Cross posted at Dirigo Blue
I've had a chance to study the Maine Republican Party Platform (which is not, as I write this, yet available on the Maine GOP's website, so I link to that at Maine Politics), and there are so many contradictory ideas in it that it is truly a laughable document. Dan Billings, a lawyer who often advises the Maine GOP and Republican candidates, is quite correct when he wrote that "includes nutso stuff that will be used against us in the fall" and the "people who wrote the nutso document have never read the Constitution."
In the Preamble, it is put forth that without irony that "Years of neglect have allowed factions detrimental to the core principles of this nation, to entrench themselves in both political parties," as what follows can only be described as a manifesto of the Tea Party movement, a small but vocal faction within the Republican Party.
Make the jump:
The second principle laid out in the Preamble reads, "State sovereignty must be regained and retained on all issues specifically relegated to the States by the constitution." This is quite an odd statement, since the 10th Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, if powers are not specifically delegated to the Federal government, then by definition they are the purview of the States.
That the authors of this Platform have little grasp of our Constitution is further evident by the very next principle adopted, that reads, "National sovereignty shall be preserved and retained as dominant over any attempted unconstitutional usurpations of such by international treaty," since Article. VI. reads (emphasis mine), "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Now I understand their desire to maintain "national sovereignty," but their concern is best placed with particular treaties, not treaties of themselves. We are but one nation on this earth, with no more nor less rights than other nations, and like any community, must live as a good neighbor.
The Maine Republicans go on to "oppose 'Localism and Diversity', the Fairness Doctrine or whatever else such attempted restrictions are labeled," since "any restriction on speech is by definition NOT free speech." The Fairness Doctrine obligated broadcasters that leased the pubic airwaves to provide equal time for differing political views, and was abolished in 1987 by the Reagan administration. One imagines what its reintroduction would have on talk radio, since every hour of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Mike Savage or other extreme right pundits would have to be balanced by voices from the left. (And don't think that opposition would come from just political ideologues - advertisers would also oppose it, as would the stations themselves.)
"Localism and Diversity" is the concept that the media is controlled by just a few corporations, and that such concentration is a detriment to a strong nation. Local access television, which by law cable providers must provide, is an example of how it works; this concession was the price for that monopoly.
But that Republicans oppose such diversity seems to fly in the face of their stated goal to guarantee free speech; speech that lacks access to broadcast media will not be heard.
Perhaps it's just one type of speech that Republicans are so concerned about.
There is little surprise that the authors of the Platform continue to get it wrong about the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1499); no where in the bill is access to the secret-ballot abridged. In fact, anyone arguing against the EFCA is simply carrying the water of large corporations, who oppose the increase in penalties for illegal union busting that the EFCA includes.
Maine Republicans would like to "restore integrity to the electoral process" by eliminating "motor voter and other voter fraud mechanisms." That Maine is exempted from the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 doesn't seem to matter to these folks, nor does opposition to it seem at odds to their previous stated goal to "put the knowledge of liberty to work in the elections this November"; it does take registered voters to do that.
They would also like to "reject any effort to give foreign citizens the right to vote in the US in any situation or capacity." First, there is no citizenship required by our Constitution regarding voting eligibility. That said, we see another contradiction in the Maine GOP's previous call for state sovereignty - since those powers not given to the Federal government are by default those of the States, isn't is up to each state to decide who is a qualified voter?
Or is this just yet another example of the anti-immigrant sentiments of the Teabaggers?
Maine Republicans also wish to "oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other organization or country which surrenders US sovereignty," even though such treaties become equal parts of our Constitution, the Law of the Land (as I've previously demonstrated). Such a position means that what are commonly referred to as the Geneva Conventions, which govern the rules of war, would be moot, as would the Convention against Torture.
They would also like to limit the maximum time any person can serve in Congress to 12 years, by some combination of terms in both the House and Senate. Perhaps this is their method of making sure that Sens. Snowe and Collins are not re-elected.
Maine Republicans also want to "reassert the principle that 'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'." By this I take it to mean that they would like to impose their own interpretation of Christianity on the rest of us, via the legislative process. I would remind them that the 1st Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and local governments cannot sanction religious rituals.
Of course, those that argue for such displays never consider that it also would allow for other state and local governments to sanction non-Christian rituals. Imagine the protests that would be heard if a public school system in a city with a predominantly Muslim population mandating the recitation of verses from the Koran in the classroom. Or a Mormon community doing the same.
Who knew that "the prime directive of the Federal Government" was to seal the border? How many people would the next governor have to hire to seal our border with Canada? Doesn't this fly in the face of the "small government" mantra?
I love this line: "Pass and implement Fed bill #1207." First, congressional bills always include the initials for the house in which they were introduced; in this case, H.R. 1207, or, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. While it would require an audit Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and of the federal reserve banks, it also prohibits the Fed from auditing insured private banks. I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to prohibit this.
Despite the thousands of barrels of oil pouring unchecked into the Gulf of Mexico, the Drill Baby Drill crowd was able to include this, "Promote energy independence aggressively by removing the obstacles created by government to allow private development of our resources; natural gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power."
Note that the word "conservation" isn't amongst the plan to wean us from foreign energy sources.
Dog whistles are also included in this Platform, as they "espouse and follow the principle: It is immoral to steal the property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits," steal being the operative word.
The next paragraph is so poorly written that I'll just place it in its entirety:
l. Clarify that healthcare is not a right. It is a service. As a compassionate society we will aid those in need. However, the government takeover of healthcare is not only unconstitutional, but detrimental to the entire healthcare system. Only market based solutions will solve the problems.
i. In the state of Maine:
- Remove the restrictions on health providers, (as was done in New Hampshire), to increase competition, drive down the costs, and increase the options available.
a. Bring Maine standards in line with national average.
b. Allow purchase of insurance across state lines. LD 290
c. Enact tort reform as exemplified by Texas.
d. Eliminate Dirigo
I like how "LD 290" is just thrown in there as if it has some meaning to the casual reader, or that "Dirigo Health" is truncated to "Dirigo."
We can argue whether access to basic health care is a right or not - I believe that it is. But one thing for certain is that the health insurance reform bill recently signed into law does nothing to regulate health care, and that is the point. It's also important to remember that there are no restrictions on companies to provide insurance to Mainers - it's just that they choose not to do so.
In order to "restore a vigorous grounding in the history and precepts of liberty, freedom, and the constitution to the educational process," the Maine Republican Party recommends that the Department of Education be eliminated, and "restore schools to local control as specified in the constitution."
I am not an expert on the Maine Constitution, but Article VIII - Part First, Section 1. appears to be what the above refers:
Section 1. Legislature shall require towns to support public schools; duty of Legislature. A general diffusion of the advantages of education being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people; to promote this important object, the Legislature are authorized, and it shall be their duty to require, the several towns to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public schools; and it shall further be their duty to encourage and suitably endow, from time to time, as the circumstances of the people may authorize, all academies, colleges and seminaries of learning within the State; provided, that no donation, grant or endowment shall at any time be made by the Legislature to any literary institution now established, or which may hereafter be established, unless, at the time of making such endowment, the Legislature of the State shall have the right to grant any further powers to alter, limit or restrain any of the powers vested in any such literary institution, as shall be judged necessary to promote the best interests thereof.
Let's step around the desirability for statewide standards for public education for now. What the Maine Constitution seems to imply is that local communities are responsible for establishing and paying for public schools, but should such communities accept monies from the State, then the State can dictate certain things.
He who pays the band calls the tune.
If Maine Republicans want to encourage their own towns to renounce State monies, then I'm sure some equitable agreement can be worked out with those towns. What burden that will place on the local tax payers will then be the responsibility of the Maine GOP to explain - not any concern of mine.
And lastly, Maine Republicans want to make sure that "efforts to create a one world government" are prohibited.