• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional Party

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,141
Reaction score
7,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Having examined the opinions of others and myself in these forums for a while now, it's pretty obvious that there are some very good thinkers around here and they are thinking about stuff that is going on.

We are currently, as a nation, embroiled in various debates that are testing the traditional definitions of the political fabric of things. Rand Paul and Dennis Kocinitch (sp?) are suddenly on the same side of the issues in some cases. There are many other strange political bedfellows and it seems like the range and depth of the problems we are encountering rise from the newness of the problems based on technical capabilities to the sheer weight of the corruption inspired by the flood of cash into the political process.

As a people, we have always been pragmatic. Our pragmatism was tempered, though by an adherence to things to be held inviolate and a notion of striving toward the greater before us and within us.

We are now embroiled in an endless and petty discourse of divisive and corrosive rhetoric that aims to nothing but tear down some for the benefit of others. It is working. The Seven Deadly Sins have become the tools of the trade for our politicians and we have become the victims of their vitriol. The maintenance of their continued power depends on them dividing us into groups that are defined only by their hatred for each other. As Lincoln said, a house divided against itself can not long stand.

For these reasons, I feel that the current political parties are now become irrelevant and outmoded. They are, in truth, the same party in that they stand for nothing except the destruction of the opponents and those opponents are fellow Americans. We need a new party that strives to reunite the people of the United States.

As Americans, there is really only one thing that we all find to be a good thing and that is the Constitution. Whenever anything is obviously unjust, we all reflexively say that that thing must unConstitutional. Why not have a Constitutional party that is guided only by the Constitution and that strives to be the party of all people?

If we cannot as a people unite based on the thing that is the foundation of our society, perhaps our society is no longer worth saving and we all just need to continue the hatred and attacks that are enveloping and defining us.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Having examined the opinions of others and myself in these forums for a while now, it's pretty obvious that there are some very good thinkers around here and they are thinking about stuff that is going on.

We are currently, as a nation, embroiled in various debates that are testing the traditional definitions of the political fabric of things. Rand Paul and Dennis Kocinitch (sp?) are suddenly on the same side of the issues in some cases. There are many other strange political bedfellows and it seems like the range and depth of the problems we are encountering rise from the newness of the problems based on technical capabilities to the sheer weight of the corruption inspired by the flood of cash into the political process.

As a people, we have always been pragmatic. Our pragmatism was tempered, though by an adherence to things to be held inviolate and a notion of striving toward the greater before us and within us.

We are now embroiled in an endless and petty discourse of divisive and corrosive rhetoric that aims to nothing but tear down some for the benefit of others. It is working. The Seven Deadly Sins have become the tools of the trade for our politicians and we have become the victims of their vitriol. The maintenance of their continued power depends on them dividing us into groups that are defined only by their hatred for each other. As Lincoln said, a house divided against itself can not long stand.

For these reasons, I feel that the current political parties are now become irrelevant and outmoded. They are, in truth, the same party in that they stand for nothing except the destruction of the opponents and those opponents are fellow Americans. We need a new party that strives to reunite the people of the United States.

As Americans, there is really only one thing that we all find to be a good thing and that is the Constitution. Whenever anything is obviously unjust, we all reflexively say that that thing must unConstitutional. Why not have a Constitutional party that is guided only by the Constitution and that strives to be the party of all people?

If we cannot as a people unite based on the thing that is the foundation of our society, perhaps our society is no longer worth saving and we all just need to continue the hatred and attacks that are enveloping and defining us.
Whose interpretation of the constitution? A strict constructionist view? A liberal change for the times view? Somewhere in the middle? Your party already had major problems.

All parties should be guided by the constitution, and their party members should insist on keeping a clean house in that respect.

One party for all people is silly and dangerous. We will always bicker on smaller issues, there will always be divisions of opinion, thus no one party can be all things to all people.

Where constitutionally protected rights are concerned, there should be no need of party. Citizens v gov't is how the founders viewed our relationship, and how we must now.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,141
Reaction score
7,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Whose interpretation of the constitution? A strict constructionist view? A liberal change for the times view? Somewhere in the middle? Your party already had major problems.

All parties should be guided by the constitution, and their party members should insist on keeping a clean house in that respect.

One party for all people is silly and dangerous. We will always bicker on smaller issues, there will always be divisions of opinion, thus no one party can be all things to all people.

Where constitutionally protected rights are concerned, there should be no need of party. Citizens v gov't is how the founders viewed our relationship, and how we must now.


I would prefer a strict interpretation.

The whole document is one that encourages the withdrawal of the Federal Government from the Activities of the people.

Most of the Rights protected in the Constitution are protections agains the intrusion of the Federal Government into the lives of people.

As an example, if Google finds a way to profit in data mining and selling personal data to people of commerce, that is an issue that may be grist for a law suit in civil liability. However, that is a prerogative of Google to mine the data, the people of commerce to buy it and the people into whose privacy this dips to object if they feel ill used.

If the government is doing the data mining, and they seem to be doing so, this is an entirely different thing.

Our government has become the thing that is the threat just as the founders predicted if we read their written protections, and it seems to be about time that we returned the genie to the bottle or just come up with a new genie altogether.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I would prefer a strict interpretation.

The whole document is one that encourages the withdrawal of the Federal Government from the Activities of the people.

Most of the Rights protected in the Constitution are protections agains the intrusion of the Federal Government into the lives of people.

As an example, if Google finds a way to profit in data mining and selling personal data to people of commerce, that is an issue that may be grist for a law suit in civil liability. However, that is a prerogative of Google to mine the data, the people of commerce to buy it and the people into whose privacy this dips to object if they feel ill used.

If the government is doing the data mining, and they seem to be doing so, this is an entirely different thing.

Our government has become the thing that is the threat just as the founders predicted if we read their written protections, and it seems to be about time that we returned the genie to the bottle or just come up with a new genie altogether.
You will find few on this site better versed in the writings of the founders, the authors of the enlightenment, and philosophy of the Age of Reason...

But parties are not the answer, this also is a warning to future generations. I suggest reading Washington's farewell address.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/104466-case-against-party-politics-g-washington.html
 

TwEnTY-SiX

New member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
46
Reaction score
22
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would prefer a strict interpretation.

The whole document is one that encourages the withdrawal of the Federal Government from the Activities of the people.

Most of the Rights protected in the Constitution are protections agains the intrusion of the Federal Government into the lives of people.

As an example, if Google finds a way to profit in data mining and selling personal data to people of commerce, that is an issue that may be grist for a law suit in civil liability. However, that is a prerogative of Google to mine the data, the people of commerce to buy it and the people into whose privacy this dips to object if they feel ill used.

If the government is doing the data mining, and they seem to be doing so, this is an entirely different thing.

Our government has become the thing that is the threat just as the founders predicted if we read their written protections, and it seems to be about time that we returned the genie to the bottle or just come up with a new genie altogether.
I agree with most of the OP, but had the same initial question about 'whose interpretation?' that was brought up. Interpretations of the Constitution vary widely. so calling on a new party to be guided by only the Constitution is really just a way of ditching all the malice and vitriol for what seems to me to be the same fundamental platform.

In strictly limiting the philosophical scope of this new party, you are in effect setting this party against every other perspective, setting it up to follow the same downward spiral that the current parties have been on.

Also, I disagree with every notion involving government as an enemy to the people. Government is an institution with no mind and no heart. It cannot sin or commit evil. And so the threat cannot come from government, but comes from those who we allow to control government. It is our own perpetuation of the system that furthers our decline, not government.

Even at the time of its writing, the opinions of the Founder's varied quite drastically on the proper role of government. The Constitution was, in effect, a compromise of intelligent perspectives that was not universally adored, but recognized as the best possible alternative. To truly overcome the disgraceful nature that our politics has become we should mirror our Founders more, but not by limiting ourselves to "principles" we were socialized into, but by accepting the varied interpretations and views of government, just as our Founders did, to find the best possible alternatives.

If we truly wanted to follow the lead of our Founders, we would not be partisan or bi-partisan, but non-partisan.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,141
Reaction score
7,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I agree with most of the OP, but had the same initial question about 'whose interpretation?' that was brought up. Interpretations of the Constitution vary widely. so calling on a new party to be guided by only the Constitution is really just a way of ditching all the malice and vitriol for what seems to me to be the same fundamental platform.

In strictly limiting the philosophical scope of this new party, you are in effect setting this party against every other perspective, setting it up to follow the same downward spiral that the current parties have been on.

Also, I disagree with every notion involving government as an enemy to the people. Government is an institution with no mind and no heart. It cannot sin or commit evil. And so the threat cannot come from government, but comes from those who we allow to control government. It is our own perpetuation of the system that furthers our decline, not government.

Even at the time of its writing, the opinions of the Founder's varied quite drastically on the proper role of government. The Constitution was, in effect, a compromise of intelligent perspectives that was not universally adored, but recognized as the best possible alternative. To truly overcome the disgraceful nature that our politics has become we should mirror our Founders more, but not by limiting ourselves to "principles" we were socialized into, but by accepting the varied interpretations and views of government, just as our Founders did, to find the best possible alternatives.

If we truly wanted to follow the lead of our Founders, we would not be partisan or bi-partisan, but non-partisan.


The problem that I feel from our current Federal Government is that every person thinks that the government is the solution to all of their personal problems.

It makes little difference on the level of the Federal Government if one is in favor of abortion or against abortion if they agree that abortion is not the province of the Federal government to regulate. This was the stance of the founders on many of the issues that the Feds have stolen from the states.

The only part of the Constitution that lends itself to the philosophical is whether or not it should be considerate in any way of the philosophical. Is it good or bad if there are poor people? That is a valid question. Is it the province of the Federal Government to recognize that question, decide it's an issue that can be solved and then set about transferring wealth?

It seems to me that if this consideration is brought before the Federal Government, the question should concern whether or not there are legal impediments to the ability of some with regard to opportunity. Whether or not the opportunities are seized by all should not be the province of the Federal Government regulate. This should be, it seems according to the Constitution, left to the states to either address or ignore.

I think the Founders did not contemplate the rise of the two party system. I think this was enshrined by laws passed around the turn of the century following 1800 by members of the two parties. Astonishing.

The space accorded to the resolution of deadlocks in the voting to fill offices seems to indicate that they anticipated the inability of the system to cleanly elect a clear winner to be President and this, also, might have resulted from the intent to undermine the power of the the central figure of the Federal Government. A leader elected with an illegitimate majority can hardly claim a mandate.

Clearly, as we are witnessing right now, even a clear margin of victory is more the result of a great campaign game plan than the mandate of the governed. When laws are passed with the caveat that we need to pass it to know what's in it demonstrates that passing laws depends more on hiding what they will do rather than explaining what they will do.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,141
Reaction score
7,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Whose interpretation of the constitution? A strict constructionist view? A liberal change for the times view? Somewhere in the middle? Your party already had major problems.

All parties should be guided by the constitution, and their party members should insist on keeping a clean house in that respect.

One party for all people is silly and dangerous. We will always bicker on smaller issues, there will always be divisions of opinion, thus no one party can be all things to all people.

Where constitutionally protected rights are concerned, there should be no need of party. Citizens v gov't is how the founders viewed our relationship, and how we must now.



Are the smaller issues the province of the Federal Government to assume?

The Constitution seems to guide the Feds to stay out of the smaller issues.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Are the smaller issues the province of the Federal Government to assume?
I'm not sure "smaller" is the right way to frame it. Issues other than constitutional rights, interstate commerce and common defense. These are really the only areas of control of the federal gov't, all else falls to local and state... or should.

The Constitution seems to guide the Feds to stay out of the smaller issues.
Not just the Constitution, but the constitutional debates, the federalist papers, the personal writings etc.

More to the point, it guides it to stay out of some very big issues. Just as there can be no one party for all, there can be no one set of laws for all, beyond universal human rights. What works in the (formerly) industrial northeast may not work in the agricultural midwest and south. These aren't necessarily smaller issues, just local needs, moral, customs, economics, etc specific to a region. Each state has it's own constitution and set of laws. If the US ceased to exist, the states would go on without much of a hiccup.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,141
Reaction score
7,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not sure "smaller" is the right way to frame it. Issues other than constitutional rights, interstate commerce and common defense. These are really the only areas of control of the federal gov't, all else falls to local and state... or should.



Not just the Constitution, but the constitutional debates, the federalist papers, the personal writings etc.

More to the point, it guides it to stay out of some very big issues. Just as there can be no one party for all, there can be no one set of laws for all, beyond universal human rights. What works in the (formerly) industrial northeast may not work in the agricultural midwest and south. These aren't necessarily smaller issues, just local needs, moral, customs, economics, etc specific to a region. Each state has it's own constitution and set of laws. If the US ceased to exist, the states would go on without much of a hiccup.


That last part is a great observation. I would like to see the Feds reduced to a level of being the referee of the activities among and between the states.

It might be a coincidence, but the quality of the results of our educational system have diminished compared to other countries in direct proportion to the amount of federal control that is exerted over the actual policies used to educate our young. Perhaps, local control of education was a good thing.

Local control of spending money will usually be more effective control of the spending. The Cumulative debt of the individual states is dwarfed by the Federal Debt.

I don't know exactly how to define this, but it is my impression that the wisdom of the spending choices as that spending gets closer and closer to those who contribute the cash increases. If I'm spending my own money, I know that it is going to those projects that i deem to be worthy. If I give that same money to my daughter on her way to the mall, not so much.

If I give that same money to my representative on way to DC, even less.

If Nancy Pelosi gets her fingers on it, not at all.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,141
Reaction score
7,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not sure "smaller" is the right way to frame it. Issues other than constitutional rights, interstate commerce and common defense. These are really the only areas of control of the federal gov't, all else falls to local and state... or should.



Not just the Constitution, but the constitutional debates, the federalist papers, the personal writings etc.

More to the point, it guides it to stay out of some very big issues. Just as there can be no one party for all, there can be no one set of laws for all, beyond universal human rights. What works in the (formerly) industrial northeast may not work in the agricultural midwest and south. These aren't necessarily smaller issues, just local needs, moral, customs, economics, etc specific to a region. Each state has it's own constitution and set of laws. If the US ceased to exist, the states would go on without much of a hiccup.
"Smaller issue" was your term which I took to mean the fleeting issues of the day and not those issues related to ongoing definitions of government.

I could have been wrong and apologize if I took it wrongly.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Not local control, local accountability.. ;)
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
"Smaller issue" was your term which I took to mean the fleeting issues of the day and not those issues related to ongoing definitions of government.

I could have been wrong and apologize if I took it wrongly.
Sorry, no... it was more of an "on second thought, smaller isn't the right term"...

bad segue on my part
 

Kanstantine

Banned
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
891
Reaction score
153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I support this party as it will suck away more Republican votes.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If we cannot as a people unite based on the thing that is the foundation of our society, perhaps our society is no longer worth saving and we all just need to continue the hatred and attacks that are enveloping and defining us.
Nonsense. Mindless worship of the Constitution is holding us back. The Constitution is just a silly blueprint for government written by slave-holding criminals; is not scripture! We need to scrap that centuries old rag and start again. In fact, one of those demi-gods you hold in such high esteem, Thomas Jefferson, suggested precisely that. Each generation needs a new Constitution.

So we don't need to be faithful to antiquated bull****. What we need is a new Constitution, and its first amendment needs to be the elimination of corporate personhood and limited liability. People need to be personally liable for the actions of their businesses.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
35,141
Reaction score
7,145
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I support this party as it will suck away more Republican votes.

I would agree. The Republicans do seem to like to at least pay lip service to the Constitution.

The Democrats use it only as the severity of their gastric system's effluent would demand.
 

Kanstantine

Banned
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
891
Reaction score
153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I would agree. The Republicans do seem to like to at least pay lip service to the Constitution.

The Democrats use it only as the severity of their gastric system's effluent would demand.
Lip service due to their fair-weathered support for the Constitution.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Nonsense. Mindless worship of the Constitution is holding us back. The Constitution is just a silly blueprint for government written by slave-holding criminals; is not scripture! We need to scrap that centuries old rag and start again. In fact, one of those demi-gods you hold in such high esteem, Thomas Jefferson, suggested precisely that. Each generation needs a new Constitution.

So we don't need to be faithful to antiquated bull****. What we need is a new Constitution, and its first amendment needs to be the elimination of corporate personhood and limited liability. People need to be personally liable for the actions of their businesses.
Wow, you should really, seriously watch this lecture from your fellow Libertarian... there are eight in the series


The constitution is the culmination of 800 years of direct exposure to tyranny of all forms, and acknowledges the flaws and failings of all men, including the authors. The forces that drive tyranny have not changed, and so the document is as good today as it was then.

As for corporate personhood, I absolutely agree, but tossing out the constitution in the midst of a crisis of corruption is a bad idea.

And Jefferson said nothing of replacing the constitution, he said there should be revolution every twenty years, a change of government, not necessarily it's structure or principles.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
. Why not have a Constitutional party that is guided only by the Constitution and that strives to be the party of all people?

.
Guess what Code1112 ?

There's already a "Constitution Party." It has a platform and been around for a long time just like the Libertarian Party.
Constitution Party > Home

Seven Principles Of The Constitution Party:


■Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
■Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
■Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
■Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
■Constitution And Bill Of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;
■State's Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.
■American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

We declare the platform of the Constitution Party to be predicated on the principles of

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,

AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS


according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. These founding documents are the foundation of our Liberty and the Supreme Law of the Land.

The sole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights given us by our Creator. When Government grows beyond this scope, it is usurpation, and liberty is compromised.

We believe the major issues we face today are best solved by a renewed allegiance to the original intent of these founding documents.

The Constitution 2012 Platform. -> Constitution Party > Our Principles > 2012 Platform
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Guess what Code1112 ?

There's already a "Constitution Party." It has a platform and been around for a long time just like the Libertarian Party.
Constitution Party > Home

Seven Principles Of The Constitution Party:


■Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
■Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
■Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
■Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
■Constitution And Bill Of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;
■State's Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.
■American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

We declare the platform of the Constitution Party to be predicated on the principles of

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,

AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS


according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. These founding documents are the foundation of our Liberty and the Supreme Law of the Land.

The sole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights given us by our Creator. When Government grows beyond this scope, it is usurpation, and liberty is compromised.

We believe the major issues we face today are best solved by a renewed allegiance to the original intent of these founding documents.

The Constitution 2012 Platform. -> Constitution Party > Our Principles > 2012 Platform
I'm sorry, for starters, where in the founding documents does it address marriage in any way shape or form?
 

Kanstantine

Banned
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
891
Reaction score
153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Declaration of Indepence recognizes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all mankind.

That would support gay marriage, assisted suicide for the terminally ill, drug use, and abortion rights.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm sorry, for starters, where in the founding documents does it address marriage in any way shape or form?
That's one of the advantages of actually being a card carrying member of any political party, you have a say so on what the party's platform will say.

If you remember last year during the Democrat National Convention the word "God" wasn't mentioned in the Democrat Party's Platform. Obama had second thoughts and ordered that the word "God" be mentioned in the platform. When it came to a vote, over 2/3 of the delegates voted no. The vote was taken three times and the majority said no. Then one of Obama's minions walked up and whispered something in Antonio Villaraigosa's (aka MEChA Boy) ear and they ignored the majority of the DNC delegates and put the word "god" in to the platform.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
That's one of the advantages of actually being a card carrying member of any political party, you have a say so on what the party's platform will say.

If you remember last year during the Democrat National Convention the word "God" wasn't mentioned in the Democrat Party's Platform. Obama had second thoughts and ordered that the word "God" be mentioned in the platform. When it came to a vote, over 2/3 of the delegates voted no. The vote was taken three times and the majority said no. Then one of Obama's minions walked up and whispered something in Antonio Villaraigosa's (aka MEChA Boy) ear and they ignored the majority of the DNC delegates and put the word "god" in to the platform.
Right, and I have a right to point out that several things on your list have nothing to do with what the constitution is, and more what you would like it to be.

At best marriage is a religious or familial contract, at worst it's a state/local issue. It is not a Constitutional issue.

So ya, you can call yourselves the constitutional party, but it rings false.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Right, and I have a right to point out that several things on your list have nothing to do with what the constitution is, and more what you would like it to be.

At best marriage is a religious or familial contract, at worst it's a state/local issue. It is not a Constitutional issue.

So ya, you can call yourselves the constitutional party, but it rings false.
Get it right, it's not my list but the Constitution Party's list.
 
Top Bottom