H
It's sickening seeing how many people use this label without knowing what it means. It's not just anti-abortion. Protecting children from the pro-abort crowd is just one facet. A true pro-life position is also:
anti-execution
pro-reform
anti-euthanasia
pro-healthcare
anti-poverty
pro-welfare
anti-war
pro-internationalism
anti-inequality
pro-immigrant
anti-sexist
pro-family
anti-racist
pro-social harmony
These aren't just words. They aren't labels. They are hard and fast positions. To call oneself pro-life and demand someone's death is a blunt contradiction. Claim to promote peace and hawk for war and you're simply the worst sort of hypocrite. Say you care about children and then leave them to starve in the streets or send them back to grow up in a war zone and you're no better than the baby butchers than whom you pretend to be any different.
Whoa there buckaroo!
You can be procharity but not for govt welfare that rewards enabling behavior!
You are not distinguishing the POLITICAL/LEGAL label from the reality of what people support.
I can be for education but against what public schools are doing wrong to mess it up.
I can be FOR national defense but against abuse of military for unjustified war and war crimes.
I can even be AGAINST abortion and 100% for preventing it in 100% of all cases,
and yet Legally support prochoice where any laws are passed by free choice and consensus
since I find that more constitutional.
I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution.
Just because you are LEGALLY for the choice of abortion, war, executions, etc.
doesn't mean you can't be 100% against these things. making them legal or illegal is a separate
level from the real work it takes to prevent them in practice! Sometimes keeping them legal
takes political pressure off so groups can work together to PREVENT more cases of what you are so against!
"I can be AGAINST execution and 100% for preventing 100% of murders and 100% of executions
but legally support keeping the OPTION of execution legal on the books to use as leverage
in compelling people to work with authorities on resolving crimes and deciding a plan for restitution."
How does a "constitutionalist" come out so strongly against the 5th Amendment?
Dear
Impenitent
You brought this issue up before
I said that we agree IN ADVANCE what the laws of citizenship are.
So residents in a district can all AGREE to sign in advance for legal and financial responsibility
to pay for costs, damages and restitution if convicted of a premeditated crime.
You can't even file a TAX RETURN without violating your own Fifth Amendment rights, if you want to be technical! People sign documents all the time, such as when you make a sworn affidavit
or swear under oath in court, that anything you say false can constitute perjury!
So it's like that, based on people AGREEING in advance.
Also
Impenitent I see nothing wrong with people taking the Fifth Amendment,
and not admitting who did what wrong, but the whole group AGREEING to
fix the problem. So if 3 people won't admit who actually damaged the property during a riot,
but all 3 people agree to be part of the group effort to raise funds and/or do the volunteer
work to repair the damage done at the scene, then it doesn't matter who did it, if all
the participants agree to clean up the mess to restore the property to its original condition.
That's another way you can take the Fifth Amendment
but still take responsibility for your actions so you don't impose on someone else's rights.
If you plead no contest, then you leave it to the authority of someone else to decide your fate for you.
Impenitent I am talking about if you want a SAY in whether to get the death penalty or life in prison.
so once you are convicted and are issued punishment for a capital crime,
then I am saying if you want a SAY, like 100% CONSENT to what the terms of your sentencing
and restitution will be, THAT is where I would require 100% respect for the CONSENT of others
in deciding the penalty as well.
If you don't want a say in your sentencing, you can give up your right to petition
and your right to defend your beliefs.
If you want to defend your right to your beliefs, and defend your position, then that would
involve 100% cooperation in order to respect the consent of others to the same degree you want
that enforced for you.
So, sure, you are welcome to give up your rights by taking the Fifth,
like OJ Simpson did. I'd rather have my free speech, than have to remain silent
to prevent from incriminating myself. I'd rather have full freedom to speak by
having 100% equal consent to whatever is going to be the outcome affecting me
by respecting the consent of others to speak and defend their beliefs fully and freely
so that the decision is made by consensus. That requires full transparency and an
agreement to respect the consent of all the people in deciding the terms of restitution.
To have that degree of healing and closure, so people can agree on terms of sentencing
and restitution, nobody can hide or distort information the conflicts will prevent reaching a resolution.
So it ultimately obstructs justice if people abuse the Fifth Amendment to
obscure information instead of working out the terms to satisfy all parties.
Sometimes you say it's an. optional agreement citizens will make before an actual incident; sometimes you say it's an additional punishment added to the pile-on at conviction... It seems to depend on your venue.
I wonder how you determine who cooperated in their conviction. Do you mean a guilty plea vs a plea of innocence ? Are you saying the truely innocent cannot be brought to trial or convicted ? It happens every day. Yet you want to heap further punishment on them.
My point, though, before it gets lost in a maze of words, is that your treatment of the yet convicted, along with those convicted, is highly unconsttutional.
You can be an activist for change, you can present your ideas on crime and punishment, and the constitution can be changed, but you can't call yourself a constitutionalist.
Dear
Impenitent
First of all, for Restorative Justice and mediating after a violation, abuse, crime/murder has occurred
NOBODY, not I, not the govt, decides for the people.
The PROCESS is worked out voluntarily among the people affected.
NOBODY can dictate that process.
The CONSENSUS is based on mutual consent of all parties so it is unique to each situation.
So the PROCESS works that if people are still in conflict with each other, both sides are
holding back and not resolving all the issues, then the process stalls out.
It only works if all parties work out all objections and conflicts to reach an agreement.
It takes massive spiritual therapy, counseling and conflict resolution,
often over 10-20 years to work out some of the issues that cause injury or division that otherwise blocks
the process of reaching a TRUE consensus that comes from the PEOPLE involved and affected.
I am NOT talking about "manufactured consensus"
or Obama's idea of forcing consensus by political rule.
Impenitent after all the yelling about ACA mandates not being
by free choice of the taxpayers affected,
why aren't you questioning those mandates that are REAL.
These requirements are passed into law and being enforced.
If you understand I am against policies being enacted and enforced
without consent of the parties affected, well, the same concept applies here.
The point is to allow for a Restorative Justice approach to criminal corrections,
restitution, rehab and recovery. But this only works by VOLUNTARY participation.
That's the same reason why imposing the health care
mandates and now the gay marriage through states is opposed.
People are supposed to have free choice in such issues
that involve personal decisions and beliefs and not DICTATE through govt
as the LAST thing that govt should be doing.
If you want govt to dictate something on a personal level, it has to be by AGREEMENT of the people
so nobody's personal beliefs and liberty are violated without due process before depriving them of choice.
That's what is wrong with the politics going on today.
It's all reduced to political bullying by coercion or exclusion,
and there is no mutual respect for consent of the governed behind laws and contracts.
So the relationship is falling apart. Instead of people and govt being one,
the parties hijack the fear issues for votes and abuse political power to
ram their own agenda over the others, so everyone loses this way.
I am trying to defend and exercise the consent based approach
not onto to correct this trend but to undo and heal the past injuries to relations it has caused.
the decisions have to come from the people in order to empower each person equally.
I recommend facilitating that by party.
I can represent myself and my ideas for the basic framework,
but other people and parties need to stand up and set up their own programs
and how they want to represent themselves and resolve their own issues.
Nobody can dictate for anyone else or there isn't equal commitment.
People will only enforce laws equally they commit to by free will so it is real, it shows
that it matches their convictions and we can enforce those laws. We need to find where
we share the same convictions and base laws on that, and we can renew respect for laws by example.
Trying to dictate laws from the bench does not work,
but has the opposite effect of dividing and destroying relations so we don't have agreement on the
laws to be enforced. that is bad for public security to have chaos and conflict in govt.
We need corrections and solutions that unify people, so we can enforce common
govt standards, and make national security and law enforcement safe again.
when this is done right, enforcing laws by agreement is a natural deterrent against abuses
and there is not this need to go on preemptive strike or seek retaliation politically out of distrust
or fear of other groups. We can solve those problems by teaching and practicing approaches
to conflict resolution that focus on effective solutions instead of political infighting and control.
I think you think I am talking about working within the system that already exists?
Yes and no. The restorative justice and conflict resolution has to be freed
from the political and legal pressures that block communication and the resolution process.
So I am not talking about the approach of retribution and fault finding for the purpose of punishment
as the main goal; I am talking about correcting all the factors to PREVENT and DETER recurring abuses,
and setting up proportional restitution to restore good faith relations between people and govt.
This may be more about investing in corrections than placing blame.
What I find is that once people commit to correcting a problem, the process defines itself.
people work out the conflicts until the answers come out that lead to an agreed solution.
It's up to the people to make that commitment, and organize
around common goals we have each committed to. and we don't need govt to dictate to us what to do.
We can set up our own solutions and use those as models for reforming govt
to follow the standards we set. So we lead by example and govt is based on what
we agree has proven to work. Not dictating from the top down which ends up with
more problems that don't work but just sounded like a strong political statement.
Let's first invest in corrections, prove they work, and people will naturally
invest without any need to dictate or force people unnaturally.
People will naturally want to comply and contribute if the solutions make sense to them
and match what they want to invest in.
