bad precedent

Immigration problems need to be solved by sealing the border, not by shredding the Constitution.

Cliches do not belong in a serious platform document. "No amnesty! No how. No way." is a gibberish cliche.

Republicans must oppose illegal immigration and should support strong measures to seal porous borders. However, we have to be realistic: by failing to meaningfully secure the borders for many years, we left the welcome mat out for illegal aliens.

A sane immigration policy cannot only be deportation and punishment. That is unrealistic, inhumane, and economically destructive. It fuels critics who see Republicans as narrow and rigid, it hurts our relevancy, and it destroys our credibility with Hispanic voters.

Republicans must combine firmness on illegal immigration with acknowledgement of our current situation. That means we have to look beyond punitive measures and ripping up longstanding legal traditions. We have to be pragmatic and realistic.

There is no credible movement to restrict contributions to faith-based charities.

Government should not promote any particular kind of charity.

Rape is serious, but it is unclear why it deserves equivalent punishment to capital murder. Why just rape? How about all the other serious crimes that leave lasting harm on their victims?

It is likely this is just advancing a limited religious viewpoint.

The 3 year boundary is arbitrary and imperfect, but it is not clear why it is the wrong boundary or why a different (or no?) boundary is better. There is no popular movement to change this law.

Pornography is protected free speech.

The government is already fighting multilateral wars to prevent importation of illicit drugs.

Rehabilitation programs that are effective should be emphasized. It is neither legal or wise to promote a program just because it is affiliated with a religious movement; otherwise the government would have to promote programs like Narcanon, a front for the Scientology cult.

Needle exchange programs are a local issue.

"Abstinence" is strongly associated with sex education and should not be used in this context.

We DUI enforcement support must be qualified. Current trends are ensnaring innocent citizens with spurious citations, pointless arrests, and roadblocks.

Need to be clear that it's the recreational use of drugs that is proscribed. Some otherwise illicit drugs have valid clinical uses.

"swift and unencumbered" is how tyrannical regimes execute people after poor quality trials. This is a human life. Emphasis should be on clearing all doubt about guilt, and that is not compatible with swift or unencumbered executions.

The US Supreme Court has twice ruled that the RICO Act or Hobbs Act cannot be used against abortion protectors. (source)

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act prevents use of intimidation or physical force and protects more than abortion clinic customers. It is dangerous and absurd to suggest that it's OK to use these tactics against law-abiding citizens.

Assault is already illegal.

It is wildly inappropriate to push "school administrators and officials" into a role traditionally held by parents and churches.

Courts have consistently upheld personal or student-initiatied right to prayer. What is unconstitutional is when student-initiated prayer becomes de facto policy, such as what brought about Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe.

The proposed amendment is dangerous. It would tacitly endorse public schooling on a federal level, creating a "gateway drug" to enhancing federal oversight of schools. Also, contemporary interpretaion of the First Amendment strongly defends most student-initiated prayer as free speech and defends against compulsory prayer.

Key founding documents in fact have minimal references to religion. There is no evidence of censorship.

It is a Constitutionally-protected free speech right to convince mothers either way on abortions. We should not take the Democrat option of reducing fundamental rights.

The Legislature in 2003 already required certain information be made available to mothers. See the actual material. We are dangerously close to contradicting Republican opposition to socialized medicine, where bureaucrats will get in the way of doctor-patient relationships.

It is simply a basic expectation that agencies enforce the laws they are required to uphold. Commonsense statements do not need to be written in the platform.

There is no need to single out partial birth abortions when we have a comprehensive abortion statement in the Right To Life plank.

We should not get into the slippery slope of cherrypicking valid subjects for judicial review.