2008 Platform (filtered to bad precedent)

The right to free speech and the right of free association are Constitutionally-protected rights. Conservatives do not reduce Constitutionally-protected rights.

The limitation on lobbying by those receiving federal grants is ridiculous. It would muzzle free speech rights for a huge array of private institutions like museums, universities, hospitals, public works contractors, etc.

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.

Complete bans on pornography are subjective, unconstitutional, and only come from a desire to have government decide individual morality. However, conservatives support community standards that usually separate intensive pornography businesses from places where children congegrate.

All abortions are a tragedy. All casual abortions, mainly those used as a substitute for effective use of birth control, are a grievous violation of the right to life.

Abortions should be permitted for other reasons, including when the mother's life is endangered or when the fetus is not viable.

Pregnancies resulting from rape, while rare, involve complex moral dilemmas. In those cases, we should respect the privacy of the mother and allow her to decide the best outcome. We can take solace that some studies suggest most rape-induced pregnancies are carried to term.

The judiciary is to interpret and apply laws. Earlier planks also call for judicial restraint. Expecting the judiciary to pursue a social policy agenda is judicial activism, not judicial restraint. Liberalism is still liberal even when it benefits a conservative cause.

Mandating artificial sustenance is a violation of basic human rights. Withholding artificial sustenance may be merited when an unresponsive patient has no no chance of survival. Ultimately, this is a decision for the patient (as previously arranged in a living will) or that patient's spouse or family, not the government.

The mention of handicapped persons is unjustifiable. There is no credible movement to murder handicapped people by withholding nutrition.

On the 7 enumerated points:

• Point 1 is incorporated into the proposed revision.
• Points 2, 6, and 7 are redundant with the clearly stated point of the plank.
• Point 3 is problematic. The genetic diagnosis may confirm a condition that is incompatible with life.
• Points 4 and 5 are a bad precedent. Abortion facilities should only be regulated commensurate with the risk to mothers, and these laws only creates legal fictions and chicaneries. Focus on these laws creates new bureaucracies and regulations, just like liberals, and also distracts from the main goal of banning most abortions.

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.

"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.

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.

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.