What do you think of the Constitution Party?

[rev-arb]

Originally Posted by Krackels

I think the Constitution party is probably the best true conservative party out there.

+1

[Son of Norway]

"3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children..."

I read this as no gays, polygamists or single parents allowed. Traditional families are great but not always the case.

"...as divinely instituted;"

DIVINELY? Oh, that's just priceless. Has no place in gub-mint. This party sucks.

[eric_t12]

I've firmly decided on joining. Constituion as given is all the law i need, besides common american defense, keeping all costs for american citizens down, and nearly all that those two subjects entail.

the only thing at the beginning of the post that i see i can't truly agree with, is the one man, one woman marriage... i dont know, i just can't get past the separation of church and state, and i dont think the government should be able to make any judgements on anything based on religion.
just my 2cents.

but i think anyone who finds this or any party to their best interests, should join, and vote for their candidates. if you just say you agree, and vote with whoever you think will win you really aren't helping... just hoping. again, my 2cents...

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.


Sounds interesting enough; my only concern is it seems like in our political system any third party is doomed to failure, no matter how principled or relevant they may be. If we had a parliamentary-style legislature where multiple parties could realistically all have seats at the table, I think it would stand a better shot at influence. Or, if they could get somebody with some real name recognition and fund-raising ability (there's that money thing again), I'd be favorably inclined to take a closer look.

I wouldn't be able to support them because of this. It is no where in the constitution. Furthermore it is against the very idea of states rights IMHO. How can you be all about the constitution and add in something extra?

No thanks.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by beardman2

I wouldn't be able to support them because of this. It is no where in the constitution. Furthermore it is against the very idea of states rights IMHO. How can you be all about the constitution and add in something extra?

No thanks.

It's just a principle, guys. It doesn't mean that the constitution is going to be ammended or that any new laws will be proposed.

If they truly are the "constitution" party, they will leave matters such as gay marriage up to the states to decide, as the founders intended.

Frank

"Homosexuality" and "marriage" are exclusive. So, they're good on that point, in my book--the Bible.

Well, I am looking into the party some more and find that I do not agree with some things. But, the overall thrust is good. For instance, I'm not against Bush. He is not everything he should be and is viewed as a country bumpkin, but I am not completely disillusioned with him. The Constitution Party is very zealous in some ways. I am not quite as militaristic, but I do see the need to fight for change. Just a few little things... No biggees.

If, however, Clinton-Obama take office in 2009, my aorta will probably explode through my chest! And, what choices do we have as Republicans? I might only have a pulmonary for them. That is one of my concerns. There is no Republican for whom I can vote.

[rev-arb]

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

First of all, this is principle not law. It meant to say that One man - one woman is the standard by which they believe.
This does not mean that there will not be single parent families, or mixed families in any combination. Those things will always be around. Sometimes they can not be helped. What it does state that man/woman relationship are the norm, and are not only the historical standard, but the biblical standard as well. JMHO

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

It's just a principle, guys. It doesn't mean that the constitution is going to be ammended or that any new laws will be proposed.

If they truly are the "constitution" party, they will leave matters such as gay marriage up to the states to decide, as the founders intended.

Frank

thats all well in good but I find it funny for a group that feels they have the inside track on the constitution to add one little extra thing in there.

[rev-arb]

Regarding marriage and the law. We must remember that because there are party members on a state level, and the states decide they have the responsibility to their state and constituents.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index...deral_Material

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by beardman2

thats all well in good but I find it funny for a group that feels they have the inside track on the constitution to add one little extra thing in there.

I understand your point, but principle #6 should ease your worries about them trying to rederally abolish gay marriage--at least on a federal level.

6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

If they live up to their principles, they won't try to ban gay marriage at the federal level or by amending the constitution.

I remain skeptical as well and I haven't yet decided who I am supporting.

Question, beardman2: who are you supporting? You seem like a pretty reasonable and logical fellow, so I am curious as to who you might be rooting for.

Frank