What about the Constitution Party?

[ShaneEnochs]

The war on drugs part isn't true. They're opposed to the federal war on drugs and don't take a position on state drug laws. If being "against homosexuals" means believing in traditional marriage, then I suppose they're "against homosexuals."

Uh, okay. From their platform:

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.

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 are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Does their platform really matter? Is it even worth the time to debate over it? My golf league has more members than their national committee.

 

[DGambler]

I pretty much always viewed them as the Bible Party.

 

[Southerner]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

One wonders if the constitution they have is the same one we have? I suppose they just interpret it differently.

Seriously, there is a lot of good stuff in their platform, and there is some dreck, and there is some whoa nellie...

 

[pochy1776]

Uh, okay. From their platform:

Sounds like something i would say circa 1968. Nev3ertheless, being a timelord really grows on you.

 

[presence]

How could anyone not like homosexuals? Homosexuals are great! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5gin7s5qMG8

For some reason I just feel compelled to NOT click on that.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Thanks. It is really just a numbers game, that's all. This diversion to the LP, CP, some other party or whatever will just serve to weaken our effectiveness. If you have 10 liberty activists in your hometown and half are working at getting elected within the GOP and the other half are playing around in some third party that has zero chance of winning an election you lose half the people.

This is the main point that I've been trying to get across to those that have allowed the corruption @ the RNC get the best of them all the way down the line. I can see voting third party in races that we don't have a decent GOP candidate but to go off and become an activist in a third party pretty much results in the extreme lack of successes that you've been referring to. And I agree that ballot access is only one component of the ineffectiveness of third parties. And I've spent a decade toiling inside the LP so this isn't my first time to the rodeo. Now, not only am I, some of my family and local friends dually elected republican precinct delegates, our county chair, county rules chair, sergeant at arms and parliamentarian are Paul folk. Hence no shenanigans take place like we've seen elsewhere where we've made very little headway in restoring our local GOP. We're now in a position in many places in MI to use our new alliances with Tea Party conservatives to go after state leadership positions.

 

[J. W. Evans]

Someone else mentioned it earlier in this thread, but ballot access.
This year, their ballot access has gone to Hell. They're off the ballot in Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Indiana, Illinois, and a few other states, and as it stands right now, they're coming close to dipping under 270 electoral votes.

 

[Kurt Evans]

--

 

[Kurt Evans]

--

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I was a delegate to the Constitution Party's 1996 national convention. Good people.

I'm sure they are. Out of curiosity though, how many people made up that 96 convention? From the clips I saw of this years convention it looks like there couldn't be more than a couple hundred people there.

 

[PierzStyx]

Uh, okay. From their platform:

You really only see what you want don't you? How about this stuff?

"The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved. "

and

They are absolutely right that no government has a right to define marriage, or even legitimatize relationships, no matter what their justification for believing that. They don't understand government involvement at all is the root of the issue, but that is a education issue. A minor one at that when you compare them to Republicans and Democrats. At least they have the right idea about respecting the Constitution enough to even propose an amendment instead of doing whatever they feel like.

 

[erowe1]

The Constitution Party is great. Any given candidate from them could well be better than their counterpart in the LP. See who's on your ballot and make the decision that your conscience will be clean with.

 

[Brett85]

"We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered."

What does that have to do with the war on drugs going on in the United States? The federal government has the authority to secure the borders and prevent drugs from flowing into the country. I think that's something that even Ron Paul would support. That has nothing to do with the federal war on drugs going on within the United States.

 

[king_nothing_]

You really only see what you want don't you? How about this stuff?

"The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved. "

The bolded part doesn't just wash away what's contained in the unbolded part. Ok, so they want states and localities to handle drug laws. Great. Then they say, very plainly, they "support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources." Is that or is that not support for federal anti-drug laws? Oh, but they vow to stick to the Fourth Amendment during the process in which they put people in cages for possessing unapproved substances? Oh boy, thanks.

And "retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered"? Yeah, that sounds super pro-liberty.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

The solution for progress is to stay within the Republican party and take it over, unless another party is able to provide the pasth of least resistance to electing liberty candidates.

 

[king_nothing_]

They are absolutely right that no government has a right to define marriage, or even legitimatize relationships, no matter what their justification for believing that. They don't understand government involvement at all is the root of the issue, but that is a education issue. A minor one at that when you compare them to Republicans and Democrats. At least they have the right idea about respecting the Constitution enough to even propose an amendment instead of doing whatever they feel like.

How is this minor:

"Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions."

So, they don't oppose legal recognition of all unions/marriages, just the homosexual ones. Got it.

They are worse than both Democrats and Republicans in that area. At least a good portion of establishment Republicans are willing to allow homosexual civil unions.

Also:

"we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples."

I'd love to here an alleged pro-liberty person try to spin this.

 

[emazur]

I once voted Constitution Party for state Treasurer. They're good on economics so that was an easy choice. But for other positions, the ultra social conservatism is something you have to watch for - some of their candidates will be better than others.

 

[sailingaway]

How is this minor:

"Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions."

So, they don't oppose legal recognition of all unions/marriages, just the homosexual ones. Got it.

They are worse than both Republicans and Democrats in that area. At least a good portion (not all) of establishment Republicans are willing to allow homosexual civil unions.

Also:

"we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples."

I'd love to here an alleged pro-liberty person try to spin this.

They must change their platform periodically, just as the GOP does. That wasn't there in 2008 (the only time I ever read the CP's platform, when Ron endorsed Baldwin.)

 

[Brett85]

Then they say, very plainly, they "support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources." Is that or is that not support for federal anti-drug laws?

No, it isn't.