Push Button Issues

[PatrickS]

Some things are what I call "Push Button Issues." Those are things that are always at or near the top of a persons agenda. Let me list a few, and please feel free to add more.

• National Defense and related things.
  
  
• Firearms Rights.
  
  
• Abortion, is it a right, a crime against nature. Or something altogether different?
  
  
• Immigration.
  
  
• Education.
  
  
• The drug war.
  
  
• Open Government.
  
  
• Restoration of Constitutional Rights.
  
  
• States Rights.
  
  
• Felons or signs of the times?
  

It is late friends, and this is only a beginning. I believe that our nation has fallen by the wayside. That it has strayed so far from liberty that a radical new approach to the problems that confront America is in order. I also believe that many of these problems can be readily solved by not only looking to the past. But by implementing many things that have been deemed socially unacceptable in this days world.

[ajacksonian]

Well, being a first time poster and such all, and having developed a party platform that at least I understand, I am more than willing to have those ideas thefted here. Good ideas build a Republic when they are built-upon. Now I hit upon some of the ideas that are 'hot button' issues here and there and others that seem somewhat esoteric, but I believe are fundamental to the Republic's survival in the long-term.

More than willing to cross-post them here or you can do so yourself at thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com. Mind you I am *not* conservative or liberal, but come at this entire Nation from a different angle. Much is to be said for many conservative ideals, but the old style liberalism, as opposed to today's Socialistic offshoots, has much within it, also. Thus I have many a strange notion on things and some people just don't like it when they see something unexpected come at them.

Basically, I don't look at issues on a one-by-one, unless they feature something of underlying importance. What I have developed, by and large, are Policy and Outlooks to be used for a permanent Platform. Adherence to most of the platform and stating differences openly and fairly is what I look for, not lock-step thought. Further, the more hierarchical a party is, the more power that gets concentrated in fewer hands. While the two-party system has made something other difficult to enter into the lifeblood of the Nation, such is not impossible. It requires a leveraging of the new tools available to all of us, much like the committees of correspondence used their tools to achieve great things.

The new era we head into has many facets of older ones, and the old industrial-scale parties are slowly withering by not adapting to these new concepts. At basis, any new party must exploit the idea of 'community' first and then actual places they are to move further on. Distributed communities are already proving of worth and impossible to control, that is the basis for a New Party of any sort. And coherence along common themes with open discussion and dissension, but not with breaking with the driving concepts of a New Party are paramount. A diverse party willing to disagree on small scale tactics, but agree on large scale outlook can thrive in this new era. And to do this a New Party needs basics that are clear and simple to understand, but not simplistic in nature.

I am a Jacksonian, when all is said and done. I travel is strange places of my mind and come to different conclusions, ones that it is my hope may change the nature of debates and break the damn logjam that the two parties have put this Nation in.

Those people who can change the nature of thought in a few key areas will have other ideas looked at and thought about.

I have very little of myself left to give to the Republic, and of what I can my thoughts are the most important. I push them upon no one. I am no marketer.

Well, I have meandered enough. As I have put forth elsewhere: all of what I write is freely available with basic linkage and attribution to 'A Jacksonian'. I will do my best to tell you how I come by what I think, but it is up to each and every one of us to decide what is best for themselves.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Each and every one of us in the Party of One.

[ajacksonian]

Before I do a thorough overview of a Domestic and Foreign policy, let me hit a highlight on one hot-button issue, which is Abortion.

I have been troubled by the general nature of debate within society for some years on all topics, as they have been given to degenerating into an either/or proposition. Stark black and white with no middle ground and no other way of looking at things. My mind has always taken strange paths and I tend to come at things *differently*. So, before vexation and vituperation begin, let me say that the basis for what I see is given straight and within the Constitution, along with division of powers and retention of rights as given. So when I look at the actual debate and the actual wording of what is going on, I see things... well... differently.

For me the question is not of 'when does life begin'?

It is: when does Citizenship begin with the full benefits of due process?

Thus I end up here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/01/freedoms-rights-and-people.html
And more fully here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/when-do-your-rights-start.html

Indeed, Citizenship is only given to Congress for Immigration and Naturalization, but not over the States. By reservation of Amendment IX and X the process of becoming a Citizen from another Citizen is held by the States. That said, the Supreme Court has chosen to use 'viability' language in Roe v Wade. And, like all other poor attempts by the Court to draft something that should be legislated, it sticks its foot in the problem and makes people vituperate. Luckily, even when they say you can't use this methodology for anything else, that is only a point of askance by the Court and the States may very well use this exact *same* logic to grant Citizenship.

Think upon this: we are a Nation of due process. Traditionally Citizenship is granted at birth, but this is by Common Law although codified by the States. But the States, this being a Federal system, are not bound by this and, indeed, may point out that by setting up this language the Supreme Court *itself* has set up a non-due process regime based entirely on position of fetus inside or outside a host. Further, this allows that any fetus born by *bad luck* prematurely is granted the full and complete due process guaranteed under the Constitution while one developing normally is NOT.

The States may very well, on their own with the consent of their People, enact that as Law and give full and complete due process to a 'viable' fetus and set up testing and such to ensure this new CITIZEN is taken care of properly and has all necessary care as a minor unable to speak or otherwise care for itself.

The result of this is twofold: 1) abortion rights are upheld and the pro-rights groups have *nothing* to stand upon, and, 2) those arguing for life at its earliest are now given a methodology to get there. Yes, they must actively put forth their money and time, not in protest and shouting, but in research so as to push back that term of viability further and further and further back towards conception.

This either/or is poisoning the lifeblood of the American People and dividing Us so that We may not stand United and adhere to the responsibilities given Us in the Constitution. For I fully believe we get many responsibilities before we can get Our rights and use them as We are enjoined to do as a People. And I look at THAT here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/04/preambling-and-what-it-tells-you-about.html

[PatrickS]

It would appear that you favor a "protocol" system then as opposed to hard and fast "rules." I myself am much the same way. Yet, I certainly do have some lines that I simply will not cross.

As far as cross posting, that would be fine by me so long as citation is provided. Such as a link.

[ajacksonian]

Patrick - The rules, set up by the Constitution, allow for States based leeway on many, many things outside of the Federal purview so long as there is 'due process' involved. The dividing line on this is sharp so the Federal government would actually require an amendment to the Constitution to expand their powers over Legislating in this area. The Supreme Court is set up to assure that there is regularity across the States on how Citizens are treated. So, when the Supreme Court steps in and puts in its own two cents on a protocol based system for *one* thing, and then says *naughty of you if you try to use it elsewhere*, the States may look back and say: YOU started it.

To assure due process the Court has set up a procedural test for an area of 'fetus viability'. As I discuss in detail, ad nauseum elsewhere one must ask the question: viable for WHAT?

The only sane answer is viability to be BORN.

And what happens when one is born from Citizens of the United States within the United States? One becomes a CITIZEN.

So, to shorten it up the Supremes set up a Citizenship test procedure based on viability and then have the temerity to say it isn't one.

Now that puts forward the case that two identical embryos that have reached a 'viability status' can be treated UNEQUALLY based on position inside or outside of a host. That is, by definition, a due process violation based on circumstances beyond control of the individual. Thus the full and equal protection of the Constitution is afforded early if you have the bad luck to be born early and underdeveloped. A similar fetus gets *no* individual rights protection as a Citizen. Some minor things afforded by Roe v Wade, but ZERO due process rights.

The use of the 'viability test' gives the solution to this for any State that wants to slap the Supreme Court very hard and say that this State will RECTIFY this injustice. While you will still have a 'birthday' your rights as a Citizen start when you are 'viable' given the state of technology and nourishment and care. By doing so the Supreme Court must either: 1) validate this as a true way to look at its previous ruling and adheres to it, or, 2) step over to its previous position and explain exactly and in detail why the State may NOT exercise its self-determination this way. They can, of course try to weasel word it, but the fact of the matter is that they are supposed to CLARIFY the law, not muddy it.

Call their bluff and change the entire nature of the abortion debate from one of 'rights and human from a single cell' to 'citizenship and how early can life be sustained outside of the host'. The abortion folks get the immediate victory and lose all legitimacy for any further stance they may take on that part of the matter. The pro-life folks are given a means to do what is required in a Republic when personal beliefs from religious or other outlook impinges upon the commonality of the Union: Prove it.

And since a methodology for that proof is then set in place, they have goals and standards to work towards in ending this and finally getting vindication of their beliefs.

If this stance had been taken right after R v W, who knows how far embryology and examining how human life develops would have gone. A whole host of birth defects and fetal growth problems would have to have been examined and their causes found, all in trying to find the best way to sustain life outside the host. The progress would be in fits and starts, but I believe that we would be pushing those limits back hard... very hard... given three wasted decades of vitriol.

The debate can be ended in a way in which no one particularly likes but all agree is fair. Who, in their right mind, would be AGAINST understanding human reproduction and why it fails and how it works?

And if the Supreme Court tries to 'legislate from the bench', they will be clearly and starkly seen as doing so and going against the Constitution itself. At that point calling for the impeachment of them would be something I would endorse wholeheartedly.

This is an issue for the States.

And the People of the States.

To form a more perfect Union.

And establish Justice.

Those that have been adding their venom to the lifeblood of this Nation for all these years have been doing *none* of those things. It is neither 'a woman's right to choose' nor 'the sanctity of life'... It IS abiding by the commonality and doing those things necessary to build a better Republic. The extremists have calcified their positions so hard that they are immobile. We the People change over time, and the time has come to flow in a different land and leave these immobile positions high and dry in a desert, while that which keeps us together gives rise to something new flows in a slightly different channel.

[ajacksonian]

Patrick - Probably need to move this over to the Abortion thread... and leave this general area open for new topics....

As things of interest pop-up, they get their own thread....

Just a suggestion