See the Texas Republican party just issued their party platform for the upcoming cycle and boy oh boy is it a doozy. It covers everything we have come to expect from the fringe right, lack of forethought, conspiracy theories and no real understanding of government.
Now I wont bore you with every single thing they have decided to stand for, but here are some of the highlights.....and my retorts.
Now there is a lot to work with here, so I'm splitting this at least in half.
Part one is going to have the section that seems to be mostly with laws/governing ideas. (where most of the insanity seems to be)
Part two will have social issues, education, gun and crime laws, the economy and what I will call "patriotism/ 'merica fuck yea". (If needed I may even split part 2 in half.)
So lets get started with part one
First one of their key principals they lay out:
"Strict adherence to the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. and Texas Constitutions."
Just remember that for the moment folks.
Section 1-3: Opposition to Socialism
Presumably this includes the post office (which is IN the US Constitution) , oil and gas subsidies and medical research subsidies. By the way, removing those last two would bankrupt Texas businesses, as Texas tends to get most of those subsidies.
Either that, or they dont know what the Socialism is....
Section 1-4: Full Repeal of the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"Return the appointment of U.S. Senators by the State Legislatures."
Hmm, so your against more socialism and more democracy? So what ARE you in favor of? plutocracy I assume?
But to be fair, think how much more the Senate could do if it was less responsive the will of the people. (side note: according to the most recent approval numbers, I dont know if being less responsive is possible)
Section 1-5: Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats and Agencies
"We decry the appointment of unelected bureaucrats, and we urge Congress to use their constitutional authority to defund and abolish these positions and return authority to duly elected officials, accountable to the electorate. In the interim we hold Congress responsible for agency decisions. Executive decisions by agencies must be reviewed and approved by Congress taking effect "
You know, maybe I missed something, but wasnt the ENTIRE POINT of your last section to increase the number of "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats" by making senators "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats"?
Also, what about your first principal? seems to me if we removed all "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats" that would kind of be a problem for the Supreme Court, which according to the Constitution are "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats".
Also ambassadorial elections? I mean sure having them appointed isnt in the Consistution per say, but really? you think thats a good idea? Just think of the expense of having 200+ more national elections every year. Well 200+ for ambassadorial. I think if we include ALL "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats" thats likely closer to a thousand or so new elections we have to pay for.
And hell, just imagine how long that ballot is going to be, it will take 3 days to vote
Also last point, again going back to that principal. Pretty sure the Article II of the Constitution gives oversight of the Executive Branch exclusively to the president....seems to me making congress responsible to run them kinda violates that.
Section 1-6: Constitutional Citations on Legislation
Um, yea as far as the Constitutional Provision, Article 1 Section 8. Doesnt matter the law, thats your citiation. See thats the part of the Constitution that gives congress the power to pass any law they see as necessary and proper.
You know, for people who's main goal is to return to strict adherence to the Constitution, I have a hunch you never read it.
Also, can we get a definition of family please? Cause you know, the average american family is 2.6 people.
So who counts as the .6 of a person? Also, what about traditional Catholics? they might have 5 or 6 kids. So is everyone then .32 of a person? or do the parents count as full people and each kid is .1?
Oh and what about income and occupation? I mean lets be honest, a tax on gas is going to have a much bigger affect on farmers then on bike messengers. I'd also guess a capital gains tax would have a much bigger impact on say the Bush family then say the family living in a two bedroom apartment in El Passo.
And note, so far by the way, I have only included things that fit under the traditional definition of family. It will get much more complicated once we add in gays, adoption, artificial insemination, single parents, divorces, step parents, unmarried hetrosexual cohabitators with kids ect.
So I mean, we can either make bills millions of pages long to cover all the possible definitions of families....or we can define family in such as way as to not apply to 99% of people.....or we can admit this is a fucking stupid idea. Your call.
Section 1-22: Preservation of Republican Form of Government.
"We support our republican form of government in Texas as set forth in the Texas Bill of Rights and oppose Initiative and Referendum. We also urge the Texas Legislature and the U.S. Congress to enact legislation prohibiting any judicial jurisdiction from allowing any substitute or parallel system of Law, specifically foreign Law (including Sharia Law), which is not in accordance with the U.S. or Texas Constitutions."
Of course no one is actually TRYING to do that, likely because the US Consistution makes that illegal, but since as weve already established you've never actually read the damn thing, I kinda understand how you could be that stupid.
Section 1-23: Germane Contents Requirement.
"All content of any bill must be germane to the title of the act and bills shall be less than 30 pages."
You know, before you say shit like this, its occasionally a good idea to do a page count....see your party platform is 40 pages.
Also your State Constitution is now illegal. Now counting the index it clocks in at 195 pages. So thats only 6 1/2 times longer than you claim it should be required to be.
Maybe sometimes you need more than 30 pages? Maybe learning to read would be a better idea.......
Section 1-26: Constitutional Convention
"We strongly oppose any constitutional convention to rewrite the United States Constitution. We encourage the Legislature to rescind its 1977 call for such a convention. We call upon other states to rescind their votes for such a convention."
Section 1-27: Article 5 Convention
"Under no circumstances shall the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Constitutional Amendments, be changed in any manner. We urge the Texas State Legislators to take the lead in calling for an Article V Amending Convention of States for the specific purpose of reigning in the power of the federal government. Any
proposed amendments must be ratified by ¾ of the states to take effect."
Wait a second, you LITERALLY JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELVES IN CONSECUTIVE POINTS. An Article 5 convention IS the constitutional convention that texas called for. So do you want one or is it illegal? Make up for freaking minds.
And we can just skip over the fact that making the first 10 amendments unamendable is not only ironic as hell, but also totally against your principal goal of a strict adherence to the intent of the founders, because we already know you havnt read the Constitution.
Instead I will focus on the fact that these two ideas are literally one after the other. Which means your not even reading your own document. And we are no where near page 30 so you dont even have the "its too long" excuse.
Also you are aware the Bill of Rights was already amendment right? (by the 14th amendment), and that with out that, the bill of rights doesnt apply to the states (so you have no right to own a gun as an example)? Yea somehow I'm willing to bet you dont know that.
1-29: Reparations
"We oppose any form of reparation"
You know what the legal definition of reparation is? Actually dont bother answering its clear you dont.
So here it is, right out of the dictionary.
"the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged."
So yea, making it impossible to do that basically eliminates the justice system entirely. I mean from fines to community service, even to prison time the idea behind all of it is to make amends for a wrong one has done.
Now actually to fair, you really meant you were opposed to any form of reparation for slavery, you just left the last two words out because you didnt want to look like racists. Well mission accomplished, you just look like morons.
1-41: Defending American Citizens.
"We call for Congress to act as President Obama has dismissed the IRS targeting of specific political groups and individuals, which calls into question the President’s and the Department of Justice’s commitment to citizens Constitutional rights; and We call for Congress to act on the Benghazi cover up and the failure to protect American Citizens including U.S. military personnel by the Obama Administration; and We call for Congressional investigates into other federal agencies"
Wait a second, you LITERALLY JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELVES IN CONSECUTIVE POINTS. An Article 5 convention IS the constitutional convention that texas called for. So do you want one or is it illegal? Make up for freaking minds.
And we can just skip over the fact that making the first 10 amendments unamendable is not only ironic as hell, but also totally against your principal goal of a strict adherence to the intent of the founders, because we already know you havnt read the Constitution.
Instead I will focus on the fact that these two ideas are literally one after the other. Which means your not even reading your own document. And we are no where near page 30 so you dont even have the "its too long" excuse.
Also you are aware the Bill of Rights was already amendment right? (by the 14th amendment), and that with out that, the bill of rights doesnt apply to the states (so you have no right to own a gun as an example)? Yea somehow I'm willing to bet you dont know that.
1-29: Reparations
"We oppose any form of reparation"
You know what the legal definition of reparation is? Actually dont bother answering its clear you dont.
So here it is, right out of the dictionary.
"the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged."
So yea, making it impossible to do that basically eliminates the justice system entirely. I mean from fines to community service, even to prison time the idea behind all of it is to make amends for a wrong one has done.
Now actually to fair, you really meant you were opposed to any form of reparation for slavery, you just left the last two words out because you didnt want to look like racists. Well mission accomplished, you just look like morons.
1-41: Defending American Citizens.
"We call for Congress to act as President Obama has dismissed the IRS targeting of specific political groups and individuals, which calls into question the President’s and the Department of Justice’s commitment to citizens Constitutional rights; and We call for Congress to act on the Benghazi cover up and the failure to protect American Citizens including U.S. military personnel by the Obama Administration; and We call for Congressional investigates into other federal agencies"
All-right so in earlier blogs and on my facebook, I've already gone into detail about how none of those things are real so I'll spare the rehash. So lets just call this the "All our information comes from FOX News" clause, accept it as the explanation of how they seem to have never read the Constitution and no nothing about the government and move on.
1-50: Real ID Act
"As the Real ID Act effectively creates an unconstitutional and privacy-inhibiting national ID card, we hereby call for its immediate repeal"
Actually I think they have a point. After all Article F, Section O, Clause X clearly states the government cant issue ID card.
And you know luckly the government cant read the Census, Social Security database, tax returns, drivers licenses, birth certificates, ect to find out you exist......
Oh by the way, I skipped over it, but earlier in their platform they called for improvement to drivers licenses. Later they will call for photo ID to vote.
So as near as I can tell, its important the government can verify who you are, but its also illegal........
I-62: Remedies to Activist Judiciary
"We call Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges. We urge Congress to adopt the Judicial Conduct Act of 2005 and remove judges who abuse
their authority. Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights"
Ok again skipping the unconstitutionality of the idea....Congratulations you just legalized partial birth abortion, polygamy, child rape, human sacrifice, indefinite detention of US citizens, trials without juries, forced self incrimination, and a variety of other things.
See all of those things either possibly fall under or are prevented by the very things you dont want the court to legislate on. So unless their are explicit laws that make each and every one of those, and a ton of other things like that illegal, guess what you just made them legal. And unless all 50 states make them equally as illegal you can never again make them fully illegal.
Of course since you have your heads up your collective asses you didnt think about that, you just tried to repeal the only thing stopping you from shoving YOUR beliefs on other people, you forgot it works both ways.
1-75: Voter Rights Act:
"We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized"
No such legislation exists. No really. The Voting Rights act of 1965 was codified and updated in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992 and 2006.
There was no update in 1973, and even if their had been it would be outdated and obsolete due to later updates.
Which means they want to repeal an old version of a non existent law...
Damn it, who on FOX news and/or Alex Jones/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh gave them the wrong dates and made them look like morons?
1-88: AWOL Legislators
Ok again skipping the unconstitutionality of the idea....Congratulations you just legalized partial birth abortion, polygamy, child rape, human sacrifice, indefinite detention of US citizens, trials without juries, forced self incrimination, and a variety of other things.
See all of those things either possibly fall under or are prevented by the very things you dont want the court to legislate on. So unless their are explicit laws that make each and every one of those, and a ton of other things like that illegal, guess what you just made them legal. And unless all 50 states make them equally as illegal you can never again make them fully illegal.
Of course since you have your heads up your collective asses you didnt think about that, you just tried to repeal the only thing stopping you from shoving YOUR beliefs on other people, you forgot it works both ways.
1-75: Voter Rights Act:
"We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized"
No such legislation exists. No really. The Voting Rights act of 1965 was codified and updated in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992 and 2006.
There was no update in 1973, and even if their had been it would be outdated and obsolete due to later updates.
Which means they want to repeal an old version of a non existent law...
Damn it, who on FOX news and/or Alex Jones/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh gave them the wrong dates and made them look like morons?
1-88: AWOL Legislators
"We urge the Texas House and Senate to compel attendance of absent members and penalize those who attempt to break the quorum by not being in attendance"
Now keep in mind a good chunk of what legislators do is actually pointless. For example at the US level every march all the teams in March Madness have resolutions praising them passed (although to his credit Speaker Boehner eliminated that when becoming speaker). Same with most sports teams. And the most famous example is renaming government buildings requires money as well.
Its true at the state level too.
Which means your basically forcing legislators to miss kids soccer games so they can pass resolutions praising their kids soccer teams for making it to "state". Or pulling them away from a dying parent to vote on renaming a post office.
Yes some of the stuff legislators do is important, but lets be honest no body wants them to vote on every little thing, they wouldnt have time to do anything else (like say figure out how to solve legitimate issues)
1-92: Filibuster:
"We support return to the traditional Filibuster in the U.S. Senate."
But remember folks they ARNT the party of obstruction.
Unless by traditional filibuster they mean the one where you actually had to talk the whole time and as soon as you shut up people could vote.....in which case I am actually on their side.....I just have a hunch thats not what they mean.
1-96: Religious Symbols
"We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Ten Commandments or other religious symbols."
Cause that worked out so well for Oklahoma.
 |
| Oklahoma's Satanic Memorial. Coming soon to Texas |
I hope these people never get a hold of a real double edge sword, they will cut their own heads off with it by accident.....
1-100: Symbols of American Heritage
"We call upon governmental entities to protect all symbols of our American heritage from being altered in any way"
1-100: Symbols of American Heritage
"We call upon governmental entities to protect all symbols of our American heritage from being altered in any way"
That could make it difficult to change the flag next time we get a new state.....
Also I do like the irony that technicality, this isnt a symbol of American Heritage.
 |
| Flag of the Republic of Texas. |
Also when they say American Heritage I have a sneaking suspicion they mean this:
 |
| Also not a symbol of American Heritage. In fact not being american was the point. |
Admittedly that suspicion is based on the fact the next item is about restoring a confederate memorial, but maybe I'm overreacting.
Well that wraps up part one, part two will be up shortly. The good news is, it should be a bit more topically diverse, as this first part was by far the longest part of the platform.
Well that wraps up part one, part two will be up shortly. The good news is, it should be a bit more topically diverse, as this first part was by far the longest part of the platform.
No comments:
Post a Comment