Texas Republican Party Platform Thread 9

Brown County GOP Website ^ | June, 2002 | Republican Party of Texas

[Bigun]

The Republican Party of Texas Platform has been MUCH in the news of late because it is a CONSERVATIVE document and, as such, VERY controversial. I thought it would be an instructive exercise, for those of us who wish to do so here, to go through it plank by plank and see where we stand on these issues. Pursuant to that, I will post ONE plank of the Platform, every few days and anyone who wishes to can state their views as to that particular part of the platform.

Today, under the sub-heading Preserving American Freedom we find the following plank:

Law Enforcement - According to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, federal law-enforcement powers have criminal jurisdiction limited to the high seas, federal installations, and counterfeiting operations. The Party believes that most crime is local and that the states, according to the Tenth Amendment, reserve law enforcement authority. Implementing this policy would effectively eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which we would applaud. Many citizens have become concerned about the expansion of federal law enforcement authority and the use of military personnel and equipment against its citizens. The rights of American citizens must be respected.

[Bigun]

I have decided to score myself by assigning a score of between 0 and 10 points to each of the planks! 10 means I agree with EVERYTHING in it. 0 means I agree with NOTHING in it!.

I’ll betcha we have a little controversy on this one but I like it!

Another 10 points brings my running score to this point is 83 out of a possible 90.

[Bigun]

P I N G ! ! !

Previous Thread

[Flyer]

This one gets a 10 from me, too. It bothers me greatly when the BATF and FBI show up in Houston for fires and industrial accidents, etc.

The Threads	Me!
Preamble Limiting the Expanse of Government Power Limited Federal Powers Constitutional Citations on Legislation Equality Under the Law Conduct of Public Officials Federal Judiciary Reform Judicial Restraint Law Enforcement	10 10 10 6.6 10 0 10 10 10 76.6 of 80

---

[Flyer]

*PING !* Play the game!

Pardon me if you were double pinged.

As always, a FReep mail will get you on or off this Houston topics ping list.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

This would also do away with the FBI, fights against organized crime, and perhaps the INS? My first reaction is to give it a zero, but I reserve the right to up that to a five after I think about it ..... something I doubt the writer did.

[Flyer]

Correction - That's 76.6 of 90 for me.

[Bigun]

Most Americans have NO idea just how many agencies of the federal government have been given police powers.

Do either of YOU know what that number is?

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Do either of YOU know what that number is

I have no idea but would guess it is several dozen. I do not object to getting rid of most of them however this plank would do away with them all. It is overkill.

[Bigun]

...but would guess it is several dozen.

More! Many more!

I'll get back to this later gotta go to WORK now!

[Flyer]

Today, there are more than 50 different federal law enforcement agencies, 200 federal agencies with some law enforcement authority, and more than 3,000 federal crimes.

Source

[hchutch]

Call this an 8.

There is a need for a way to make sure that dangerous criminals (we're tlking armed robbers, murderers, rapists, you folks know the drill). Plus, there is the matter of stuff under the Commerce Clause.

So, out of the two days I've done this, I've got 17 out of 20.

[Dog Gone]

So, if we adopt and enforce this plank, each state would be solely responsible for investigating and prosecuting acts of terrorism within the state, unless a Federal property was the target.

Nobody could effectively prosecute corporate securities fraud, and Federal taxes would be strictly voluntary. We could take up donations to build submarines, I guess.

I think you can guess what my score on this plank is going to be.

[Dog Gone]

but I reserve the right to up that to a five after I think about it ..... something I doubt the writer did.

The only thing the writer was thinking about was Waco.

[hchutch]

Very true.

I'll lay out a scenario:

After a terrorist attack on 9/11, executives from several states get together and announce a plan to raise $1 billion to go to the person of persons who kill the terrorist responsible for planning the attack.

Pray tell, who's going to handle that prosecution?

[PetroniDE]

In general, I agree with this plank. While concern exist regarding use of military regarding law enforcement, sometimes it is necessary, especially after last September. Therefore, I don't score 10 points on this plank; I will score 9 points.

My running total 19 out of 20. I am still incomplete on the first seven planks. I will score them this weekend. I promise.

[Dog Gone]

Pray tell, who's going to handle that prosecution?

Hypothetical: Election officials in Louisiana decide not to count votes cast for GOP candidates in November. No state law prohibits that.

Those who support this plank are comfortable with that outcome?

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Forgot to total .... giving this one a ZERO for overkill, I am:

78 of 90

[Flyer]

Federal law enforcement is very limited by the Constitution. If we agree we need broader Federal powers then the solution is to amend the Constitution.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Federal law enforcement is very limited by the Constitution. If we agree we need broader Federal powers then the solution is to amend the Constitution

Fine but I'm not willing to give up the FBI and Homeland Security while we fix what we have done in the past. This is a sound bite fix to a bigger problem.

[Dog Gone]

It all comes back to the debate over implied powers in the Constitution. I would argue that the Federal Government has the implied power to enforce valid Federal laws, and to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens within the various states.

No Constitutional amendment is required. Without that implied power, the Constitution itself is completely unenforceable.