Full Version: The Constitutionalist Party
Here's a link to the new Constitutionalist Party's website. This party has some decent ideas...Do you think that this could be the party of the future...Do you think that they have some decent ideas to reduce the size of the gov't?
CP
CP
First I've heard of it, but it looks quite promising. I'll be very interested to see what happens with it. The deck is stacked against third parties in this country, and it takes a lot of funding and organization just to get on the ballot. If it is a serious organizational effort and not just a website, I wish them much success.
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Dec 4 2003, 05:31 PM)
First I've heard of it, but it looks quite promising. I'll be very interested to see what happens with it. The deck is stacked against third parties in this country, and it takes a lot of funding and organization just to get on the ballot. If it is a serious organizational effort and not just a website, I wish them much success.
After looking through the link...I'm about ready to change my affiliation. This party looks very promising, and I'll keep an eye out for them...they may have my vote if they can grow more and challenge the other parties.
CP
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Dec 4 2003, 04:32 PM)
After looking through the link...I'm about ready to change my affiliation. This party looks very promising, and I'll keep an eye out for them...they may have my vote if they can grow more and challenge the other parties.
CP
I have to admit, they do have an impressive website. I'm one who is very much interested in FIJA laws and the right of jury nullification. The Constitution Party is very much for this, or so I believe from the few members of it that I've met. I think the Republican party will continue to be the home of many religious and ultra-right conservatives. Yes, I know the Republicans have lots of moderates and even a dash of liberal thrown in(Olympia Snowe, etc.) At the same time, a party has to have a big "tent" in order to win politically. Until a party is willing to make a few sacrifices in principles, it will continue to languish out of ideological purity to a small political sect. I think the Constitution party needs to moderate it's positions more before it can gain broad support. Then again, what do I know? Hope you find the party that fits your beliefs and needs.
Nebraska: I think your confusing parties here. This isn't the semi-religious Constituition Party, its the quasi-libertarian Constitutionalist Party, very different principles.
CP
CP
After reading through their platform, there are only a couple of things that I have a problem with:
Term limits: They admit that a lack of limits is most likely the problem with the current electoral system for representatives and senators. Yet they oppose limits, instead relying on currently elected representatives to "police" themselves.
I've always felt that a 12 year limit to terms of both houses would be the best way to curb a lot of these problems.
Welfare: I agree with just about everything that they have to say here, with the exception of making welfare a "low interest loan" to be paid back. If someone loses their job through no fault of their own, I don't feel that they should have to repay what the government gives them as a supplement, as long as they follow the rules concerning job education/ technical retraining that they advocate. After all, they may be rehired more quickly this way, but they may not be making near what they were when they were let go. They should not have an additional debt burden added to them, one that they may not be able to repay.
Otherwise, I do see a lot to like here, but as Izdaari said, getting a third party viable in our current political climate is near impossible. It'll be interesting to see how this one goes.
Term limits: They admit that a lack of limits is most likely the problem with the current electoral system for representatives and senators. Yet they oppose limits, instead relying on currently elected representatives to "police" themselves.
I've always felt that a 12 year limit to terms of both houses would be the best way to curb a lot of these problems.
Welfare: I agree with just about everything that they have to say here, with the exception of making welfare a "low interest loan" to be paid back. If someone loses their job through no fault of their own, I don't feel that they should have to repay what the government gives them as a supplement, as long as they follow the rules concerning job education/ technical retraining that they advocate. After all, they may be rehired more quickly this way, but they may not be making near what they were when they were let go. They should not have an additional debt burden added to them, one that they may not be able to repay.
Otherwise, I do see a lot to like here, but as Izdaari said, getting a third party viable in our current political climate is near impossible. It'll be interesting to see how this one goes.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Dec 4 2003, 05:03 PM)
Term limits: They admit that a lack of limits is most likely the problem with the current electoral system for representatives and senators. Yet they oppose limits, instead relying on currently elected representatives to "police" themselves.
I've always felt that a 12 year limit to terms of both houses would be the best way to curb a lot of these problems.
I have kind of come full circle when it comes to term limits. I use to be for a two term limit on senators and congressmen. I was swayed in part by statistics that stated that something like 94% of congressmen are re-elected. I owe it to some conservative groups who swayed me to the other side. There is something to be said of experience. That is how you get your Sam Rayburns and Robert Byrds. In my own state, a term limits law was passed. Who has bigger power now? The lobbyists do. They have a "we be" statement. "We be here when you arrive, and we be here when you leave." Since state senators don't have a lot of time to learn the ropes of senate committees and other protocol, they are hard pressed to make change. Garry Wills and other academics have written extensively about the "myth" of the civil servant who refuses to become a life long politician. The view that the average person goes and serves a term or two and comes back to private life, and that it was intended to be that way, was never born out by the founders. House of burgesses, continental congress, state senates, they just bounced around from one post to another. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are great examples of this.
I admire the Constitution Party's attitude on this issue-it's good that they would trust individual candidates to make the decision, but I just wish they would oppose term limits and focus more on campaign reform.
I have read the platform (thank you for providing the link) and there area lot of things I agree with, some that I don’t.
Abortion: I share the same views as they do as far as the federal government should not be involved. However, and yes this is some what hypocritical of my views of State Rights, I have a bad feeling letting individual states to make laws about abortion. I don’t like abortion, I don’t agree with the practice morally, but I do not think it should be outlawed. The only good thing about giving states the ability to pass any type of law dealing with abortion is that there will be states who allow it. So the convenience may be gone, but the availability is there.
Indian rights: disagree with this on some points. Doing what the platform claims they want to do would make the USofA into the USoA with a bunch of other nations inside. Continuing to try to fix the past will not in my opinion ever accomplish anything. Native Indians already have a lot more rights then a non-Native Indian who is a born nationalized citizen.
Capital Punishment: Although I agree that the current system is really bad, I do not want to do away with the punishment. I would prefer if the only thing that they are aposed to is the cost would be to change the method of performing the task. (yes, I am cold and uncaring of criminals who deserve this sentence) Two Bullets bought and paid for by the convicted, held in public and tickets are sold for witnesses.
Civil Liberties: Only one or two things I can disagree on in this part of the platform. The identification I disagree with. I don’t see anything wrong with having a handy proof of citizenship. But, a Drivers Liscense would do nicely. (should only be given to citizens or people with the proper permission by the state department, i.e. passports, green cards, work permits ect.)
“Any time property has been taken from the owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, the Constitutionalist Party advocates restitution to the owners to be paid by those responsible for the violation.”
(taken from the website)
For the future yes, but the past is the past and I do not agree with paying for something out of my pocket (for that is where it would come) to pay for it. It happened, it is done, move on and don’t do it again!
(I am skipping some so not to make a long post)
Sexual Rights. I agree, but I think the state sponsoring of marriage should be thrown out and never used again. Marriage is a religious and cultural thing, not a government thing. You shouldn’t have to get a license to get married, but I do think you should have one to raise a child.
Term limits: Although I understand the need not to have term limits I have always felt that career politicians are a bad thing. I and think it should be made that you can not run for two offices at once, nor can you run for one office while holding on to a current office. If you run for a different office you should be made to step down from your current office.
Their economic and foreign policies are pretty much in line with my views. Except for immigration (which I think is both domestic and foreign). It is not the fact that they come over to make a better life for themselves, but in this day and age, these countries should have the sense and I know they have the ability (the US is proof positive what citizens can do…and we did it 200+years ago!) to make their countries better for themselves.
The one thing they say time and again is the need to compromise. Although their platform is rather harsh in others and some weak, there tends to be a realization that slow change would be needed to fix the problems so the populace would accept them. They do not seem to stand so steadfast in their thoughts that they will not waiver some at first to accomplish the goal. However, most political parties that were/are successful start that way and have seemed never to go in the direction first laid out. Only time will tell if this party goes any where, but I for one, if a candidate appears on a ballot (federal or state wise) would vote for them.
Abortion: I share the same views as they do as far as the federal government should not be involved. However, and yes this is some what hypocritical of my views of State Rights, I have a bad feeling letting individual states to make laws about abortion. I don’t like abortion, I don’t agree with the practice morally, but I do not think it should be outlawed. The only good thing about giving states the ability to pass any type of law dealing with abortion is that there will be states who allow it. So the convenience may be gone, but the availability is there.
Indian rights: disagree with this on some points. Doing what the platform claims they want to do would make the USofA into the USoA with a bunch of other nations inside. Continuing to try to fix the past will not in my opinion ever accomplish anything. Native Indians already have a lot more rights then a non-Native Indian who is a born nationalized citizen.
Capital Punishment: Although I agree that the current system is really bad, I do not want to do away with the punishment. I would prefer if the only thing that they are aposed to is the cost would be to change the method of performing the task. (yes, I am cold and uncaring of criminals who deserve this sentence) Two Bullets bought and paid for by the convicted, held in public and tickets are sold for witnesses.
Civil Liberties: Only one or two things I can disagree on in this part of the platform. The identification I disagree with. I don’t see anything wrong with having a handy proof of citizenship. But, a Drivers Liscense would do nicely. (should only be given to citizens or people with the proper permission by the state department, i.e. passports, green cards, work permits ect.)
“Any time property has been taken from the owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, the Constitutionalist Party advocates restitution to the owners to be paid by those responsible for the violation.”
(taken from the website)
For the future yes, but the past is the past and I do not agree with paying for something out of my pocket (for that is where it would come) to pay for it. It happened, it is done, move on and don’t do it again!
(I am skipping some so not to make a long post)
Sexual Rights. I agree, but I think the state sponsoring of marriage should be thrown out and never used again. Marriage is a religious and cultural thing, not a government thing. You shouldn’t have to get a license to get married, but I do think you should have one to raise a child.
Term limits: Although I understand the need not to have term limits I have always felt that career politicians are a bad thing. I and think it should be made that you can not run for two offices at once, nor can you run for one office while holding on to a current office. If you run for a different office you should be made to step down from your current office.
Their economic and foreign policies are pretty much in line with my views. Except for immigration (which I think is both domestic and foreign). It is not the fact that they come over to make a better life for themselves, but in this day and age, these countries should have the sense and I know they have the ability (the US is proof positive what citizens can do…and we did it 200+years ago!) to make their countries better for themselves.
The one thing they say time and again is the need to compromise. Although their platform is rather harsh in others and some weak, there tends to be a realization that slow change would be needed to fix the problems so the populace would accept them. They do not seem to stand so steadfast in their thoughts that they will not waiver some at first to accomplish the goal. However, most political parties that were/are successful start that way and have seemed never to go in the direction first laid out. Only time will tell if this party goes any where, but I for one, if a candidate appears on a ballot (federal or state wise) would vote for them.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.