What about the Constitution Party?

No, it isn't.
What the hell is it, then? They seek to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the country whilst having a complete absence of federal drug laws? What? Even if that were the case, using "embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs" specifically to prevent drugs from coming into the country is a de facto federal anti-drug policy.
 
What the hell is it, then? They seek to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the country whilst having a complete absence of federal drug laws? What? Even if that were the case, using "embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs" specifically to prevent drugs from coming into the country is a de facto federal anti-drug policy.

I'm saying that not all federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Federal drug laws that infringe on state sovereignty are unconstitutional, and the Constitution Party opposes that. They oppose federal laws that actually ban drugs within the United States. It sounds like what they support is simply American sovereignty; the United States government securing the borders and using other means to keep drugs out of the country. I don't personally support the sanctions and tariffs, but that isn't part of the unconstitutional war on drugs within the United States that is taking away sovereignty from the states.
 
The Constitution Party is much smaller than the Libertarian Party and will not be on as many ballots.

On top of that, the CP does NOT promote liberty.

Read the first few paragraphs of their platform:

"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.

The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law..."

They aren't pro-liberty, they want a Christian Theocracy. Sort of an American/Christian version of the Taliban.
 
they have some things in common with the Libertarian Party, but in essence they'd like to found a Christian theocracy....in which there is hardly any individual liberties. They also group people (christian vs non-christian, heterosexual vs homosexual) and thats very scary.
 
Oh, and most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. The fact that they have a fallacious statement in the preamble of their platform isn't a good sign.
 
Yeah... we need to protect free speech and the First Amendment by, um, banning speech we don't like.

"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

-Rudy Giuliani
 
The Constitution Party is much smaller than the Libertarian Party and will not be on as many ballots.

On top of that, the CP does NOT promote liberty.

Read the first few paragraphs of their platform:

"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.

The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law..."

They aren't pro-liberty, they want a Christian Theocracy. Sort of an American/Christian version of the Taliban.

I don't see anything anti-liberty in those paragraphs. Can you specify which part you see that way? Or is it just because they believe in God?

Also, since when does wanting a Christian theocracy make someone anti-liberty? Gary North wants a Christian theocracy. Is he anti-liberty?
 
Oh, and most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. The fact that they have a fallacious statement in the preamble of their platform isn't a good sign.

Really?

Who are you counting as "founding fathers"? Please show us the numbers of how many were deists and how many were Christians.
 
How does Liberty's power hungry enemy acheive success?


We need better tactics. Think differently, my friend.
 
It's a pretty decent party, it is just not viable in any way, shape or form. I'd even say the Libertarians have much better structure. Both of them are, though, not good platforms for launching candidates if you're concerned with winning. Just gonna have to stick with the GOP and keep on fighting the system.
 
but that isn't part of the unconstitutional war on drugs within the United States that is taking away sovereignty from the states.

States Don't have Rights.
People have rights,, States have sovereignty..

State sovereignty does NOT trump The peoples rights. PERIOD.

This sounds like an attempt to maintain the Status Quo regarding the War on Drugs while giving lip service to the 10th Amendment.
 
I don't see anything anti-liberty in those paragraphs. Can you specify which part you see that way? Or is it just because they believe in God?

Also, since when does wanting a Christian theocracy make someone anti-liberty? Gary North wants a Christian theocracy. Is he anti-liberty?

You've completely lost the plot if you think bringing religion into politics has any place in a free society.

I don't know too much about the Constitution Party but from what I can tell - they don't advocate social freedoms nor economic one's judging by their "embargoes, sanctions" etc...I can't understand why an individual that backs Ron Paul who (I'm assuming considers oneself a Libertarian) would defend these religious cretins...

The U.S Constitution is not perfect (it never was) and even Paul has said so himself in his publications that a piece of paper can't protect you. But what it was, was the best available at that time and this...

Instead of mimicking the Constitution from the 1700's, we should be taking what we once had and improving all the time. There can be no freedom for a homosexual individual in a religious theocracy. You see, thats the problem...most people on here like Ron Paul and then have the audacity to consider themselves liberty lovers?! It's a joke. Some people fight for liberty all right so long as that doesn't extend to other people. I, as a Libertarian, make an argument for the freedom of every individual, homosexual or not. The Constitution Party with a platform like that, don't deserve our attention.
 
Oh, and most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. The fact that they have a fallacious statement in the preamble of their platform isn't a good sign.

Wrong, Most were christian,, a couple were deists.
And that argument is irrelevant.

They did not intend a Theocracy. They intended Liberty for all,, any faith or no faith.
 
Really?

Who are you counting as "founding fathers"? Please show us the numbers of how many were deists and how many were Christians.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Ennumerating the Founding Fathers
The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.

There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.
 
Last edited:
What we need is a compromise situation, many Ron Paulers aren't strict Libertarians ie believe in borders where some feel borders should not exist.

What we need is to take over the constitution party and hedge our bets. We stay in the GOP, but build the constitution party and play the 2 off each other. The constitution is a great compromise because it is very Libertarian, and you will get a situation with state rights where some states will trample on the rights of individuals. But overall it is better because many states will be free, better then central control of freedom. so if you want to do your drugs move to Cali and if you want Christain values goto Iowa.

ITs like saying oh no we can't rely solely on elected sherrifs because they'll point a couple of bad apples in some redneck town then throw the baby out with the bath water, MSM are experts at this.

The Constitution had great founders and we can always call out the great quotes to shut those up that are so called constitutionalist. In fact you probably found they had great intentions, but got co-opted. If you discard any institution simply because they got co-opted then you will never get anywhere because they'll simply co-opt the new party over time even if it takes them 50 years.

I like it simply because of the name... the consitutuion is a document that can be used against those that try dilute it esp in a party called after the Consitution. I'm not a fan of the party system anyway and believe all candidates should run on their name.
 
Wrong, Most were christian,, a couple were deists.
And that argument is irrelevant.

They did not intend a Theocracy. They intended Liberty for all,, any faith or no faith.

Absolutely - so long as your skin didn't happen to be black.

As I said, The Founding Fathers were not perfect. They didn't even construct a perfect Constitution. But they had the right idea (minus the slavery bit) and that was one with a small government.
 
What we need is a compromise situation, many Ron Paulers aren't strict Libertarians ie believe in borders where some feel borders should not exist.

I agree with this bit.

I think most Ron Paulers think this starts and ends in America - it doesn't. This is global. If Liberty is the goal, then surely the government must be abolished in total terms, including the Constitution? I don't believe the Constitution Party is the way forward - for me anyway, I find much more relevance to my own philosophy in the Libertarian Party (regardless of what people think of it now, there's some great people in there). Perhaps other feel different but that was the magic of Paul - he could bring Anarchists, Voluntaryists, Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, Conservatives and Constitutionalists together. I don't think anyone else can do that.
 
I thought Ron had a strong chance of getting nominated by the floor, but the RNC corruption prevented that. I am done with the G.O.P. because of this. They are tyrants! If Ron doesn't run third party, what do you guys think about the Constitution Party?

Ron Paul endorsed the constitution party candidate Chuck Baldwin back in 2008. (much to the annoyance of libertines around here). The constitution party overall is a good organization. But Virgil Goode stinks as a candidate. He doesn't get the non interventionist foreign policy thing at all.
 
States Don't have Rights.
People have rights,, States have sovereignty..

State sovereignty does NOT trump The peoples rights. PERIOD.

This sounds like an attempt to maintain the Status Quo regarding the War on Drugs while giving lip service to the 10th Amendment.

yes this is true, but the reality is freedom has a better chance under de-centralized control which requires States rights. So if one bad apple within the country decides to outlaw gay marriage, then it is better that 1 states does it as opposed to all 50 states. what Christians need to watch out for and is going to happen soon is gay civil rights mandates across all 50 states which will violate the rights of Christians. It has already happened in Europe and the UK
 
Last edited:
Back
Top