What about the Constitution Party?

[Right Wing]

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?

[ShaneEnochs]

They're not liberty lovers. At all.

They're for the War on Drugs. They're against homosexuals. They're against pornography. They want to legislate morality.

[Sentinelrv]

They're not liberty lovers. At all.

They're for the War on Drugs. They're against homosexuals. They're against pornography. They want to legislate morality.

Wow, never knew that. Why are they a separate party then? Sounds like they'd fit right in with Republicans.

[anaconda]

Ballot access issues.

[CaptLouAlbano]

The problem with the CP is the same as the LP and for that matter any minor party. They do not have people within the party structure that have the ability, means or resume to be elected to office. While ballot access can be an issue in some states, in most locales you can get a candidate on the ballot - the problem though is having a candidate that is well known and respected enough to get enough votes in the general election to win the race. In my opinion, even if the ballot access laws were less restrictive, they still wouldn't be able to field a viable candidate simply because the membership of the party (in large part) is made up of people without political experience.

For example the guy they have here running for US House has never held an elected office before. From his bio he states that he served on some town council boards, but talking with some of my friends here no one seems to know who he is. So basically you have a unknown candidate with little to no political experience trying to get 150,000 votes. He ran before and got around 2000 votes. My guess is he will get the same this time as well.

Honestly, I don't know why people are so hung up on labels and parties. There are thousands of liberty-minded people already elected into office under the GOP banner. With a little hard work we can easily hold a majority in most (if not all) state parties and completely reshape the political landscape. All it takes is the willingness and the ability to run for office yourself. County committee seats are the easiest elected office to win, as it usually requires only a few hundred votes to win the seat, and your campaign area is limited to your own precinct. If every RP supporter who is truly dedicated to seeing the advance of the principles that we hold dear would run for committee seats we would be able to completely replace the RNC with our folks in a few years.

[hrdman2luv]

I was just doing some checking (http://www.politics1.com/p2012.htm), and it seems Chuck Baldwin isn't with the "Constitution Party" anymore. He's moved over to the "Reform Party" now.

[WesSeid]

It's too bad. They get it right on a lot of things but then blow it on things like:

"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."

Yeah... we need to protect free speech and the First Amendment by, um, banning speech we don't like.

But, a platform is just a platform, and it's important to look at people running for office as individuals.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I was just doing some checking (http://www.politics1.com/p2012.htm), and it seems Chuck Baldwin isn't with the "Constitution Party" anymore. He's moved over to the "Reform Party" now.

He ran as a Republican in 2012 though as well. I think the Reform Party in KS just put him on the ballot as a preference over Andre Barnett. My guess is the four people that make up the Reform Party of Kansas didn't like Barnett.

[Silverbug1980]

Well personally, I think we should just start a new party and call it the Liberty party. We did start the tea party after all, just need rallys.

[brandon]

Wow, never knew that. Why are they a separate party then? Sounds like they'd fit right in with Republicans.

Because the Republicans are too socially moderate for their liking.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Well personally, I think we should just start a new party and call it the Liberty party. We did start the tea party after all, just need rallys.

Actually you need money, infrastructure and candidates that have the political and civic resumes to win offices. Otherwise you are nothing more than a website and an idea.

[tony m]

...
Honestly, I don't know why people are so hung up on labels and parties. There are thousands of liberty-minded people already elected into office under the GOP banner. With a little hard work we can easily hold a majority in most (if not all) state parties and completely reshape the political landscape. All it takes is the willingness and the ability to run for office yourself. County committee seats are the easiest elected office to win, as it usually requires only a few hundred votes to win the seat, and your campaign area is limited to your own precinct. If every RP supporter who is truly dedicated to seeing the advance of the principles that we hold dear would run for committee seats we would be able to completely replace the RNC with our folks in a few years.
....

Good post.

[Brett85]

They're not liberty lovers. At all.

They're for the War on Drugs. They're against homosexuals. They're against pornography. They want to legislate morality.

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."

[Brett85]

Wow, never knew that. Why are they a separate party then? Sounds like they'd fit right in with Republicans.

The CP supports a non interventionist foreign policy and opposes the Patriot Act. Sounds like a pretty big difference to me.

[Eire4RonPaul]

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."

It's religiously motivated bullshit. Constitution Party? No thanks.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Good post.

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.

The LP, CP and every other minor party out there all had the same ideas that people here are kicking around. And they all failed. Ballot access is only a small reason for this. The major reasons is that they have little money, little structure and few (if any) people qualified to run for office.

I mean honestly, the "National HQ" of the Constitution Party is in Jim Clymer's law office in Lancaster, PA.

Not to pick on Clymer, but he has been doing this third party thing for many years. He ran in 92 as the LP candidate for Auditor General, Lt. Governor in 94 and 98, US Senate in 04 and now for VP. All of the offices are much bigger than the man himself. Instead, if he would have spent the last 20 years running in GOP races, he very well could be in a federal office by now.

[pochy1776]

They're not liberty lovers. At all.

They're for the War on Drugs. They're against homosexuals. They're against pornography. They want to legislate morality.

Then why did Chuck Baldwin get Ron Pauls endorsement. And whats wrong with personally hating and being against homosexuals? As long as i am not hurting them, they can get married at a stupid church. by the way, i am trying to destroy marriage benefits here.

[pochy1776]

It's religiously motivated bullshit. Constitution Party? No thanks.

No. Sometimes Atheists hate it. I hate it. I got kicked out of a bookstore because of it.

[Keith and stuff]

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?

I recommend the GOP. We have had ton of success locally. I like how they GOP leadership is putting money and volunteers behind our candidates.

[Keith and stuff]

They're not liberty lovers. At all.

They're for the War on Drugs. They're against homosexuals. They're against pornography. They want to legislate morality.

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

[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.

[king_nothing_]

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.

[Brett85]

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.

[erowe1]

How is this minor:

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

It's not minor. It's the right position. Ron Paul agrees.

[libertariantexas]

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.

[Sujan]

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.

[king_nothing_]

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.

[affa]

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

[erowe1]

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?

[erowe1]

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.

[Czolgosz]

How does Liberty's power hungry enemy acheive success?


We need better tactics. Think differently, my friend.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

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.

[pcosmar]

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.

[Eire4RonPaul]

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.

[pcosmar]

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.

[pcosmar]

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.

[freedomordeath]

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.

[Eire4RonPaul]

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.

[Eire4RonPaul]

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.

[jmdrake]

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.

[freedomordeath]

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

[Eire4RonPaul]

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?

You're not right-wing. You're left-wing. Ron Paul is left-wing.

Bastiat sat on the left side of the floor. Technically, Laissez-faire'ers are left-wing.

[pcosmar]

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.

Many did oppose slavery,, But at the time it was still widely practiced worldwide.. Many accepted it simply Status Quo.
And it had nothing to do with race of skin color,, There were white slaves,, and several ethnic backgrounds.

It was on it's way out,, but was retained at the time simply because it was accepted and common throughout the known world.

Several states had their own laws,, and some did oppose it,,, Long before the civil war.

[pcosmar]

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

What a load of confusion.
States have no rights.. Individuals have rights. Groups have NO Rights. Be it state or corporate.
States have Sovereignty. NOT RIGHTS.

And Marriage should have nothing to do with Government.. Government should have nothing to do,,or to say about marriage.
Gay, Straight or polygamous. Nothing at all ever. At any level.

That is the private choices of individuals. and no business of government.

[Brett85]

I can't understand why an individual that backs Ron Paul who (I'm assuming considers oneself a Libertarian) would defend these religious cretins.

Lol. Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party's nominee in the last election.

[Eire4RonPaul]

Lol. Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party's nominee in the last election.

In case it went over your head, that statement was aimed at you - not Ron Paul.

So who would you endorse in 2008? Chuck or Barr (the guy that fawned all over Gingrich, some Libertarian he was).

[freedomordeath]

Many did oppose slavery,, But at the time it was still widely practiced worldwide.. Many accepted it simply Status Quo.
And it had nothing to do with race of skin color,, There were white slaves,, and several ethnic backgrounds.

It was on it's way out,, but was retained at the time simply because it was accepted and common throughout the known world.

Several states had their own laws,, and some did oppose it,,, Long before the civil war.

this is true, infact slavery still exists today, or if you can't pay some of your debts in 3rd world. Just because one group had white skins does not mean this is a white problem. Blacks would have done it (as they are already doing it in some African countries) if they had the power, its tribal and the one stonger tribe happened to have white skins.

Who knows, we might be slaves to China soon.

[freedomordeath]

What a load of confusion.
States have no rights.. Individuals have rights. Groups have NO Rights. Be it state or corporate.
States have Sovereignty. NOT RIGHTS.

And Marriage should have nothing to do with Government.. Government should have nothing to do,,or to say about marriage.
Gay, Straight or polygamous. Nothing at all ever. At any level.

That is the private choices of individuals. and no business of government.

I agree with everything you say, but if you had to design a system where individual rights had the best chance, then it is under de-centralized control. Call it whatever you want, but de-centralized control is best chance we have. some elected sherrif somewhere is probably causing havpc somewhere in America, but what do we do throw the whole system out because of a couple bad apples.

[Eire4RonPaul]

this is true, infact slavery still exists today, or if you can't pay some of your debts in 3rd world. Just because one group had white skins does not mean this is a white problem. Blacks would have done it (as they are already doing it in some African countries) if they had the power, its tribal and the one stonger tribe happened to have white skins.

Who knows, we might be slaves to China soon.

You're already a slave to China.

China could destroy America tomorrow morning if it decided to f*ck you over and call in it's debts. It's got nothing to do with military might if your competitor has a hand in every energy source on Earth. Money talks...

[Brett85]

In case it went over your head, that statement was aimed at you - not Ron Paul.

So who would you endorse in 2008? Chuck or Barr (the guy that fawned all over Gingrich, some Libertarian he was).

I would've endorsed Baldwin, but I agree with most of Baldwin's views. It's just that if Ron were a hardcore liberal on social issues like many here, he never would've endorsed Baldwin for President. He would've chosen not to endorse anyone. But, Ron is socially conservative since he's spoken out in favor of prayer in schools, in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act and the sanctity of life act, etc.

[erowe1]

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

Perhaps I've lost the plot. Or perhaps you're just wrong about that. As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as politics, in any society, no matter how free, that is not religious.

[Maltheus]

Hmmm, I thought RP just gave a general kind of 3rd party endorsement in '08. In any case, I did vote for Baldwin. The religious angle of the CP gave me pause, but in reading a few of his articles, I did feel pretty comfortable that his primary focus would be on restoring the Constitution and promoting states' rights. Certainly made a lot more sense then Patriot Act Barr.

This time, there isn't so much of a division. Johnson is pretty good on most things, and perhaps coming around on some of the others. When I was still a liberal, in the mid 90s, there were two conservatives, who opened my eyes to what conservatism could be. The first was, of course, Ron Paul, with his fascinating congressional speeches. The other was Gary Johnson. He's the only other guy out there with the track record for me.

[erowe1]

Hmmm, I thought RP just gave a general kind of 3rd party endorsement in '08.

He gave a press conference with the 3rd party candidates where they all agreed to certain key issues, and he did not endorse anyone. Barr refused to show up and said RP needed to endorse one and only one. So RP replied with an explicit, definite endorsement of Baldwin and only Baldwin. It was on the CFL website, 4 years ago, but it's not there any more. I'm sure you can find copies of it on the web somewhere.

[Kurt Evans]

--

[truthspeaker]

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

Here is their platform.

They always reminded me of the Religious Right of the RNC. Chuck Baldwin was a good candidate for President last time.

I will say this--when I spoke with the top of the CP in 2008, they were willing to merge with the Libertarians. When I asked the Libertarians, they were "NO WAY". Libertarian philosophy isn't bad. They way they run politics can be. I understand their hard lining on their ideals, but they missed a big opportunity with this one.

[Sola_Fide]

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

Here is their platform.

They always reminded me of the Religious Right of the RNC. Chuck Baldwin was a good candidate for President last time.

I will say this--when I spoke with the top of the CP in 2008, they were willing to merge with the Libertarians. When I asked the Libertarians, they were "NO WAY". Libertarian philosophy isn't bad. They way they run politics can be. I understand their hard lining on their ideals, but they missed a big opportunity with this one.

I could see why. A bunch of Ayn Rand-worshipping abortion-loving femmes couldn't ever make nice with the Constitution.

[jmdrake]

Hmmm, I thought RP just gave a general kind of 3rd party endorsement in '08. In any case, I did vote for Baldwin.

He gave a joint 3rd party endorsement at first, then Bob Barr starting being a jackass about it, so Ron came out and directly endorsed Baldwin in part to spite Barr. Seeing how Barr eventually endorsed Newt Gingrich in 2012, Ron's choice of Baldwin over Barr was well founded. I wish Baldwin was running this time instead of Virgil Goode.

[Shotdown1027]

This is Virgil Goode's pitch (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/exclusive-ipr-interview-virgil-goode-makes-his-case-to-ron-paul-supporters/) to Ron Paul supporters. It's an interview by a Ron Paul supporter where Goode is asked to answer question specifically that a RPFer would care about, basically.

Topics they didn't touch include Jury nullification, which he's in favor of.

[Kurt Evans]

--

[erowe1]

I think if social conservatives (like me) would give up on broad attempts at micromanaging people's lives and forcing non-Christians to act like Christians, that would probably make it easier for many non-Christians to listen to our reasoning regarding the role of government in protecting the right to life.

I don't really see social conservatives doing very much of that. Do you have something specific in mind?

[Kurt Evans]

--

[AFPVet]

Here in my state, we always have three options... Democratic candidate, Republican candidate, or Libertarian candidate. We never have a Constitution Party, Green Party, or anything like that. What this should tell you is that we would be better voting Libertarian.

[Kurt Evans]

--