Jump to Navigation

Environment, Property Ownership, and Natural Resources

Preserving American Freedom > Limiting the Expanse of Government Power > Environment, Property Ownership, and Natural Resources
We believe in the right to own property with minimal governmental interference. It is the source of the nation's wealth and the backbone of our free enterprise system. We oppose federalization of Texas lands and watersheds. We oppose vast acquisition of land to protect endangered species. We oppose the politicization of science, especially when it leads to reduced property rights.We reaffirm our belief in the constitutional concept of the right to own property without governmental interference. We believe that property ownership is the source of the nation's wealth; free enterprise forms the foundation of our collective wealth; local stewardship of our natural resources is best; sound science trumps politically correct science; groundwater is a vested ownership right; the state should not abridge or deny our inalienable property and mineral rights; in state control of state resources; in opposing nationalization of lands and watersheds; in opposing conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to voters; in opposing vast acquisition of Texas land by government agencies to protect endangered species; in allowing states to consider costs when comparing emission control techniques; in election of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality chairman; and in eliminating the Endangered Species Act.

There will always be some government interference in property ownership, such as deeds and property taxes for real estate or the requirement to maintain emissions control systems on vehicles. "without governmental interference" is unrealistic.

Much of this plank is a grab bag of disjointed, random statements, some of which have little to do with the plank's subject.

"in allowing states to consider costs when comparing emission control techniques": that is already happening. For example, when faced with Clean Air Act violations, the EPA allowed the TCEQ to coordinate local governments to determine air quality improvement measures. The EPA merely validated the plan's soundness.

We have far too many ballot positions already. We do not need more, especially for administrative departments under gubernatorial control like the TCEQ.

Fault:

Comments

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Random plank

Preserving American Freedom > Restoring Integrity to Our Elections > Filibuster
We support return to the traditional Filibuster in the U.S. Senate.
Reason:

This is vague and questionable. The U.S. Senate's filibuster has changed little in many decades.

vague

Problems

Show problem parts of the platform:
Platforms promote principles and policies. Planks must not push particular polymorphic political proposals, including bills.about a specific bill (6)
Parts of these were recently implemented.accomplished (11)
Parts of these only promote limited religious viewpoints.advances religious doctrine (8)
Too many positions already overwhelm voters. We cannot add more without a plan to cut ballot complexity.another elected office (6)
The GOP should not be a virulent, anti-homosexual crusade.anti-homosexual crusade (6)
These destroy useful customs or start us down slippery slopes.bad precedent (17)
Cliches belong on the playground, not in serious platforms.cliche (5)
These contradict other planks.contradictory (13)
These simply go too far, overshooting a rational remedy.extreme (25)
These have factual errors.incorrect (11)
These planks advanced contemporary liberal causes or expand government.leftist (22)
These planks require belief in something that is untrue.misinformed (18)
These are not appropriate for a platform document.misuse of platform (6)
These planks have minor punctuation or grammatical errors.needs copyedit (8)
These problems were fixed before the 2008 platform was published.no longer relevant (3)
"Black helicopters" and paranoid conspiracy have no place in our party.paranoid (15)
Parts of these do nothing useful.pointless (61)
These proposals would make our kids stupider.reduces education quality (3)
These planks are internally redundant or repeat other parts of the platform.redundant (41)
These planks should propose a more general solution.too specific (6)
These planks are unclear or unfocused.vague (19)
Puffy prose, hackneyed phrases, and obscure words create pinheaded, unfocused, and inaccessible platforms. Platforms must be simple and direct.wordy (47)

Recent comments