Constitution party?

[TheArchDuke]

Heard of it, know nothing about it. What are some of their policies and principles?

How do they compare to the libertarian party for example?

I'm registered as a republican....shopping for a new party haha.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Theocrats.

Here's the beginning of their preamble:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

 

[Sindawe]

Tsk tsk tsk Derek, not citing the source.

Constitution Party Platform - http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

vs.

Libertarian Party Platform - http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

Personally, I find the CP's plank on the Christian Deity to be a bit more distasteful than the LP's plank on Open Borders.

 

[TheArchDuke]

Hmmm...I think I fall somewhere between the two parties.

 

[cbsbyte]

Ever see the movie V for Vendetta. Where a Theocratic dictatorship rules England. Well that is basicaly what this country would turn into if the Constitution party ever came to power. In a Libertarian would there would be no Governments, laws or borders. Corporations would run everything, and no one would have any rights.

 

[TheArchDuke]

That's why I'm somewhere in between.

 

['Card]

Quite frankly, the Constitution party seems like they have some decent ideas - but I just can't handle the religious angle. The fact that the "Christian Conservatives" are pretty much running the Republican party now is precisely what's driving me away from it.

I'm not anti-Christian at all, mind you. In fact, quite the opposite, but I get uncomfortable when people start wanting to make laws that are based solely on their moral or religious beliefs. Christ didn't give a damn about laws. He cared about people. I think modern-day Christians would do well to follow his examples.

Christ didn't go to the Romans and ask them to ban prostitution, for example. He converted the prostitutes. He didn't try to convince the Pharisees to throw the money-changers out of the temple. He grabbed a stick and busted some heads.

I don't think Christ would have tried to get abortion banned. I think he would have gone to the people who were having them and tried to convince them that it was wrong. I think he also would have worked to try to eliminate the conditions and ignorance that were leading people to get them.

"When committing a sin is also breaking the law, there is no virtue in righteousness."

When people want the law to enforce what they think is right, I think it's mostly just laziness. Christ understood that saving souls and leading people to salvation meant getting down there in the trenches and getting his hands dirty. He didn't ask anyone else to do it for him. It's a shame we inherited his teachings, but not his work ethic.

So anyway, to get back to the point, I'm going libertarian. There's a lot of fruitcakes in the libertarian tent, but at least they're fruitcakes who are firmly committed to leaving people alone.

 

[Johnnybgood]

Just because they speak of their

beliefs in Chrisitianity first does not mean they would become a dictatorial theocracy. Our forefathers were mostly Christian and they put together a constitution that was supposed to keep what is presently happening from happening. Unfortunaltley because of the lazy, complacent, TV channel surfing, beer guzzling, beltching society we have become, WE THE PEOPLE have ALLOWED that great document and rock solid constitution to be pulled out from under us. Until we get the American people to put down the remote step away from the computer and start paying attention, writing letters and emails, and making phone calls to their elected officials. Then holding them accountable, NO PARTY IS GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE! However if you don't like those mentioned above check this out. http://www.usiap.org/

 

[CentralTexas]

cbsbyte

you said-
"In a Libertarian would there would be no Governments, laws or borders. Corporations would run everything, and no one would have any rights."

which describes anarchy, not the Libertarian goals. Limited government and laws -you bet, and you would have more rights than you are "allowed" now. Might want to find out what you are talking about by going to www.lp.org....
CT

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I know that discussions of the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party rarely like to hear the word "practical" thrown about; but from a practical perspective the Constitution party received 0.09% in the 2000 election and a whopping 0.1% in the 2004 election. By 2008, their total popular Presidential votes should be able to match the 0.3% of the vote the Libertarians received in 2004 alone.

I secretly think that the Constitution Party must be an enclave of masochists who thought "Libertarian Party? That is WAY too easy - let's put a big religious plank in our platform to further narrow our appeal and start over from scratch!"

 

[Sindawe]

However if you don't like those mentioned above check this out. http://www.usiap.org/

EEEKK!!! They are just as distasteful to my eyes as the CP is.

Morality

We favor voluntary promotion of moral values in the entertainment media, including the Internet, television, radio, music, motion pictures, reading material, and the arts. We favor the promotion, by schools, the media and clergy, of abstinence from non-marital sex.

We oppose homosexuality, same-sex marriages, sexual exploitation of children, fornication, incest, beastiality, sodomy, adultery, pornography, etc., and deem them threats to traditional family values and as abominations to the Creator.

We see perversion and immorality as the primary cause behind the fall of all great nations. We maintain that people engaging in acts of homosexuality have no special legal rights or privileges, and those living in such relationships have no legal familial rights or privileges, such as adoption of children and legitimacy of marriage.

We support legislation that protects the family from mounting influences which weaken the family unit. While respecting individual rights and agency, we oppose legitimizing immorality. Neither Congress nor the federal courts should infringe upon the rights of state and local governments to enact constitutional laws restricting public obscenity, pornography, and illicit sex acts, especially prostitution and homosexuality.

Source: http://www.usiap.org/Beliefs/Platform02Family.html

Still gots to go with the LP so far.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

The spoiler effect is a term to describe the effect a candidate can have on a close election, in which their candidacy results in the election being won by a candidate dissimilar to them, rather than a candidate similar to them.

 

[Lupinus]

I don't think either the constitution or libertarian parties will either come to power anytime soon with their current platforms.

Constitution party because they acknowledge far to much Christian based beliefs and morals. There's nothing wrong with that, but people don't like their religion and their government in bed together these days. At the founding maybe, but simply not today. It's to constraining to stick to the strict morals they would likely make their laws by, to include some things that really don't hurt anyone and most people are accepting of. I believe they don't even believe in state run lotteries if I remember correctly. List goes on.

Libertarian party because as much as they have many people can agree with they have the same many people can't, and all to one degree or another. Almost everyone can agree with free markets, but not totally free of government restrictions. Legalize drugs? Sure, but not every last one of them. Open borders? Watch the news and talk to people, Americans don't want it. Streamlined easy immigration yes, open immigration no. No welfare or social security? Most people don't want it given to dead beats, and want it reformed, but most don't want it abolished. List goes on.

Now then, if however you took the Constitution Party and Libertarian party and they had a bouncing baby boy you would have a real winner provided they properly climb the ladder any third party has to climb in my opinion. A party with great personal freedoms, but with basic morals and only to a certain point. Some drugs legalized, but not all namely extremely dangerous ones like PCP and Meth and Crack. Social Security and welfare reined in and reformed but not totally abolished. Abortion, but not on demand and used as a form of birth control. Most understand the need for taxes, but not being taxed into the ground. Protect the environment, but not overkill making peoples lives harder. Government not interfering with your business, but basic zoning. Easy immigration, but that is controled and not open borders. Morals sure, but not strict Christian ones governing you.

In short a party that gives minimum government and allows for great personal liberty, but that is reined in to some extent in areas most people can agree on.

 

[CentralTexas]

BartRob,
Hope you weren't actually comparing the twne reason I don't vote Republican is they have a BIG religious plank, written or not, that colors their views on abortion, crime, drugs etc. It sure isn't based on what our founders had in mind or personal freedom...
Half the Democrats have no religious belief, the other half are very religious, from Catholicism to Buddhism.
The Constitution party wants to believe the U.S. Constitution is Christian based, at least they BELIEVE in the Constitution unlike the majority of Democrats and Republicans.
CT

 

[CentralTexas]

BTW Libertarians are just like folks in other parties, we don't always agree 100% with our parties platform, I don't on immigration but as a party we don't just say open the borders just "because", it's based on the fact it would be very difficult and costly to stop and if that's the case let's make sure they are documented, not criminals, NOT getting welfare or FREE medical, pulling their own weight etc.
We unlike the DemoPublicans have a plan to make them get off the government teat. www.lp.org has our national planks in easy to read form and many are just plain common sense.
CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Now then, if however you took the Constitution Party and Libertarian party and they had a bouncing baby boy you would have a real winner provided they properly climb the ladder any third party has to climb in my opinion. A party with great personal freedoms, but with basic morals and only to a certain point. Some drugs legalized, but not all namely extremely dangerous ones like PCP and Meth and Crack. Social Security and welfare reined in and reformed but not totally abolished. Abortion, but not on demand and used as a form of birth control. Most understand the need for taxes, but not being taxed into the ground. Protect the environment, but not overkill making peoples lives harder. Government not interfering with your business, but basic zoning. Easy immigration, but that is controled and not open borders. Morals sure, but not strict Christian ones governing you.

In short a party that gives minimum government and allows for great personal liberty, but that is reined in to some extent in areas most people can agree on.

Hmmm. Maybe the "middle ground" between the CP and LP is one we can establish as the "CSP" - "Common Sense Party."

Sign me up.

 

[TheArchDuke]

HEY! How about these guys?!

http://www.falangist.org/


Now there's a good quality party to join. Talk about VforVendetta-esque

 

[LAK]

Right now, the Constitution Party is the only one that gets my vote. The LP is a trojan horse; they support what amounts to open borders and and a Pan-American State modeled on the EU. Which is precisely where Comrade GW and his pals Paul Martin, Vicente Fox - and a complicit U.S. Congress - have been taking us all along.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Sindawe]

http://www.falangist.org/

Nope. Another Theocracy in the making.

But since we're tossing out third party options, at least the Eco-Nazis (aka: Libertarian National Socialist Green Party ) are internally conflicted enough to be funny.

 

[TheArchDuke]

Nope. Another Theocracy in the making.

Haha did you see their party symbols page?!

That HAVE to know what they look like. They HAVE to! haha

Not gonna get many votes that way.

 

[Sistema1927]

Christ didn't give a damn about laws.

Wow!

I guess you missed it when He said:

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law, I have come to fulfill it" and
"Render unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar, and unto God the things that Belong to God".

 

[mp510]

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

I don't see them as theocrats. I see them as attempting to keep our country directly inline with the ideals of the founders. I don't think their half bad. They don'y seem to advocate any sect.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

They don'y seem to advocate any sect.

They do call Jesus the creator. Seems this might alienate some Christians (as well as Muslims and Jews), Nicean creed or not.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hmmm...I think I fall somewhere between the two parties.

As do most of us. It is a shame the Libertarian and Constitution Parties could not merge into one party. They could each agree to eliminate from their respective planks two items that the other find most offensive, and they'd probably be in 98% agreement and could form into one much larger and more effective party accurately reflecting the values of more than half of our population.

 

[Manedwolf]

I don't see them as theocrats. I see them as attempting to keep our country directly inline with the ideals of the founders.

Really?

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Take note of that last one especially! Then look at the Constitution party thing again.

They don'y seem to advocate any sect.

Sure. As long as it's chrstianity.