to achieve without qualified jurors. However, citizens who oppose justice ought
not be allowed to serve on juries, and if they happen to be admitted, their
influence should be negated by the impartial-majority jurors.
Elected officials in
the U.S. are first citizens. There are no lords who may by opinion impose
ideals that are not stipulated in the constitution, such as absolute jury
concurrence when impartiality is the goal. The 2018 Louisiana Legislature
passed and Gov. John Bel Edwards signed Act 493, which unconstitutionally
changes the requirement for non-capital criminal 10:2 unanimous majority to 12:0
absolute concurrence for criminal jury trials, provided the people vote to so
amend the Louisiana Constitution. This was an act of tyranny, because the
Legislature is responsible to, by a 70% majority in both chambers, amend the
constitution to remedy injustice rather than legislate a proposal for injustice
to be approved by unsuspecting citizens.
The goal of impartial
justice is not served when 13% of verdicts are wrong. The data based on
judge-agreement with jury-verdicts predicts that neither 12:0 absolute
consensus nor 11:1 unanimous majority offers an impartial jury when there are
no bigoted jury members. When the jury has 1, 2, or 3 bigoted members, the allowable
unanimous-majority must be 9, 8, or 7, respectively, to eliminate the 13%
failures.
The
Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the 9:3 unanimous majority in Johnson v.
Louisiana, and the U.S. Supreme court concurred in 1972. The history of
judicial support for Louisiana’s provision of an impartial jury by allowing unanimous-majority
verdicts is strong. The tyranny of 2018 Act 493 expresses, to the Louisiana
public, Madison’s words “Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of
sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first
obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.” But U.S.
Amendment XIV.1 corrects Madison’s failure. The 2018 legislature rebuked their
U.S. constitutional duty to the people by calling for a popular vote against Louisiana’s
provision of an impartial jury.
Conclusion
Louisiana’s
unanimous majority jury verdict is the state’s unique provision toward an
impartial jury. It is neutral to race, gender, and religion. It is as critical
to one faction as to another. For example, in black on black murder, the
unanimous majority is as important as in any other trial and it seems 665% more
important than in a black on white trial.
The betrayal of
Louisiana’s 10:2 unanimous majority violates the U.S. Constitution, Amendment
XIV, and Paragraph 1, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” I
request the Attorney General, Jeff Landry, to sue the Legislature and the
Governor for relief from the referendum.
Epilogue
This
work suggests some longer term changes that may improve the achievability of a
better future in the USA. Citizens do not have civic rights merely because their
person exists. To enjoy individual liberty with civic morality, a citizen may
collaborate for civic integrity. Each person may responsibly pursue the
happiness they perceive rather than the dictates of another person or institution.
Qualification
to serve on an impartial jury
This
review brings attention to another means by which a state may help provide an
impartial jury. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution divides the people:
citizens who voluntarily adopt the agreement that is offered and others. A jury
of peers might be drawn from citizens who can demonstrate that they collaborate
to achieve the goals of the preamble.
The question is how to
validate their claim. I suggest a sequential qualification beginning with a
simple statement of acceptance of the preamble’s agreement by the citizen and
evidence that he or she understood his or her statement. After the fifth year
on the voter roll perhaps prove state income-tax filing for the past three
years. After the tenth year, review the record of voting in state and federal
elections for the past three years.
Qualification
to vote
Perhaps
no one who professes to be unwilling to collaborate for civic morality using
the preamble to the U.S. Constitution should be allowed to vote in state or
federal elections.[58]
Qualification
to run for elected office or hold appointed office
Qualification
for official role in government may be more stringent than qualifications for
jury duty.
Freedom
of expression
The
Louisiana Constitution already stipulates that free expression can result in
liabilities to the speaker. The statement includes expression by the press.
It
would be beneficial for the Legislature to put some enforcement behind this
provision, so that hometown newspapers and other media would have reason to
think twice before partnering with partisan non-profits to impose tyranny on
the people.
Copyright©2018 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 title August 28, 2018.
[1]
“Civic” refers to mutual self-discipline for human justice more than attention
to the city or other entity. The preamble to the U.S. constitution is falsely
labeled “secular” to make it seem areligious, while it is neutral to religion.
Referring to the preamble as a civic sentence expresses opposition to secular’s
stigma. [Prompted on 7/20/2018 by Levy, 1986, page ix, “The establishment
clause separates government and religion . . . “]
[2]
Online at http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/99086/1/99086.pdf.
“England and Wales. The requirement that a jury verdict be reached by unanimity
is centuries old, frequently dated back to a 1367 decision. Just as English law
led the way in creating a rule adopted throughout the common law world, it led
the way also in removing it, with the Criminal Justice Act 1967 permitting
verdicts of 10:2 or 11:1 following at least two hours’ deliberation. A
contemporary article explained the rationale for this change in the following
terms: ‘In an age of highly organised crime there is evidence of bribery and
intimidation (“nobbling”) of jurors in important cases involving professional
criminals (“the big fish”), leading to disagreements.’”
[3] English Chapter XI Machiavellianism: England’s Parliament is an official
church-state-partnershipa about which the people were warned 500
years ago. Nicolo Machiavelli wrote, in The
Prince, 1513, in irony to save his life, informing the people of various
threats to individual liberty with civic morality. He warned of the
church-state-partnership. b Because the partnership is made possible
by the people’s personal gods, only a dreamer would complain, rebel or escape.
In a civic culture, every no-harm religion flourishes at the pleasure of believers
rather than through coercion and force.
English bemusement by “freedom of religion”
became official 800 years ago in Magna Carta, c a “charter of liberties” written by Canterbury
to partner with barons in order to constrain the king. “The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of
ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the
early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of
the American Constitution in 1787 . . . the supreme law of the land in the new
republic of the United States.” A key term in Magna Carta provisions for individual justice is
“free man.” d I do not concur with the claimed influence on the 1787
Constitution.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 begins, “Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons
assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the
estates of the people of this realm,” asserting the church-state government, states: “That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned,
and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be
freeholders.” e A “freeolder”
perhaps is a property owner yet subject to his lord. In Louisiana and the USA,
I yield my IPEA to no one and consider elected officials fellow citizens who
need the mutual discipline that is promised in the preamble.
a Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England#King,_Lords_and_Commons. “Currently, the Lords Spiritual consist
of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London, Durham and
Winchester, and twenty-one other English diocesan bishops in seniority of
appointment to a diocese.”
b Online at http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm. “It only remains now to speak of ecclesiastical
principalities, touching which all difficulties are prior to getting
possession, because they are acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and
they can be held without either; for they are sustained by the ordinances of
religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the
principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These
princes alone have states and do not defend them, they have subjects and do not
rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the
subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor
the ability to alienate themselves. Such principalities only are secure and
happy. But being upheld by powers, to which the human mind cannot reach, I
shall speak no more of them, because, being exalted and maintained by God, it
would be the act of a presumptuous and rash man to discuss them.”
d Online at https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation#. It seems “free man”
was subject to his lord. Pertinent provisions: (34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to
anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be
deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court. (36) In future nothing
shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or
limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused (38) In future no official
shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without
producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. (39) No free man shall be
seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or
exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force
against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his
equals or by the law of the land. (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny
or delay right or justice.
[4]
In other words, their spiritual beliefs do no harm to me provided African-American
Christians, too, are civic citizens as defined by the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution.
[5]
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
[6]
Untold billions of dollars and political energy is spent on the competition over
theism: What group’s god is predominant in America’s obsession with freedom of
religion? The history is traced in a timeline at http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/timeline/.
Judeo-Christianity (1955) seems a reaction to communism. The entry at 1968
about Albert Cleage perhaps dates the origin of African-American Christianity
during the year MLK Jr. was assassinated, but http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/black-church/
does not confirm my thought. England ironically experienced African-American
Christianity in May, 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/world/europe/uk-royal-black-priest-choir.html.
As a person who trusts in the-objective-truth, I feel oppressed by the god
wars. I have been told that my view is condescending, but that’s an opinion
rather than actual reality.
[7]
George Washington, as retiring general and follow citizen in 1783 might have
called civic citizens (those who adopt the civil agreement that is offered in
the 1787 preamble), “sincere citizens” or “humble citizens.” See http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html.
[8]
Online, typical article, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-moral-molecule/201102/are-humans-good-or-evil.
[9]
This may be an original articulation
if not a novel assertion. It is based on my own human experience so far. I
stand by it for myself and attest that it applies to my wonderful wife (MWW).
Ralph Waldo Emerson, in “Divinity School Address,” 1837, asserts the
perfectibility of a person, which seems a step beyond using IPEA to develop
integrity. I doubt perfectibility.
[10]
The hubris of protecting freedom of religion more than freedom to develop
integrity is systematic deceit, because the end of religion is mystery. The
state protecting religion is Chapter XI Machiavellianism. Both Flannery
O’Connor in Mystery and Manners,
(1970, posthumous) and Michael Polanyi in Personal
Knowledge, 1958, consider the dilemma without drawing impartial
conclusions.
[11]
The preamble
was written by Governeur Morris during the last few days of the convention.
Online at https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-man-who-actually-wrote-the-words-we-the-people. “Here is the draft version of the Preamble given to Morris
in early August 1787: ‘We the people of the states of
New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish
the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.”
Perhaps Rhode Island, who did not participate in the convention in Philadelphia
unintentionally aided ratification of the preamble.
[12] U.S. Constitution, Amendement XIV,
Paragraph 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
[13]
“Ineluctably” is chosen to express that the path toward human justice not known
yet discovery is continual.
[14]
A pertinent debate as to whether or not the entire U.S. Constitution is secular
is online at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/the-u-s-constitution-is-100-percent-secular-or-is-it-2/.
The 1787 Constitution is neither secular nor religious, but is neutral, and on
this date, July 16, 2018, I assert that the 1787 Constitution is civic rather
than areligious (secular) or religious. Heretofore, I have argued that point
for the preamble only; I erred to not realize that the entire document is
civic, where “civic” refers to citizens collaborating for mutual self-control
rather than governance, allowing privacy in spirituality or none. Leornard W.
Levy, in The Establishment Clause, 1986, makes the case that the First
Amendment’s religion clauses are unconstitutional; un-civic seems an easier
sell. The first amendment ought to protect civic integrity rather than private
religion. Being civic allows an individual to collaborate for civil order and
legal constraint.
[15] Online at http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm. Pertinent provisions start in the
Massachusetts preamble: “The body politic is formed by a voluntary association
of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with
each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed
by certain laws for the common good.” Specifics about justice include: “Art.
XI. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having
recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his
person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely,
and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial;
promptly, and without delay, conformably to the laws. Art. XII. No subject
shall be held to answer for any crimes or no offence until the same if fully
and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to
accuse, or furnish evidence against himself; and every subject shall have a right
to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses
against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or
his counsel at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned,
despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of
the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate,
but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. And the legislature
shall not make any law that shall subject any person to a capital or infamous
punishment, excepting for the government of the army and navy, without trial by
jury. Art. XIII. In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts, in the
vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life,
liberty, and property of the citizen. Art. XV. In all controversies concerning
property, and in all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in
which it has heretofore been otherways used and practised, the parties have a
right to a trial by jury; and this method of procedure shall be held sacred.
Art. III. And whereas by an act of the general court of the colony of
Massachusetts Bay, passed in the year [1642], the governor and deputy governor
for the time being, and all the magistrates of that jurisdiction, were, with
the President, and a number of the clergy, is the said act described,
constituted the overseers of Harvard College.”
[16]
Michael H. Glasser, Letting the Supermajority Rule: Nonunanimous Jury Verdicts
in Criminal Trials, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 659 (1997) . http://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol24/iss3/5.
[17]
Online at http://historyofmassachusetts.org/slavery-in-massachusetts/.
[18]
Online at http://www.massar.org/setting-the-record-straight-the-worcester-revolt-of-september-6-1774/
[19]
Online at https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/.
[20]
Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence,_Kansas.
[21]
Online at https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution.
[22]
Flannery O’Connor, Mystery and Manners,
1969. See https://books.google.com/books/about/Mystery_and_Manners.html?id=FL8O0mTosVUC.
[23]
Online at https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/president-lincoln%E2%80%99s-first-inaugural-address-1861.
[24]
Online at https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/doctrine-discovery-1493.
[25]
Online regarding Bristol, http://www.discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/people-involved/enslaved-people/enslaved-africans/transatlantic-slave-trade/.
[26]
Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States#Calls_for_abolition.
[27]
Online at http://thomaspaine.org/aboutpaine/thomas-paine-s-citizenship-record.html.
[28]
Online at http://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm.
[29]
Online at https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778.
African-American Christianity seems to have developed from black power and
black theology since 1968.
[30]
Online at https://library.timelesstruths.org/music/Amazing_Grace/.
[31]
The afterdeath is that vast time after body, mind, and person have stopped
functioning.
[32] Imposed
fear of afterdeath begs woe in life: In the Civil War example, a faction, the Confederate
States of America, CSA, started a war he could not win unless his god, at a
7:27 disadvantage, would overcome the defender’s god. In the Civil War
Bible-interpreting Christians attacked actual-reality Christians, as portrayed
in the Declaration of Secession a: “[A]ll hope of
remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has
invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious
belief.” Military power proved who had the more erroneous religious belief.
Nearly 160 years later a faction of fellow citizens seem to be depending on
African-American Christianity. The point is, religious conviction can beg
disaster and ought to be considered with caution.
I am grateful to Frederick
Douglass for his 1852 words, “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven,
that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.”b Yet Robert E. Lee, blinded by the grace of fear and his ministers’ Holy Bible
interpretations wrote to his wife to oppose white abolitionists in 1856:
The blacks are
immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially &
physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their
instruction as a race . . . How long their subjugation may be necessary is
Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence. Their emancipation
will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than
. . . fiery Controversy.c
He went on to castigate abolitionists for being “intolerant
of the spiritual liberty of others.” Lee helped in war against fellow Bible
readers who nonetheless rejected slavery. That war started in Kansas in 1856,
long before 1861’s attack on Fort Sumter. Lee had warning and time to save his
family from defending slavery.
Lee
believed arrogant ministers who rejected the-objective-truth in their own
lives. Yet if Lee had separated church and state---addressed actual reality in
life rather than afterdeath promises from a pulpit, he might have sold
everything and moved to a free state for civic safety and security for his
family and fortune. This seems the-objective-truth that should be attached as
plaques on Civil War monuments, so that all citizens may know We the People of
the United States includes them if they so choose.
A 1700 year old falsehood may
be considered and rejected without loss:
Lee was not the first to fail the-objective-truth, and that actual
reality may be faced now better than later. The Church who canonized the New
Testament by 405 AD had all the information the priests needed to reject passages that approve of master-slave
relationships. They knew what Frederick Douglass expressed. Consider, for
example, 1 Peter 2:18-21, NIV:
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves
to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but
also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust
suffering because they are conscious of God. But
how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure
it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable
before God. To this you were
called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an
example, that you should follow in his steps.
If Frederick Douglass’s claim is
eternally valid, and I think it is, there is no excuse for the above “scripture”
of coercion. A civilization cannot stand on such divisive principles, and it
cannot hold the Holy Bible as a reliable resource wherein it does not conform
to the-objective-truth. The Bible’s words cannot be changed, but its false
teachings may be identified, publicized, and publically rejected. Only whatever
controls actual reality, if anything, attests to the god, if it exists.
Failure to confront the Holy Bible’s
canonization by men has led to erroneous, voluntary segregation by a group: We
the People of the United States seems rejected by some African-Americans.
During the past six decades, African-American Christianity has emerged as a
separate faction. Among the influential writers is Albert Cleage:
Black people
cannot build dignity on their knees worshipping a white Christ. We must put
down this white Jesus which the white man gave us in slavery and which has been
tearing us to pieces… Jesus was a revolutionary black leader, a Zealot, seeking
to lead a Black Nation to freedom, so the Black Church must carefully define
the nature of the revolution. d
There are many black power writers including James
Baldwin, James H. Cone, Cornel West, and Saul Alinsky. West recently wrote
about African-American Christianity.e My ears heard Jeremiah Wright,
Jr. in 2015 excuse militant black preaching as a response to white church.f
Like Robert E. Lee’s ministers, black theologians beg woe. And likewise the woe
will come to believers.
c Online at https://leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27.
d Albert B. Cleage. The Black Messiah. 1968. See online at https://www.amazon.com/black-Messiah-Albert-B-Cleage/dp/B0006BTU3G/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= .
f Online
at https://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/02/jeremiah_wright_tells_a_southe.html.
[33]
Online at http://www.datesandevents.org/american-timelines/18-louisiana-history-timeline.htm.
[34]
Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Louisiana
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir.
[35]
Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajuns#Acadia.
[36]
Having been reared Southern Baptist, I came to realize that my earned opinion
is that I must admit to myself and in public that I do not actually know a god
and therefore do not advocate a god. I trust-in and commit-to
the-objective-truth, which exists and can only be discovered rather than
constructed by reason, scholarship, fear or other human endeavor. I cannot
again turn my back on actual reality. However, I do not disparage other
people’s privacy in their pursuit of integrity. For example, I have no quarrel
with Michael Polanyi beyond his contest with my commitment in his book Personal Knowledge, 1958. Also, for all I
know, in my afterdeath, a soul will be judged, much as I doubt it; for all I
know, for reincarnation, much as I doubt it.
[38] Online at http://senate.la.gov/Documents/Constitution/Article1.htm#%C2%A71.%20Origin%20and%20Purpose%20of%20Government. Article I.
Declaration of Rights. §7. Freedom
of Expression
Section 7. No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the
press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any
subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom.
[39]
The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) that disagreement by a
minority of jurors does not lessen the validity of the majority verdict. Online
at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/356/case.html.
Held: 1. The provisions of Louisiana law requiring less than unanimous
jury verdicts in criminal cases do not violate the Due Process Clause for
failure to satisfy the reasonable doubt standard. Pp. 406 U. S.
359-363. (a) The mere fact that three jurors vote to acquit does not
mean that the nine who vote to convict have ignored their instructions
concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or that they do not honestly
believe that guilt has been thus proved. Pp. 406 U. S. 360-362. (b) Want of jury unanimity
does not alone establish reasonable doubt. Pp. 406 U. S.
362-363.
(A) Jury Trial in Criminal
Cases. A criminal case in which the punishment may be capital shall be tried
before a jury of twelve persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. A
case in which the punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be
tried before a jury of twelve persons, ten of whom must concur to render a
verdict. A case in which the punishment may be confinement at hard labor or
confinement without hard labor for more than six months shall be tried before a
jury of six persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. The accused
shall have a right to full voir dire examination of prospective jurors and to
challenge jurors peremptorily. The number of challenges shall be fixed by law.
Except in capital cases, a defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive his
right to a trial by jury.
(B) Joinder of Felonies; Mode
of Trial. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, offenses in
which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor may be charged in the
same indictment or information with offenses in which the punishment may be
confinement at hard labor; provided, however, that the joined offenses are of
the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on
two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a
common scheme or plan; and provided further, that cases so joined shall be
tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a
verdict. Acts 1997, No. 1502, §1, approved Oct. 3, 1998, eff. Nov. 5, 1998.
[41]
U.S. Constittution, Amendment
VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained
by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[42]
Online at https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2006/IPR-WP-06-05.pdf.
[43]
Online at http://www.lahc.edu/socsci/backup/loiterman/sbotw06.htm.
[44]
Online at https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/policy-based-evidence-making.
[45]
Jerry Z. Muller. The Tyranny of Metrics.
2017. Also, see discussion at http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/07/16/measurement-versus-judgment-on-jerry-mullers-tyranny-of-metrics/.
[47]
Thomas Aiello. Jim Crow’s Last Stand: Nonunanimous Criminal Jury Verdicts in
Lousisiana. 2015.
[49]
Online at https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/courts/article_d03c6c68-4201-11e8-b8e7-2be5a32762b2.html.
[50]
Online at http://files.lsba.org/documents/HOD/RES4JUNE2016.pdf.
[51]
Online at https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_038ab2c4-9733-11e8-93de-cf3d40e2ddfd.html.
[52]
Online at https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_348a829a-9b44-11e8-b16a-3b8d60001669.html.
[53]
Online at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide.
See Table 6. Alternately, Google “fbi murder data 2013.”
[54]
Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_by_race_(estimates)[21].
[55] Federalist
51, balancing powers: James Madison
elaborates on how the balance of powers protects the people against factions.
Further, he explains the importance of federalism. Madison, erroneously, uses
English scholarship in expressing each: ambition against ambition, if angels
governed, govern the governed, and the general good. Federalism makes more
sense when the goal is mutual self-discipline, since no one wants to be
governed.
Madison’s
hopes have not worked out. “In
republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
Congress disproved this by relegating its responsibilities to regulatory bodies
with activist judges. The activist judges in effect refute the U.S. Supreme
Court. Firmly as the Supreme Court may respond, Congress unconstitutionally
places them in that corner.
He
sees two advantages to a federalist government, where the state constitutions are
also balanced. First, the people surrender certain powers to their state with
its balanced offices and others to the nation, also with balanced offices. “The
different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will
be controlled by itself.” Madison’s “spin” seems to leave the people out of
governance. A civic people are aware that Madison’s dream is not working.
“Second.
It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against
the oppression of its rulers, but to
guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a
will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society
itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate
descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of
the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. In a free government the security
for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. Justice
is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and
ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the
pursuit. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great
variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a
majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles
than those of justice and the general good.” (Emphasis mine, and I refute the
statement: In a civic culture, government has no standing in actual no-harm
religion.)
Madison
contradicts himself in the above selections, and 231 years later, methods for
reform seem self-evident. First, an additional method is for a civic culture to
collaborate to discover and utilize the-objective-truth. Second, statutory
justice cannot brook the confusion of religion. Third, a coalition of
minorities, for example, a coalition of theologians may tyrannize a civic
culture.
[56]
Federalist 9: Alexander Hamilton talks
of checks by the states on each other and on the whole. "A FIRM Union
[rather than a confederation of states] will be of the utmost moment to the
peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and
insurrection. Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate
states the others are able to quell it.” Then, he states “. . . the more
immediate design of this paper . . . is, to illustrate the tendency of the
Union to repress domestic faction and insurrection.” Individuals join to create
factions, so this last quote applies to individuals and their factional
associations.
[57]
Federalist 10: Madison
picks up from Hamilton’s Federalist 9. “By a faction, I understand a
number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole,
who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest,
adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate
interests of the community.” Theists have dominated American politics since
1789 when the First Congress hired ministers to make Congressmen feel as divine
as England’s Parliament members.
“There are two methods of curing the
mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by
controlling its effects.” There is a third method: the factions may 1)
collaborate using the preamble and 2) collaborate to discover justice according
to the-objective-truth. Thereby, each no-harm faction both preserves its
passion and maintains cooperative autonomy as a faction of We the People of the
United States.
“From the protection of different
and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different
degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of
these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a
division of the society into different interests and parties.” Individual
liberty with civic morality necessitates diversity of results. For example, the
person who strives to write but cannot write will not get rich. Customers
happily pay profit to the entrepreneur who fulfills a need, but not the dreamer
who would mask reality.
“The two great points of difference
between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the
government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest;
secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over
which the latter may be extended.” Perhaps the meaning is, with a Union of
states, the people’s representatives at the state level collaborate with their
representatives for the Union, and territories who want to become states know
the republican constitution they must conform to.
“The effect of the first difference is, on the
one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the
medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true
interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be
least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such
a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the
representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than
if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other
hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices,
or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means,
first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.”
Madison presented a dilemma but did not solve it. The consequence since 1789 is
betrayal “of the interests, of the people.”
When
legislators betray the people, the people may be alert and react. So far, the
people have been indolent and perhaps dissuaded from civic integrity by the
political regimes.
[58]
Online at https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_in_Louisiana.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.