Platforms: Constitution Party Vs. Libertarian Party

[heavenlyboy34]

The old Libertarian Party platform thrashes the Constitution and any other party's platform a million ways to Sunday:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040714013714/www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

That's good. Thanks, I've never seen it before. +rep

 

[PierzStyx]

I don't. The right to vote is not a property right, it is a moral right. It is an idea, and you cannot "own" ideas. You want just property rights protected? Move to a monarchy. This is a republic and we have more rights at stake here then just the few covered by property rights.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't. The right to vote is not a property right, it is a moral right. It is an idea, and you cannot "own" ideas. You want just property rights protected? Move to a monarchy. This is a republic and we have more rights at stake here then just the few covered by property rights.

All rights extend from property rights. We own ourselves, and can thus own property. The nature of self-ownership implies all other natural rights. (fictional rights, such as IP, are not extensions of self-ownership and not legitimate laws) Furthermore, the fact that some people believe in republican principles does not imply rights at all. It is simply a structure (Soviet Russia was a republic, you know).

 

[PierzStyx]

Okay, Theo, if you will, please tell me why you believe America was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and its jurisprudence is rooted in the Bible. There is probably nothing you can say to convince me it's true, but I would honestly like to know your reasoning. And how should America return jurisprudence to its Biblical roots?

Actually jurisprudence IS a Biblical concept in and of itself. The Mosaic Law (Law of Moses) established by God through Moses guaranteed the right to a trial by jury, to trial by judge, presentation of witnesses and evidence, and a punishment equal to the crime committed but no more than that (the much often incorrectly quoted "eye for an eye tooth for a tooth"). In the Mosaic Law one was first considered innocent until proven guilty by the law as it stood, which was perhaps not perfect but far better than any other law system at the time where guilt was assumed and you were summarily executed if not for guilt then as a warning to others. The Western concepts of these that we have today developed out of Biblical understanding. Many often point to the Greeks, but even with the assumption that the Five Books of Moses were actually written by groups of writers much later the Biblical ideas of equal justice before the law and others mentioned predate Greece by 1,000 yrs.

As for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, well it really depends on what you mean. Was it founded on the doctrines of Christ, the dogma of a church? No. But its ideals, its principles were the core ideals of the Revolution. For instance the Christian ideal that man is beholden to no state but God for his actions and has the liberty to live life as he will is a Christian one, and a revolutionary one at that. Free Agency, the ability given by God to man to act for himself, to make his own choices, to be who he would be, is a Christian ideal that made it into the core of the founding philosophy. In this way the Gospel of Christ was the foundation of the Revolution and the nation because it was the foundation of how they the Founders saw themselves in relation to one another, the king, and the universe as a whole.

 

[PierzStyx]

I always thought the founders (mostly) were deists.

Not true. Only Jefferson and Franklin (and maybe Hamilton) could with any truth be called deists. And even Franklin thought the Bible the greatest amongst books and Jefferson called Jesus his God. Many of the Founders were dedicated religious men, but they kept their religion private. They didn't make a show of it for votes the way Rick Perry or Sarah Palin does today. In this way Ron Paul further mirrors them as he to is a deeply faithful man but keeps his religion private and doesn't use it to win worldly acclaim.

 

[specsaregood]

In an ideal world, parties wouldn't exist.

Which is why TPTB want to get rid of candidates altogether and just have people vote for a party.

The Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS) a group created for the bicentennial and of which more than 1/3 of the directors were CFR members proposed drastic changes to the Constitution. These changes were outlined in the book: "Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System."
Here are some of the changes they proposed:
1. No longer allow Americans to vote for individual candidates. You can only vote for a party/slate of candidates. This includes eliminating Independent candidates.
2. Expand congress, The party who's nominee became president would be able to designate 1/6 of congress members and 1/3 of all Senators.
3. Lower the requirement for Senate ratification of treaties.
4. Extend Representatives terms' from 2 to 4 years.
5. Extend Senators terms' from 6 to 8 years.
6. Allow congressman to serve in the executive branch at the same time as holding their congressional seat.
From: "Shadows of Power", pg 200

 

[jmhudak17]

"We call on our local, state
and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to
free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity"

this literally made me laugh

 

[PierzStyx]

"We call on our local, state
and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to
free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity"

this literally made me laugh

Point made. That is awkward. But certain obscenity laws are good. After all I think we can all agree that child porn is a very bad thing, and it is covered by the obscenity laws.

 

[jmhudak17]

Point made. That is awkward. But certain obscenity laws are good. After all I think we can all agree that child porn is a very bad thing, and it is covered by the obscenity laws.

there's a difference between obscenity laws and laws against exploitation

 

[PierzStyx]

there's a difference between obscenity laws and laws against exploitation

Yes and no. Laws against exploration make it illegal to produce child pornography. But what about once it is already made? It is the obscenity laws that make distribution of the child pornography illegal. Now if you think that is unnecessarily convoluted you'd be correct but there it is.

 

[PierzStyx]

"The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body." -CP I don't think RP would have said it any better or any differently. Especially this part: "We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2."

 

[jmhudak17]

i'm personally anti-abortion because i think the fetus is a person, but the fact that they're against things like pornography because they think it's morally wrong worries me.

 

[The Magic Hoof]

http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/libertarian-party-vs-constitution-party - has this link been posted?

I just read through a little. It seems to me that I'm more in the Libertarian party realm than the constitutionalist realm. I think first the constitution should be enforced to a T, and THEN we can go back and fight about everything else once that's done