via Say Uncle I found a link for the 2004 Republican Party Platform.
It invokes Reagan in the opening paragraph (by G.W. Bush) which is understandable & not totally out of place. But then they go & pay homage to that bastard Lincoln - the one who thought that keeping what he saw as his kingdom together trumped the Constitution.
As a side note Clayton Cramer has a post up with the title The Civil War Settled The Question, "May A State Seceed?" which he uses to bring up the question "can the United States expel a state or city?" He meant it in semi-jest as he was obviously put out by an opinion poll of New Yorkers. But that is no excuse for the lack of taste in his title.
The only question settled by the War Of Northe'n Aggression was that the federal government has no respect for the chains that bind it - namely the Constitution. I se nothing whatsoever in my copy that says a state is bound eternally by signing the document. I would remind you that the Constitution delegates certain powers to the federal government & expressly prohibits certain powers, with the unenumerated powers being left to the several States.
In short that means that since the Constitution never states or even implies any sort of perpetual agreement that there is no legal or moral bar to a state seceding from the union created by the Constitution.
To say that the War Of Nothe'n Aggression settled the question is akin to saying that the question of what property you own has been answered by the crack head that broke into your house & stole it from you.
But I digress.
It extols the accomplishments of Bush. Let's look at a few shall we?
"Thanks to President Bush’s leadership, the skill of the American military, and the
commitment of our allies, today there are more than 50 million newly free people in the
nations of Afghanistan and Iraq – and America is safer."
I'll grant the number of people is about accurate. & I'll grant that they are exponentially freer than they were. But I will take issue with the use of "free" unqualified.
The interim Iraq constitution specifically denies that an Iraqi has the Right to Arms. A person cannot be considered free if the Right to Arms is denied. & yes, that'd mean any people anyplace who have no acknowledgement of their Right to Arms (either in common law, holy law, constitutional law or at least in their own minds) is a subject of one degree or another rather than a free person.
As for America being safer - if we are safer at all it has little to do with Bush or any government officer. It as to do with he idea that the people are responsible for their own safety. The government is still preaching the failed doctrine of reliance on the state for the safety of the people. Luckily most people in this country will let that idea slip to hell if they're ever confronted with boxcutter wielding terrorists on a flight. The downside is the government is still in the business of ensuring that an arms race aboard an airline will be won by men who sneak boxcutters onboard. If the government wished to make the country safer then they'd stop illegally denying the people their Right to Arms & encourage the recognition of the Right to Self Defense.
"The President’s leadership has also been bold and visionary at home. When the
President came to office, our economy was faltering, seniors were having trouble paying
for their prescription drugs, and schools were stuck in a pattern of low expectations and
poor results.
President Bush worked with Congress to lower taxes, so Americans can keep
more of their own hard-earned money to spend, save, or invest, thereby growing our
economy and putting people back to work."
Tax cuts help. Just like a band aid will help if someone cuts you very badly. What would help more is eliminating the IRSS & the progressive income theft tax system we have. Bush is faltering on that though, despite his notice of the idea.
& again I see nothing in my constitution that allows for the feds to meddle in public education, health care, or most other things mentioned in this platform. This is like listening to a crack head that broke into your house & stole your possessions brag about how he cleaned up the kitchen for you.
"He worked with Congress to strengthen Medicare by adding a prescription drug
benefit and giving seniors more choices to meet their individual health care needs."
The party of alleged conservatives brags about expanding socialized medicine??? How bout we follow the Alan Keyes approach to helping seniors afford their medicine: eliminate the income tax & let them do what they will with their own damn money. Course that idea was so radical it cost Keyes the primary.
"And the President worked with Congress to pass historic education reforms to
ensure that every child can read. Today, higher standards and stronger accountability are getting results in classrooms across America."
I wonder if those reforms are teaching kids to read where the hell in the constitution it says the feds have any business in education? As for the higher standards & increased accountability, to me that translates into states being blackmailed & extorted to doing what the feds want them to do.
But let me move on to the meat of the thing:
"Winning the War on Terror …
because our government’s most solemn duty is to keep its citizens safe."
Then why the hell is the government disarming citizens?
"Ushering in an Ownership Era …
because a vibrant entrepreneurial spirit will keep our economy strong and
provide more opportunities for workers and families."
Then why is it supporting the theft of private property (i.e. income) & regulations on businesses which the feds have no authority to prescribe? (Such as, but not limited to, anti-discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, etc...)
"Strengthening Our Communities …
because our children deserve to grow up in an America in which all their hopes and
dreams can come true."
I guess owning a firearm of a certain type (i.e. machine gun, short barreled shotgun), being able to travel freely (i.e. w/o "drunk driver roadblocks"), owning private property (i.e. all your income), not being robbed weekly (i.e. the "withholding tax") & many other things that a person that dreams of freedom may wish to do are not included in what the Republicans think of as a hope or dream.
Let me move on as a proper fisking of everything in here would take a few hours that I'm afraid I don't have.
"Private Property Rights
The core of ownership in America has always been ownership of private property
that a citizen can call his or her own. Republicans respect this tradition. For reasons both Constitutional and environmental, therefore, President Bush and the Republican Congress will safeguard private property rights by enforcing the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and by providing just compensation whenever private property is needed to achieve a compelling public purpose. We oppose efforts to diminish the rights of private citizens to the land they own." (emphasis in original)
Really? Well if that ain't the fox preaching about the need to guard the henhouse.
Tell me, what part of the 5th amendment's taking clause allows for the feds to confiscate a firearm that was not used in a crime other than its possession? If I'm walking down the street & G.W. turns the corner, will his Secret Service agents respect my Right to Arms & Property or will they disarm me & confiscate my firearm until some later date when I may be able to get it back? Or what of the people in D.C. who have their Arms stolen from them by cops when they're discovered? As for land, there are stories too numerous to mention where the feds have driven landowners off their own property. Usually the EPA "discovers" some rare species or geographical condition, forbids any development or renovation being done to the property & waits until the owner sells for cheap what was once his to do with as he saw fit.
The Republicans respecting the 5th's takings clause is like trying to convince me a Kennedy will respect a woman. Sure, it's possible, but not very probable.
"Protecting Our Rights, Fighting Criminals, and Supporting Victims
Republicans and President Bush strongly support an individual right to own guns,
which is explicitly protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Our Party honors the great American tradition of hunting and we applaud efforts by the Bush Administration to make more public lands available to hunters, to increase access to hunting clinics and safety programs for children and adults, and to improve opportunities for hunting for Americans with disabilities.
We believe the Second Amendment and all of the rights guaranteed by it should
enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense. To protect the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens, the Congress passed and President Bush signed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which allows active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed guns in public while off-duty. We support efforts by the Administration and Congress to enhance the instant background check system for gun purchases and to ensure that records of lawful transactions are destroyed in a timely manner. We applaud Congressional Republicans for seeking to stop frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which is a transparent attempt to deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens.
We agree that the best way to deter crime is to enforce existing laws and hand
down tough penalties against anyone who commits a crime with a gun. This approach is working. Since Project Safe Neighborhoods was instituted in 2001, hundreds of new federal, state, and local prosecutors have been hired to target criminals who use guns. Prosecutions are up 68 percent, and the violent crime victimization rate is down 21 percent. The Republican Party and President Bush support a federal Constitutional amendment for victims of violent crime that would provide specific rights for victims protected under the U.S. Constitution. We support courts having the option to impose the death penalty in capital murder cases. We praise President Bush and Republicans in Congress for the measures they have taken to protect pregnant women from violent crime by passing Laci and Conner’s law, which recognizes the common-sense proposition that when a crime of violence against a pregnant woman kills or injures her unborn child, there are two victims and two offenses that should be punished."
uh-huh.
Let's take that one section at a time:
"Republicans and President Bush strongly support an individual right to own guns,
which is explicitly protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment."
Really? So the Republicans & Bush intend to immediately cease & desist the enforcement of all federal gun control laws that are unconstitutional? They're going to oppose an AWB renewal as well as call for the repeal of every federal gun control law that conflicts with the second amendment? (That’d be all of them in case you were wondering) The answer to my questions is a resounding "no", yet they want you to believe they support & respect the 2nd amendment.
"Our Party honors
the great American tradition of hunting and we applaud efforts by the Bush
Administration to make more public lands available to hunters, to increase access to hunting clinics and safety programs for children and adults, and to improve opportunities for hunting for Americans with disabilities."
Hunting is important & I'll even admit that it's implied by our common law as well as our Constitution, but the 2nd amendment's primary purpose is for the use of martial arms against a tyrannical government. The talk of hunting is pretty damned close to changing the subject. Now I'm all for hunting & I think programs to make land available for the public, safety programs & access for handicapped hunters is laudable, but only when done by either a state or a private actor. Again, my copy of the constitution shows me nothing that says the feds have the authority to intervene in such matters for ill or good.
"We believe the Second Amendment and all of the rights guaranteed by it should enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense."
Okay, they seem to be getting warmer. They obviously deduced the "keep" part, but they seem to have omitted the "bear" part. Yes, you can own guns in your home, & you can carry them any damned where you wish - that's what the 2nd amendment says. But they fixate on parts of it which they think they can live with all the while trampling the other parts.
"To protect the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens, the Congress passed
and President Bush signed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which allows active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed guns in public while off-duty."
Bullshit! They passed that piece of tripe to appease the chief's associations. It does nothing - abso-friggin-lutely nothing - to enhance my safety. Now if they'd have passed a law that declared the 2nd is inclusive of carrying weapons in public be they concealed or open & any state that has laws to the contrary or requires permits, licenses or fees for same is acting in contradiction with the 2nd amendment, then they'd have done something to protect the law abiding citizens. As it stands they threw a large bone to the chiefs who would implement total gun control if they could get away with it & bitchslapped us peasants simultaneously.
"We support efforts by the Administration and Congress to enhance the instant background check system for gun purchases and to ensure that records of lawful transactions are destroyed in a timely manner."
How about doing away with a requirement that I must get governmental permission to exercise a Right? I'm glad they say the records will be disposed of quickly (although I believe it like I believe Marxism is an idea whose time has come) but it'd be much much better to do away with them altogether by not requiring them.
"We applaud Congressional Republicans for seeking to stop frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which is a transparent attempt to deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights."
Yes, apparently depriving citizens of their Rights as acknowledged by the 2nd amendment is something not to be left with the courts - Congress & the Executive office do a much better job at deprivation.
There are certain federalism issues I have with the idea of barring such lawsuits, but all in all I think it'd be a good idea if applied to the federal courts. Too bad it won't pass without having some nasty gun control attached to it.
"We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens."
If they meant it they would oppose the NFA of '34 as well as the Brady Bill. That statement, as most of them are, amounts to little more than lip service.
"We agree that the best way to deter crime is to enforce existing laws and hand
down tough penalties against anyone who commits a crime with a gun. This approach is working. Since Project Safe Neighborhoods was instituted in 2001, hundreds of new federal, state, and local prosecutors have been hired to target criminals who use guns. Prosecutions are up 68 percent, and the violent crime victimization rate is down 21 percent."
No, the best way to deter crime is to ensure there are immediate consequences for crime, such as getting your ass shot if you try to jack that car. Enforcing the existing laws does little to deter crime. It does do a lot to chill the exercise of Rights though. I'd wager that most federal gun control laws deal solely with possession, either by a prohibited person or of a firearm that is severely regulated. I'd further wager that the majority of prosecutions were not based on a convicted armed robber attempting to get back into his old line of work again, but of people who simple possessed a prohibited arm or fell into a prohibited category with no desire to cause unjustifiable harm to anyone.
I find it disturbing that they could pay such lip service to the Right to Arms then turn around & brag about how they were throwing people in jail left & right for merely exercising the Right they claimed to respect.
In summation the Republican Party talks a fair game, but then contradicts itself either by its actions or by words found in the same document. They have as much respect for the Right to Arms as the Democrats do: they're just better at covering it up.
I am not impressed by their platform or their actions. Unfortunately it will do the job of fooling many people into believing that the Republican Party respects their Rights.
Posted by Publicola at September 2, 2004 06:31 AM