Constitution Party

I haven't seen a mention of the Constitution Party yet (or maybe I just missed it). They have some great ideas (mainly with taxes) and I support them almost as much as I do the Libertarians. Who here is supposed to represent them? Would you consider them more right/conservative or other?

[edit on 8/4/2004 by lockheed]

The Constitution Party Home


Peroutka Accepts Nomination for President of Constitution Party

Speaking personally, I've never had the inclination to investigate them beyond their preamble which invokes Jesus Christ:

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.

Little things like this from politicians seeking control of the government tend to freak me out:

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Just skimming the platform (for the first time) this is why:

AIDS - HIV / AIDS is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting HIV / AIDS.

And this fun version of how they'd assert their First Amendment rights:

Pornography - Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. 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.

Just my initial take from a glance over. I personally don't see a need to investigate further. But that's just me. Some people may rightly be very drawn to it, thinking the Republicans have abandoned the Christian principles championed so forcefully in the 80's under the leadership of people like Jesse Helms (shades of which I see all over this Party).

To each his own I say. (Though I doubt the CP would agree.)

They are about as Right-Wing Authoritarian as it gets. The main reason I think they should get some recognition is due to their tax plan. They believe in a state-rate tax. Tariffs should compromise the main portion of the government budget but whatever part of the government budget that is still falling short is made up by each state. If Vermont has 3% of the nations population then they are responsible for 3% of what the government needs.

As for their stances on religion and first amendment rights are a bit scary though.

Hopefully another party will see the state-rate tax plan and make it a part of their platform, then the constitution party can die.

The Constitution Party is a conservative, predominately Christian, organization that touts "Family Values" and a return to the "Founding Fathers" initial implementation of this great Republic.

Excerpt from source
The Constitution Party strongly champions the principles of government laid down by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, principles which have been abandoned by our political establishment. Unlike other political organizations, we do not believe these principles are outdated. We recognize that the Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the land and must be enforced.

The Constitution Party's adherence to Christian values gives little leeway on a variety of issues, thereby limiting the party's appeal across a broad voter spectrum. The inflexibility of this party's platform coupled with their relatively small numbers keep the Party's candidate for President out of the national spotlight.

Excerpt from source
The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro-life, anti-homosexual rights, pro-American sovereignty, anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, anti-unchecked immigration, pro-second amendment, and against the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws, in favor of a strong national defense and opposed to unconstitutional interventionism.

The Constitution Party's candidate for President is Michael A. Peroutka, a lawyer, who has provided little biographical information and does not appear to have held elected office in the past.

The Constitution Party Website.

Well 'Rant and Mirthful Me' seem to have covered a bit of the religious side to this political group, if that even makes sense i.e. religious side of politics.
Tax wise the �Constitution Party� would like to abolish the Internal Revenue Service,
They are apposed to the flat rate tax the national sales tax.
And would offer a state rate tax, i.e. more people in a given state pay more taxes.
And to answer your question Lockheed, I think they fall into the unaffiliated group
As that is how I found their web site last night through a search of unaffiliated political groups

Didn't mean to imply they were unworthy of discussion Sauron.

I'd say if someone would like to present their tax plan, it needs to be written up under the heading "TAXES: Constitution Party" to be drawn into the www.campaign2004issues.com... forum, and we'll go from there.

I'd say we're due for a meaty tax discussion of ALL platforms.

Rant
not at all, just adding my untaxed 2 cents

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

What does this mean Biblical foundations?


[edit on 4-8-2004 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Sauron
Rant
not at all, just adding my untaxed 2 cents

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

What does this mean Biblical foundations?

Unless your "two sense" is a charitable donation, a 1099 is in order.

As to the "Biblical Foundations" reference, our legal system is an amalgamation of English Common Law, tempered with the prevalence of Christian values with the Founding Fathers (not to mention the Royal Judges of Merry Olde England) and the preponderance of jurist who have made rulings throughout our brief history.

Some feel that the Bible provides a groundwork for legal decisions (including punishments) while others, espouse the complete separation of any branch of our government, and religious reference. The reality lies somewhere in the middle. Lawyers frequently quote the Bible during court proceedings to make a point, or to curry favor with all or part of the jury. This goes well beyond the oft quoted (and completely out of context) "an eye for an eye". Subtle inference, and underlying preconceptions about religion have allowed officers of the courts (this includes not only the attorneys but judges as well) to hold sway over the outcome of criminal and civil case law. This trend has diminished in the last 50 years as the diversity of religions (and the absence of religion) has impacted the courts. There are some that within our melting pot nation who reason that as the Founding Fathers were predominately Christian (with a smattering of Deists for good measure), that the courts should maintain Christian values, and Biblical foundation in all case law rulings. This is a minority position that I can only see as diminishing with time, the future hold a progressively more secular court system, the origins of which will dwindle into obscurity.

As an aside, I would contend that the Masonic influences over English Common Law, and our own judicial system has been retained. This influence is more in the form of a court proceeding, rather than the precedents that govern decisions. I am puzzled why this is overlooked, the Masonic origins of our Republic are an unspoken strength, true to form, and possessing all we hold dear.

Common Law versus Civil Law.