Jump to Navigation

Flag Desecration

Preserving American Freedom > Honoring the Symbols of Our American Heritage > Flag Desecration
Any form of desecration of the American Flag is an act of disregard for our nation and its people and penalties should be established for such.
(plank deleted)

Annoying speech is still protected speech. It is a dangerous precedent to establish politically correct forms of free expression. That's copying a tactic of despotic regimes like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba.

What is absent from the larger debate is the flag is a symbol. Nobody died for a symbol, they died for what it represents.

Enacting this amendment defiles what the flag represents: curtailing free speech is orders of magnitude more harmful than desecrating a symbol.

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

Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health > Celebrating Traditional Marriage > Family and Defense of Marriage
We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. We advocate the repeal of laws that place an unfair tax burden on families. We call upon Congress to completely remove the marriage penalty in the tax code, whereby a married couple receives a smaller standard deduction than their unmarried counterparts living together. The primary family unit consists of those related by blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.
Reason:

Language needs simplification.

There is no meaningful "assault" on marriage in the Texas or federal judiciary outside a limited, long-shot ruling by a Democrat activist judge in Dallas County.

The discrepancy in the "married filing jointly" standard deduction was addressed in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 caused it to be implemented in 2003.

It is a slippery slope to cherrypick subjects eligible for judicial review.

Marriage is a state issue and should continue to be a state issue. We do not need yet another federal mandate on states.

Recognition or granting of benefits is of the purview of the private sector. We should not be like liberals and increase regulation of the private sector.

The last two sentences are redundant with other parts of the platform or simply commonsense.

bad precedent, wordy, incorrect, leftist, redundant, no longer relevant

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