This is a very powerful read from the Constitution Party

[Cinnaboo]

From the Constitutional Party website -- the Mission Statement.

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.

Yikes. Well, at least they're for decentralization...

The federal government was clearly established as a government of limited authority. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that: "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."

Over time, the limitations of federal government power imposed by the Constitution have been substantially eroded. Preservation of constitutional government requires a restoration of the balance of authority between the federal government and the States as provided in the Constitution, itself, and as intended and construed by those who framed and ratified that document.

We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not constitutionally delegated to the federal government.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.

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 to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

when it's convenient.

 

[Karsten]

bump
They are the best party there is.

uh... no they're NOT. They may be anti-neo-con but they are extreme religious kooks.

 

[4Horsemen]

This country is ready for a 3rd party..

 

[Karsten]

This country is ready for a 3rd party..

Yeah, but not the extreme theocratic constitution party.

 

[Eponym_mi]

bump
They are the best party there is.

ACK!!! Way too much non-constitutional stuff in their platform for me. Their influence in the Republican party is my biggest complaint. Huckabee supporters would fit right in there.

 

[RPTXState]

God and Government don 't mix.

I'd rather try to fix the GOP than correct and build the Const. and Lib. parties

 

[Quick]

Alan Keyes? And to think I was considering joining this party.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Alan Keyes? And to think I was considering joining this party.

Shame they have the best name around.

 

[TurtleBurger]

I'd bet anything that Keyes is not CFR. That said, I think the CP has to look very closely at his positions before inviting him in.

 

[Caulfield]

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000719.shtml

December 26, 2007
D'Souza's blunder

I celebrated Christmas yesterday with my family back home in South Carolina. While a seemingly innocuous event, my celebration of Christmas may come as a great shock to people like Dinesh D'Souza, because I am what you may call. . .a libertarian.

According to D'Souza, who recently blogged about Christopher Hitchens' appearance at a Reason magazine Christmas event, "many libertarians are basically conservatives who are either gay or druggies or people who generally find the conservative moral agenda too restrictive." Because D'Souza believes libertarians embrace "much wider parameters of personal behavior," he sees most libertarians as hedonistic atheists, and uses a tipsy Hitchens as the chief example of our disdain for morality.

As a devout Southern Baptist, I was taken aback. After all, I am neither gay nor a drug user, and consider myself to be very socially conservative. But such petty stereotypes demonstrate that the accuser has either a very tenuous understanding of the libertarian philosophy or is just stupid. In D'Souza's case, I would hope it is merely the first.

D'Souza's view of freedom and humanity is incredibly pessimistic. Not only this, but it contradicts both the values of his own religious faith and the founding philosophy of the United States--two things that D'Souza supposedly champions. Both Christianity and the founding philosophy of the United States teaches that all men should be free, and the choices they make should be of their own volition. However, D'Souza seems to believe that freedom begets immorality, and it should be the role of the state to define moral conduct.

For me as a Southern Baptist, I saw the Libertarian Party as the only political party committed to the basic principles of my faith, and D'Souza could learn a lot from my experiences with it. Unlike the Republican Party, which has been overrun by those who wish to impose their concept of morality on all people by way of legislation, the Libertarian Party believes that all people should be free to live how they choose by the rules they set for themselves (with the caveat that they do so without causing harm to others).

People like D'Souza see the Libertarian Party's social tolerance as an endorsement of what he would see as negative behavior, rather than an endorsement of the principle of liberty, which leaves the individual free to live how he chooses. This is a very serious misinterpretation, and one that can lead to foolish generalizations such as the one D'Souza made last week. The Libertarian Party promotes no moral code other than that people should live in freedom and do no harm to others.

But if D'Souza believes that liberty and morality are mutually exclusive ideals, then he can neither fully believe in the American values he supports, nor the Christian principle of free will. You can be both a Christian and a libertarian, as I clearly am. And if you're not, well, that's perfectly okay with the Libertarian Party too.

By and large, libertarians are peace-loving individuals who simply want to be free from government. These people are pastors, police officers, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, school teachers, college students, business men and anyone else who believes in limited government, fewer taxes and more individual freedom. It is safe to say that most Americans are libertarian at heart--be them gay, straight, Christian or atheist.

That's the unifying magic of liberty.

We challenge D'Souza to rescind his simplistic generalization of libertarians, and ask him not to make broad assessments of topics he doesn't fully understand.

 

[Andrew76]

I like alot of the Constitution Party's principles, I just can't support them. Their "platform" sounds too intolerant of other religions.

And I quote

"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."


I don't like that.

Agreed. While the constitution party may want to "pray to god for guidance," in these events, I'll choose to use my own head, thank you very much. I don't imagine that praying to Zeus - or whichever invisible sky god you believe - will do a whole lot here.
The U.S. was founded by enlightenment era Deists, and could only be considered "christian," in the very broadest sense of the term. Jefferson himself faced serious opposition from the church when running for prez. Ben Franklin refused to get married in a church because his thought was that the church should have no authority on this personal matter. Thomas Paine's, The Age of Reason, is perhaps the most staunch, anti-church document from that time period. Give it a read sometime. Deists, all of them. Christians, in today's sense, they simply were not. I realize this is a touchy subject to say the least.

Furthermore, the Constitution party does not seem organized at all to me, as some seem to suggest. And with certain beltway libertarians having serious problems with Ron Paul, I'd hoped Ron Paul would start his own party.

 

[Russellk30]

God and Government don 't mix.

I'd rather try to fix the GOP than correct and build the Const. and Lib. parties

Do you plan on kicking all of the theocrats out of the Republican Party?

 

[Wyurm]

What is with the parties? I'm supporting anyone that will do the job the way it was intended to be done. The Constitution isn't hard to understand at all, you just have to obey it. If they are willing to obey the Constituion and not violate any of it, then they have my vote be they Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Green, Whig, etc... I don't care what title they give themselves I just want them to obey the laws set for them and LEAVE ME ALONE, allow me to live my life rather than spending it having to fight for something my forefathers already fought for and won. I long for the day when I have to choose between 2 or more candidates who are all liberty minded.

 

[FreeTraveler]

uh... no they're NOT. They may be anti-neo-con but they are extreme religious kooks.

+1776

 

[IRO-bot]

Agreed. While the constitution party may want to "pray to god for guidance," in these events, I'll choose to use my own head, thank you very much. I don't imagine that praying to Zeus - or whichever invisible sky god you believe - will do a whole lot here.
The U.S. was founded by enlightenment era Deists, and could only be considered "christian," in the very broadest sense of the term. Jefferson himself faced serious opposition from the church when running for prez. Ben Franklin refused to get married in a church because his thought was that the church should have no authority on this personal matter. Thomas Paine's, The Age of Reason, is perhaps the most staunch, anti-church document from that time period. Give it a read sometime. Deists, all of them. Christians, in today's sense, they simply were not. I realize this is a touchy subject to say the least.

Furthermore, the Constitution party does not seem organized at all to me, as some seem to suggest. And with certain beltway libertarians having serious problems with Ron Paul, I'd hoped Ron Paul would start his own party.

Yeah what is that? Jealousy? The anti-abortaion stuff? Get over it I say. It's not like Ron is trying to push it on a federal level. Give it back to the states. What are they afraid of?

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I'd consider giving heavier support to the Constitution Party if they ever throw out the Huckabee-like theocratic garbage and adopt a more libertarian position on social issues. Maybe this will be the case if they attract Ron Paul supporters. In any case, I look forward to voting for any local candidates they might run in my area, as I've done on a few occasions in the past.