Constitutional Party

[APACHERAT]

Sorry, thought you had a say in what the platform was... my mistake.

I've read all of the different political parties platforms. I read them every four years because they all change every four years.

The Constitution Party is more aligned with my own political ideology than any other political party. But I'm a card carrying member of the Republican National Committee. By being so, I at least have one voice but since the late 1990's the conservative base of the Republican Party lost control of the Party to the neoconservatives. The neoconservatives lost control of the GOP in 2010 but unfortunately no one is in control of the GOP today.

Those who identify themselves as being independent have to be real careful, there is an "Independent Party" that is registered and recognised in many states and they also have a platform.

A couple of years ago on the Politico's forum I pointed that out to many who in their profiles identified themselves as being independents but the Politico options when picking your identity had independent capitalized (Independent) which would mean that they picked the "Independent Party." There were hundreds who changed their profile from "Independent" to "other" or something else.

I surprised the DP doesn't have "reactionary" which is right of conservative.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I've read all of the different political parties platforms. I read them every four years because they all change every four years.

The Constitution Party is more aligned with my own political ideology than any other political party. But I'm a card carrying member of the Republican National Committee. By being so, I at least have one voice but since the late 1990's the conservative base of the Republican Party lost control of the Party to the neoconservatives. The neoconservatives lost control of the GOP in 2010 but unfortunately no one is in control of the GOP today.

Those who identify themselves as being independent have to be real careful, there is an "Independent Party" that is registered and recognised in many states and they also have a platform.

A couple of years ago on the Politico's forum I pointed that out to many who in their profiles identified themselves as being independents but the Politico options when picking your identity had independent capitalized (Independent) which would mean that they picked the "Independent Party." There were hundreds who changed their profile from "Independent" to "other" or something else.

I surprised the DP doesn't have "reactionary" which is right of conservative.

Nice post.

Excellent observation on the neocons...

I'm not so sure the neocons lost control so much as strategically let go, pulled back. It seems to me that they had used the republican party as much as they could to advance their agenda, then transitioned to a more international, private sector, cross party mode. Honestly, I haven't seen much deviation in the Obama years from the plan laid out in the neocon manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses", we are still being positioned for a showdown with emerging powers and protection of resource interests in the middle east and Africa

 

[code1211]

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.

And all of those are State's Rights issues.

 

[code1211]

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.

As any party that is unconcerned with the voice of people would do.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Wow, you should really, seriously watch this lecture from your fellow Libertarian... there are eight in the series

Wow, a basic constitution class doesn't have any ****ing bearing whatsoever on what I'm saying. You should really, seriously give some critical thought to the outdated piece of paper you worship instead of assuming that anybody who doesn't like it must not understand it. You have proivded a perfect example of the doctrinaire bull**** thinking that is the problem here.

 

[samsmart]

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.

I see many people often talk about some kind of "Constitution Party" needing to be formed in order to follow the tenets of the Constitution that the two-party system doesn't.

But first you'd have to get people to agree on just what the tenets of the Constitution mean. And when you get to that step be prepared for some major infighting.

 

[samsmart]

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

I think parties are inevitable. Whenever you have people form a society you have people joined together with different agendas and motivations. And this has happened all throughout history.

The political wants and needs of people of one religion are different from the political wants and needs of people of another religion. And both of those are different from the political wants and needs of secularists.

The political wants and needs of people who engage in warfare are different from the political wants and needs of pacifists. And both of those are different from the political wants and needs wartime industries.

The political wants and needs of people who exploit natural resources are different from the political wants and needs of conservationists. And both of those are different from the political wants and needs of consumers.

The political wants and needs of people with wealth are different from the political wants and needs of people without wealth. And both of those are different from the political wants and needs of those politicians who hold political power over everyone.

So I think it was naive of George Washington to expect our country to be one without political parties.

Rather, I think we should design a system of government that works with political parties rather than ignore them entirely. I think we should design a system of government that makes multiple parties viable so during our elections our representative government can be truly representative of the people.

Which the current system does not allow.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I think parties are inevitable. Whenever you have people form a society you have people joined together with different agendas and motivations. And this has happened all throughout history.

The political wants and needs of people of one religion are different from the political wants and needs of people of another religion. And both of those are different from the political wants and needs of secularists.

The political wants and needs of people who engage in warfare are different from the political wants and needs of pacifists. And both of those are different from the political wants and needs wartime industries.

The political wants and needs of people who exploit natural resources are different from the political wants and needs of conservationists. And both of those are different from the political wants and needs of consumers.

The political wants and needs of people with wealth are different from the political wants and needs of people without wealth. And both of those are different from the political wants and needs of those politicians who hold political power over everyone.

So I think it was naive of George Washington to expect our country to be one without political parties.

Rather, I think we should design a system of government that works with political parties rather than ignore them entirely. I think we should design a system of government that makes multiple parties viable so during our elections our representative government can be truly representative of the people.

Which the current system does not allow.

I don't wish to embarrass you, but I think it's naive to say so much about something you've obviously not read. Washington was certainly NOT advocating no parties, and cites many of the reasons you list here.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

What he's saying is, parties are a natural consequence of any group of people, but that the passions of those parties should be held in check lest they result in the expression of the worst of men, not the good of the whole.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have parties, I'm saying on this issue, party allegiance is not necessary, and that embracing party before country will prevent rather than create a resolution to the problems we now face.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Wow, a basic constitution class doesn't have any ****ing bearing whatsoever on what I'm saying. You should really, seriously give some critical thought to the outdated piece of paper you worship instead of assuming that anybody who doesn't like it must not understand it. You have proivded a perfect example of the doctrinaire bull**** thinking that is the problem here.

LMAO... no, you have provided an example of your profound ignorance of history, enlightenment, human nature, etc.

If you do understand it and have no more regard for it than something to wipe your ass with, liberty and freedom cannot possibly be within your beliefs.

As for the class... it's far from basic, and it's eight hours long, which I doubt you have the attention span for, thus further fueling your ignorance.

Had you educated yourself, you would have found that it is perfectly within the scope of the constitution, and indeed one of it's intended affects, to limit corporations. It's not the constitution, but a supreme court series of mistakes that led to corporate overreach.

 

[code1211]

I see many people often talk about some kind of "Constitution Party" needing to be formed in order to follow the tenets of the Constitution that the two-party system doesn't.

But first you'd have to get people to agree on just what the tenets of the Constitution mean. And when you get to that step be prepared for some major infighting.

That's an excellent point. Out judges seem to find words in the Constitution that no sane person can see. Sane apparently the key word here.

For me the main thing is to get the money out of Washington. Maybe the "States Rights Party".

The Founders were very suspicious of the possibility that the power of the Feds would eventually completely eclipse the states. It turns out they had good cause for this concern.

Any way the corrupting nature of money and power seem to increase geometrically when they are combined and in Washington they are combined in huge amounts. The folks who populate that part of the world are a conniving and devious bunch and will use any opportunity to gain more of either power or money. The only way to get either is to steal it from the citizens.

They are accomplished at this theft and are getting better and better at doing it.

I suppose the TEA Party is the first step in the process to construct such a party and the threat is so great that the government is attacking it as would any beast attack any threat to its continued growth.

 

[samsmart]

That's an excellent point. Out judges seem to find words in the Constitution that no sane person can see. Sane apparently the key word here.

For me the main thing is to get the money out of Washington. Maybe the "States Rights Party".

The Founders were very suspicious of the possibility that the power of the Feds would eventually completely eclipse the states. It turns out they had good cause for this concern.

Any way the corrupting nature of money and power seem to increase geometrically when they are combined and in Washington they are combined in huge amounts. The folks who populate that part of the world are a conniving and devious bunch and will use any opportunity to gain more of either power or money. The only way to get either is to steal it from the citizens.

They are accomplished at this theft and are getting better and better at doing it.

I suppose the TEA Party is the first step in the process to construct such a party and the threat is so great that the government is attacking it as would any beast attack any threat to its continued growth.

Well if you wish to, that is your choice.

I won't be joining such a party because I think that state governments are more apt to violate civil rights and liberties than the federal government is.

After all, it was only until the federal government intervened in the South that African-Americans were able to enjoy the total of their civil rights and liberties, and only because of the measures taken by the federal government to enforce them. In this way the federal government actually protected the people from the tyranny of state governments.

So, personally, I won't be joining such a party.

 

[code1211]

Well if you wish to, that is your choice.

I won't be joining such a party because I think that state governments are more apt to violate civil rights and liberties than the federal government is.

After all, it was only until the federal government intervened in the South that African-Americans were able to enjoy the total of their civil rights and liberties, and only because of the measures taken by the federal government to enforce them. In this way the federal government actually protected the people from the tyranny of state governments.

So, personally, I won't be joining such a party.

Just as Federalism will probably not ever completely eliminate the borders of the states, returning much of the power that has flowed to DC will not completely shut the place down.

Simply by turning of the money flow to the place, we could reduce the corruption. Without the cash, what's the point?

The Feds should be limited to defending the borders, which they are doing poorly, delivering the mail, which they are doing inefficiently and regulating the relations of and between the various states. This would still call for the Supreme Court and still provide for the Federal Marshals who accomplished the task of desegregating the South.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Well if you wish to, that is your choice.

I won't be joining such a party because I think that state governments are more apt to violate civil rights and liberties than the federal government is.

After all, it was only until the federal government intervened in the South that African-Americans were able to enjoy the total of their civil rights and liberties, and only because of the measures taken by the federal government to enforce them. In this way the federal government actually protected the people from the tyranny of state governments.

So, personally, I won't be joining such a party.

That's a peculiar take on history... until the federal gov't intervened...?!?

The north did everything it could to avoid that war. And they didn't enter into it to free slaves, nor intervene in any way. The south seceded and tried to occupy federal property (military installations).

The great man Lincoln (no sarcasm) said he would end the war tomorrow without freeing a single slave if he could.

As final evidence I submit... THE WHOLE OF HUMAN HISTORY... A strong central gov't combined with a strong military spells, all too often, complete disaster for it's inhabitants.. States may still violate your rights, but they are easier to hold accountable. More so with local gov'ts

 

[samsmart]

That's a peculiar take on history... until the federal gov't intervened...?!?

The north did everything it could to avoid that war. And they didn't enter into it to free slaves, nor intervene in any way. The south seceded and tried to occupy federal property (military installations).

The great man Lincoln (no sarcasm) said he would end the war tomorrow without freeing a single slave if he could.

As final evidence I submit... THE WHOLE OF HUMAN HISTORY... A strong central gov't combined with a strong military spells, all too often, complete disaster for it's inhabitants.. States may still violate your rights, but they are easier to hold accountable. More so with local gov'ts

The African-Americans in the South couldn't hold the state or local governments accountable. Not until the federal government intervened on their behalf.

And I'm not talking just about slavery. I'm also talking about the Jim Crow era that followed after, which made African Americans second-class citizens. And this status was nationwide - it occurred in the North as well as in the South.

 

[samsmart]

Just as Federalism will probably not ever completely eliminate the borders of the states, returning much of the power that has flowed to DC will not completely shut the place down.

Simply by turning of the money flow to the place, we could reduce the corruption. Without the cash, what's the point?

The Feds should be limited to defending the borders, which they are doing poorly, delivering the mail, which they are doing inefficiently and regulating the relations of and between the various states. This would still call for the Supreme Court and still provide for the Federal Marshals who accomplished the task of desegregating the South.

The corruption would just go to the state governments rather than the federal government.

If it's corruption you want to deal with, turning off the flow of money are limiting what federal representatives can legislate on won't do anything.

Rather, the only sure mechanism would be to allow the people to pass federal laws via a national referendum. Giving the people the power to write or rescind laws is the only mechanism that will work in ending the corruption of our representatives.

 

[Guy Incognito]

LMAO... no, you have provided an example of your profound ignorance of history, enlightenment, human nature, etc.

If you do understand it and have no more regard for it than something to wipe your ass with, liberty and freedom cannot possibly be within your beliefs.

As for the class... it's far from basic, and it's eight hours long, which I doubt you have the attention span for, thus further fueling your ignorance.

Had you educated yourself, you would have found that it is perfectly within the scope of the constitution, and indeed one of it's intended affects, to limit corporations. It's not the constitution, but a supreme court series of mistakes that led to corporate overreach.

You think that fact that it's eight hours longs means it isn't basic? You're the one with a short attention span, friend.:lol:

If you understood the constitution, you'd know that the Supreme Court decisions are the only way to interpret what it actually means.

 

[code1211]

The corruption would just go to the state governments rather than the federal government.

If it's corruption you want to deal with, turning off the flow of money are limiting what federal representatives can legislate on won't do anything.

Rather, the only sure mechanism would be to allow the people to pass federal laws via a national referendum. Giving the people the power to write or rescind laws is the only mechanism that will work in ending the corruption of our representatives.

I suppose it is pointless to have this discussion since the corrupted, lying thieves that are stealing from us will not give up the power and bribes they are enjoying.

A national referendum might work, but bringing the money and the decision making closer to home is the best way to regulate it. A national referendum system will still leave the power to the Feds.

It's not who casts the votes. It's who counts them.

 

[code1211]

You think that fact that it's eight hours longs means it isn't basic? You're the one with a short attention span, friend.:lol:

If you understood the constitution, you'd know that the Supreme Court decisions are the only way to interpret what it actually means.

Rulings from the Supreme court are as political as any part of the government. The Constitution always said the same thing, but the rulings on Civil Rights and Race Relations reveal the bias and the political nature of the court.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Rulings from the Supreme court are as political as any part of the government. The Constitution always said the same thing, but the rulings on Civil Rights and Race Relations reveal the bias and the political nature of the court.

All law-government is political in nature. There is no objective meaning of the constiutipn divorced from Supreme Court interpretations. That is just a fantasy. The reality is that the constitution means what we act like it means.

 

[samsmart]

I suppose it is pointless to have this discussion since the corrupted, lying thieves that are stealing from us will not give up the power and bribes they are enjoying.

A national referendum might work, but bringing the money and the decision making closer to home is the best way to regulate it. A national referendum system will still leave the power to the Feds.

It's not who casts the votes. It's who counts them.

The same could be said in regards to state elections, and so are just as likely to be corrupted.