New Republican Platform, with arguments: 1) We are not locked into any tax scheme, all sound and Constitutional mathematical options are on the table to balance our budget and provide for a reasonable surplus. Since math is neither left nor right, liberal or conservative, and since religion has some wisdom and the founders had wisdom too, therefore, we believe in a balanced budget, not just reducing the deficit, but no deficit, surplus for seven lean years, and paying our debts without doing harm by fulling already formed engagements with perfect good faith. 2) We believe religion is left to the States, through the guarantee of a Republican form of government, through the no religious test clause, and through the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment. We will not legislate what is sin except when that sin harms others; we support the Bill of Rights and all civil rights. Since we do not believe in forcing States to bow down with those who bow down, therefore, we do not support judicial activism but support that States through the Senate advising and consenting to the appointments of the president protect minorities, and abortion is protected either by the State or the majority of the States through that wise system or is left to the woman's choice, and who may marry whether Gay, Mormon, Muslim, Christian "one flesh" or other is a State's choice and the Congress due to the First and Tenth Amendment and Article 4 is forbidden to discriminate with regard to religion as to the effect of those contracts among the several States. 3) We do not believe in "the spirit that has triumphed over war," as no godly realm exists on this earth as yet. Since as Thomas Paine argued that that Republics do not wage war, we oppose war, but realize our enemies will wage it, therefore, we will wage war according to the Constitution when war is declared against us by any entity, and we will support removal of threats to the peace and enfranchisement and self-determinations of peoples when so engaged as per the United Nations Charter or our own conscience. 4) We believe in limited government at the Federal level, and reasonable regulations and programs to promote the General Welfare, not a cradle to the grave welfare Nation/State imposed upon all States. Since diversity and a preferred cultural State is preferable to Democratic mob rule tyranny imposed upon all States, therefore, we support a right of a Libertarian State to exist should it choose to do so, and we reject an imposition of Libertarian ideals on all States, but we insist that in any process of weening us off of Government all already formed engagements with regard to entitlements must be fulfilled with perfect good faith; should the States through the Congress want any future programs, or to keep current entitlements related to Social Welfare, we support those programs being done or transfered to State compacts with the consent of the Congress as per Article 1 Section 10, or an Amendment to the Constitution. 5) We support a clean environment and energy independence. Since the general welfare cannot be promoted with polution across State lines and causing harm to the earth or excessive discriminatory regulations such as to harm our economy and make transition harder, therefore, we support using the existing resources and working toward cleaner energy without discrimination or excuses. 6) We believe there is much wisdom in George Washington's farewell address: "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty." (ibid) Since the "wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests," are the principles of a Republican form of government at the State level, therefore, we reject the spirit of revenge in voting, and reject any attempt to make our party or any party an engine for unjust dominion.
7) We believe in free trade, but only as far as it creates a stable course and does not diminish our general welfare: "Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." (ibid) Since free trade uplifts all nations and people, therefore, we support "liberal intercourse with all nations" with regard to trade. We believe in a Golden Rule, to treat all others as we want to be treated. Since to have our preferred cultural States requires us to respect others, therefore, we support a Golden Rule in all things. 9) We support promotion of business, and reject "equal division of property," and at the same time understand there may be inequity that must be addressed to promote and provide for the General Welfare. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" "I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785, Papers 8:681--82) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html Since inequity may exist in the natural course of too much liberty, therefore, in taxation we do not reject progressive taxes to lessen the inequality of property. 10) We support Freedom of Speech as the most sacred right necessary for freedom of conscience. Since the beliefs of others (being too numerous to name) may be destructive to Justice, domestic Tranquility, common defense, the general Welfare, and Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, therefore, We the People accept all efforts of speech to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, as being the only way of a free people to combat destructive ideas and to promote good ones; we support a future must belong to science not a future that protects a any potential false prophet. 11) We support legal imigration of all peoples who accept our basic principles of the rule of law, our Constitution, and reject religous tenets or verses that discriminate against or threaten peaceful peoples, and not amnesty for law breakers; each case to be decided with justice. Since those violating the law discriminate against those that support the rule of law, therefore, we do not believe in any amnesty for illegal aliens, except in cases where their lives are in danger or their long and productive and otherwise law abiding time here would be an injustice to deport them. 12) We invite all peoples to our Party. Since we could be born by nature's God into any natural manifestation of humanity, therefore, our party does not discriminate against any peoples, but reserves the right to discriminate against dangerous genetically engineered chimeras. ***** Please feel free to debate it and provide arguments for your revisions or additions.
Only part 2 I need clarification, I think religion, abortion, marriage and possibly drugs as an added part should be left up to the individual how certain things are regulated could be left up to the states but that's really it. My personal morality shouldn't affect the laws of the united states and each of these should be protected by law even if I disagree with it, this could also extend to freedom of speech but you covered that.
Abortion, marriage, drugs, porn, and prostitution are all things that could be issues of a religious nature, regardless of whether the State is atheist or not, and Congress is specifically forbidden to delve into that religious realm. Only when such issues threaten the majority of States (Senate) values would there be any potential threat to said States bizarre right. If the Senate cannot stomach it, and the Supreme Court does not overrule them, it is probably a good indicator that the greater society is not ready for whatever sin it was Gomorrah represented. One of the problems with Federal government health care is that there is a tendency to want sin taxes or excise taxes like the Whiskey tax... So when drugs are relegated to the State powers, because really drugs can be a religious thing too, it is that State that should pay for their approved sins. The freedom of a State is destroyed when the Federal government uses sin taxes. In essence when Congress passes an excise tax with the intent to punish the approved sin it is violating the First Amendment and by extension the Tenth Amendment. The word conservative should not be construed be against a liberal States rights; it is only when the liberals are open-minded to nukes in fireworks displays, their Al Quacka is playing by their retarded rules of warfare, and eating conservatives that drunkenly cross state lines and consent to being eaten you get the drift that we have to step in. Just do what you fracking want in your liberal States Red Hour," but be warned, if you ask conservatives passing through if we are of the body and try to absorb us into the Obamanation of Landru you will hear from Lawyer Daggett. And none of that liberal THX 1138 date raping us into being good little commies.
We are a secular nation, things like drugs, prostitution, abortion are not anything intrinsically to do with religion it may share elements but that is all. If you personally don't agree with these then you can choose not to do them but someone else should have all possible availability to these if they so choose and should be protected by law even if your personal morality clashes with it, it shouldn't matter as we should not make laws based on religious principles but people should have complete religious freedom to not partake in such things. I don't know what a "sin tax" is nor do I know what Sodom and Gomorrah have to do with our laws along with how it affects the 1st amendments, I can see some relevance to the 10th amendment but you have to take into account the 14th amendment when talking about states rights I presume. It was through this amendment that some of what you speak of is perfectly constitutional and is perfectly fine in our laws.
Sin tax? {If you don't know something just punch the words into the search thingy and hit enter. It works wonders. And it makes debating easier for the other person, and you look less ignorant.} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax "Although taxes were politically unpopular, Hamilton believed the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax the government could levy.[6] In this, he had the support of some social reformers, who hoped a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol.[7]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#Whiskey_tax "Since stamp duty was originally only meant to be applied to documents (and cards were categorized as such), the fact that dice were also subject to stamp duty (and were in fact the only non-paper item listed under the 1765 Stamp Act) suggests that its implementation to cards and dice can be viewed as a type of excise duty on gambling.[6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise#Gambling "Both the federal and state governments levy excise taxes on goods such as alcohol, motor fuel, and tobacco products. Even though federal excise taxes are geographically uniform, state excise taxes vary considerably. However, taxation constitutes a substantial proportion of the retail prices on alcohol and tobacco products. Local governments may also impose an excise tax. For example, the city of Anchorage, Alaska charges a cigarette tax of $1.30 per pack, which is on top of the federal excise tax and the state excise tax. In 2011, the United States federal excise tax on gasoline was 18.4 cents per gallon (4.86 ¢/L) and 24.4 cents per gallon (6.45 ¢/L) for diesel fuel." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise#United_States ****** You said, "We are a secular nation..." Try not to make me laugh too hard. A secular nation would not have ANY laws against a woman's right to choose who she fracks and for how much. The secular nation would not require anyone to wear clothes in public; can you spell "Digambara?" {Feel free to look it up, I suggest in images.} http://www.ttb.gov/main_pages/schip-summary.shtml So is Obama going to put a "sin tax," like the one on tobacco products on smoking Dope now that it is legal in two States? There is already a tax on the papers, as the above link shows. Just because someone uses the word "sin" does not mean it has to be about approved religion or approved Prophet. One can easily formulate an argument using nothing but Godless humanist Greek ethics against harmful practices, and it becomes so much easier when someone other than the sinner (and their approved State sins) has to pay for the consequences of sin, as with Obamacare. Pollution is a sin, and by totally Godless argument the State of Florida can argue against drilling in the Gulf...just as the Godless world can argue against our impact on their earth. So for obvious reasons the EPA has a reason to exist. There is nothing that says a Libertarian cannot say their goddess or prophet is Ayn Rand, and her books are their "holy books," kind of like there are Naderites in Greg Bear's book "Eon," so you can say, "We are a secular nation," but you cannot prove it; just because something has no god does not mean it is not like religion in its obstinacy or orthodoxy. It is easy to make a purely secular argument for social and economic justice that would make a Libertarian of Ayn Rand and Ron Pod's ilk puke. {None of your Chomsky Libertarian Socialists need comment.} What I am suggesting is that the Republican Party should adopt a platform that is consistent with the Constitution's original intent, that States are not there just to pick State flowers, to the possibility of a Ron Pod Libertarian State, but all others need not go there; say with regard to socialist programs they would be transfered to the States as State compacts with all the power they have now, with the ability of a State, fulfilling already formed engagements with perfect good faith, to eventually wean itself off the Fabian Socialist and Third Way Socialist teat. Then by argument clearly show that nothing harms the entitlements, nothing prevents choices, and put the Democratic Party and the congregation working toward Economic Parity on the side of tyranny where it belongs and is. "Part of American leadership is making sure that we’re doing nation building here at home. That will help us maintain the kind of American leadership that we need." (Obama) What does he mean?
Sorry should have looked it up I normally just refer to it as what it is specifically taxing (ie sales tax, carbon tax, tobacco tax) should probably brush up on it again. Though we are a secular nation you can have laws and be a secular nation since certain laws can have limits and regulatory principles this doesn't stop it being secular neither does the fact that someone can hold people up religiously, I shouldn't be able to just ban abortion because someone said it in a book (unless of course the book has actual evidence) I'm not saying our laws are perfect but as long as it holds by the constitution (or supreme court cases, this is slightly redundant but you could claim that some cases that they've ruled on are still unconstitutional depending who you are) it is perfectly fine. Though your example of using a certain group of people and saying because they cannot do something that they hold as a personal belief doesn't make us a secular nation is not exactly true because personal beliefs still have to abide by the law though you could make the case that nudists don't hurt anyone so they should be allowed to do it but that's an entirely separate issue that is got a lot of debate within it. Though as for original intent it's not exactly the best policy because when times change technology changes and it does have to be interpreted within the times. I could cite examples if you want. As for the states rights on economic policy, I'm not entirely against it just that many parts of the federal government have to keep checks within it since what affects one state will affect others in our current economic system.
There is a difference between "Nation" and "Government." It is more accurate to say the US Constitution is secular but not accurate to say the people (nation) are or that many State Constitutions are secular. I voted against these two amendments: "Public funding of abortions" "Religious freedom" {talk about erroneous wording for a title} "Remove the prohibition in Floridas Constitution that prevents religious institutions from receiving taxpayer funding." One might think Florida is now secular, but I cannot call the State secular if they do not allow a liberal Christian church to marry eunuchs (Gays) to assist in preventing the spread of a dangerous fruit loop virus by those who might otherwise burn in lust. A purely secular argument could exist against Gays; see the "Muslim," (admitted on another board), Bishadi's arguments "If existence only operates ONE way, is the math the name to know?" against homos, it is secular. With regard to the Income Tax, original intent is satisfied because the Constitution was Amended for it. "Technology changes and it does have to be interpreted within the times." The commerce clause certainly can apply to the internet, and as a post road of shorts that part of it should be under The United States Postmaster General's perview, not a private company that can spy on email to direct your way to appropriate advertisements. Banking is a thing which crosses state lines, as we all found out the hard way. The issue is whether what crosses lines harms others. If you are Libertarian do you harm others? Does the dry county harm others? Does the National Socialism harm the potential State that does not want it? There really is not much of threat from the Libertarians, to allow them to move to a State and have one, they cannot show so much as one State legislature and Governor now, but their delusions see a presidency, and can deprive others of one, as the liberal "Lean Forward" media frequently calls on them (Ron Pod) to explain Republican views on entitlements...regardless of what the current specific Republican candidate says on any issue. Regardless of whether Republicans agree with me on the proposals, I just slapped it together quickly, we need to establish clearly what the party stands for, so that the liberal "Lean Forward" media does not speak for us by calling Ron Pods in to speak for us.
The fact that a religion has an opinion on an issue does not make it a religious issue. The government is forbidden from setting a state religion or forcing any religious beliefs on the people. Just because a religious person is against porn or prostitution, legalizing these thngs does not infringe on their religion. In fact, it could be said that passing a law against something because it's against a particular religion is forcing that religion on thers, which, again, is illegal. Religious beliefs has no place in the passing of laws.
Completely agree but because of the 14th amendment and many court cases the secular nature of the constitution in particular the establishment clause has been implemented as part of the states as well. The people however don't need to be secular that's why private schools are allowed to teach religion or creationism as fact while a public school is not. I actually agree with a universal healthcare plan for a variety of reasons that would take up most of this post so I won't get into it right now. As for people not allowing gays to marry I don't know why this is since marriage is a legal term right now and how it cannot be extended to all citizens to marry whomever they want, saying it will "prevent the spread of diseases" is a stupid argument as if people are wanting to have sex they will as we don't have sodomy laws (not anymore at least) not allowing them to marry just denies them of certain privileges that are extended to other people which I don't know why. This doesn't really say much about secularism as it does bigotry. A purely secular argument could exist against Gays; see the "Muslim," (admitted on another board), Bishadi's arguments "If existence only operates ONE way, is the math the name to know?" against homos, it is secular. Pretty much agree here, you could say original intent in some areas still exists but the great thing about the constitution is that it was so flexible it actually has "survived" for lack of a better word with a very small amount of changes considering the amount of time it's been since it was originally put in place, it's this flexibility that makes it a living document the fact that we can use certain clauses on things like the internet, telephones, planes.
People cannot vote their conscience, or States have any culture, I hear that one all the time. Vote for the homogenized multicultural ONE, but just do not go naked yet. So we have religious freedom, charity is voluntary, no, wait, the Obamafascist messiah misquotes the bible and says, "Unto whom much is given, much shall be required," because there is no verse to support his position except in the Koran. When everyone flees the hurricane and they shut down the bridges I run around outside naked. Next week start up a Temple to Venus where the whores do it in the garden for a piece of silver. Next, aborted fetus dumplings... This is going to get boring fast. ****** For one the Platform has no real good talking points, a decent short summary, one has to read between the lines: "While no changes should adversely affect any current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform should address our society’s remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as supplements to the system. Younger Americans have lost all faith in the Social Security system, which is understandable when they read the non-partisan actuary’s reports about its future funding status. Born in an old industrial era beyond the memory of most Americans, it is long overdue for major change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones a day of reckoning. To restore public trust in the system, Republicans are committed to setting it on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on, their investments. The sooner we act, the sooner those close to retirement can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers can take responsibility for planning their own retirement decades from now." It says "Younger Americans have lost all faith in the Social Security system," but it seems they did not buy the Republican plan? "Three programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—account for over 40 percent of total spending. While these levels of spending and debt are already harming job creation and growth, projections of future spending growth are nothing short of catastrophic, both economically and socially." If people had the jobs there would be no problem; old farts had them, but young farts got a two-tier wage scale? Workers control, investments? "To restore public trust in the system, Republicans are committed to setting it on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on, their investments." Words have meaning, "give workers control over," they just said privatize it; words have meaning, "return on investments," it is called Insurance, that is not an investment it is a safety net. What would be more acceptible, privatize it or take it off the Federal System and give it to the States through State compacts {plural} depending upon what their States want. Obama got the States to win, so how many of those States would want to wean themselves off it? If you had say three different Social Security plans or compacts, the Blue State plan, the Red State plan, and the Purple State plan, then each group's plan keeps everything as is, or weans itself off the existing plan without harm to anyone. It might take 30 years for a Red State to totally wean itself off, and less for a Purple State to find the middle ground. As it is now the threat of privatization for all States regardless of what any of them want is the plan offered. What we have now is all or nothing, and all just won. I wonder why?
