Platform Problems

This is an Arizona Congressman's Enumerated Powers Act.

It will increase red tape and only result in partisan and hackneyed justifications. It may divert attention from the better analysis of watchdog organizations.

It's useless, anyway, because Congress creates omnibus bills. They are so packed with divergent legislation that this may require a listing of the entire Constitution! A better strategy is to reduce omnibus bills.

Should not label terrorism the "greatest" threat. That is unproven.

Profiling's usefulness is unproven, and permissibility must be determined within existing legal framework. It is a polarizing issue and should not be pushed in the platform.

Protecting Constitutional rights is a generic expectation of all government officials and does not need mentioning here. The war on terrorists is about a lot more than Constitutional rights.

The consequence for terrorist activity is already clear: we will destroy you.

Revision of Patriot Act handled separately.

The Constitution does not allow appointments to large vacanties in the House of Representatives. While the Constitution's 17th Amendment allows the state Legislature to permit the governor to appoint to vacant Senate positions, in fact prevailing practice in all states is to only allow an appointment until a special election can be held. Texas law specifically only allows an appointment until a special election.

These orders are not a sinister plot. Rather, they clarify or further a law of Congress or the Constitution.

Executive orders have been used since George Washington. Executive Order #1 (under a 1907 numbering scheme) is Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

Checks and balances already limit overreaching or unconstitutional orders: for example, the Supreme Court invalidated a Truman executive order in 1952.

Puerto Rico's status is being worked out by the United States and Puerto Rico with international input. It is more an administrative issue than one with a clear conservative viewpoint.

This plank in fact aligns us with Cuba's viewpoint.

The census is a critical measure of population and trends in the United States.

The qualms about census questions are pointless:

• The 2000 census long form was the shortest since 1940.
• Census data is not shared with other agencies, and the courts have upheld this.

No credible religious belief prevents one from completing a census.

If we allow conscientous objection to the census, we'll start getting silly cases like in Canada's Todd Stelmach. Stelmach believes that the software used to run Canada's census was made by a company that indirectly benefits from profits from our war on terror. (source)

An earlier plank calls for preservation of representative democracy. Forcing a city vote on annexation usurps this model.

It is appropriate for "annex-ees" to have a voice through a direct vote since they had no representative in the jurisdiction into which they are being annexed.

Need to clarify that this is for cities only. This stems from controversy from Houston's annexation of areas to its north.

This was accomplished with 2009's Proposition 11.

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.

This plank is delusional.

Religious organizations generally have 501(c)(3) status. 501(c)(3)s may engage in issue advocacy. This is specifically allowed under current tax law.

Religious organizations are not required to file IRS Form 990. In fact, they are generally exempt from tax-related filings.

I presume this is a call for the end of omnibus legislation, where all sorts of unrelated junk is loaded into one bill. Let's just say that instead of

Omnibus legislation is nasty but not unconstitutional.

That would bar a lot of really good Republican judges in Dallas County! Face it: judges are elected by straight party ballting influenced by national moods. They are rarely elected by their personal merit.

Being registered to vote says little about one's appropriateness for jury service.

The Constitutional Restoration Act has little to do with restoring the Constitution. Rather, it prohibits the federal judiciary from hearing any cases challenging a government agency's or official's "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

While innocous at first face, this is profoundly dangerous legislation for two reasons.

First, it radically redefines the separation of church and state by allowing personal religious statements to enter the public sphere.

Second, it legitimizes legislative cherrypicking of the federal judiciary's authority. Conservatives shrewdly point out slippery slopes in liberal government expansion, but in this case, supposed conservatives are in fact creating a dangerous slippery slope that may reshape the time-tested role of the judiciary.

On judicial restraint, strict restraint is a judicial straightjacket: judicial restraint also means deference to all prior court precedent, even when it is outside the national interest.

Why just judicial nominees? What is this trying to achieve? It is unclear what abuse this would correct.

Um, maybe try Google?

That's already the law.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is part of conservative philosophy and does not need to be repeated with planks like this.

Because conservatives believe in redemption, we should not by policy permanently disenfranchise those who have paid their debt to society. A University of Arizona study finds that politically-engaged ex-felons are less likely to re-offend.

This is such a nitpicky detail. There is already plenty of time to file.

This is hopelessly vague.

The platform should be about ideas, not about specific legislation.