limbaughfan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 323
I was researching thier position on the issues, and they seem to be unclear. Does anyone here know what they stand for and how they differ from libertarians.
Constitution Party
- Thread starter limbaughfan
- Start date
- Status
limbaughfan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 323
ive seen the link, I was wondering if anyone who is a member could clarify thier position on the issues
Sistema1927
Member
Which issues? All of them?
limbaughfan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 323
take for instance thier position on drugs, they say they disagree withlibertarians about endiung the drug war but in another sectiopn they say it should be left up to the states.
MattC
Member
You asked what the difference is between the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is a political party that espouses individual rights that are not to be infringed by others and, so long as the act does not interfere with the rights of others, individuals can act how they choose to act. It's about a small government that gives powers to the states and limits federal intervention as closely as possible to the Constitution. The Constitution Party is a bit of a misnomer. From the comparisons I have seen in the past and from what I've read of their platform, they operate under the assumption that the country was founded by conservative Christians with the intent of having a conservative Christian nation. Their interpretations of the constitution and individual rights follow from that primary notion.
From their view, as best as I understand it: Drugs are immoral, and states should fight the scourge; the federal government should not have the power to engage in a war on drugs, due to the limitations placed on the federal government by the Constitution.
From their view, as best as I understand it: Drugs are immoral, and states should fight the scourge; the federal government should not have the power to engage in a war on drugs, due to the limitations placed on the federal government by the Constitution.
My impression of the Constitutional Party is that they do not understand freedom, but the understand some of what the Democrats and Republicans have done to screw up the nation, and destroy freedom. Some of their reaction to our current system of slavery is on point, but in some ways they would impose an even more draconian system of government control over freedom.
I think they have not thought out a solid morality, but rather adopted a religious based system of morality. Remember that Islam is a religious based system of morality also, which should tell you that religious based morality is not morality at all, nor either are the systems developed by the Jews or Christians, or any other group whose primary purpose is to set forth a hypotheses on the origin of the universe and the principles by which we should live.
We are much better served if we separate our speculation about the origin of the universe and the moral principles by which we best can live, and the Constitutional Party fails by mixing the two intellectual endeavors.
I think they have not thought out a solid morality, but rather adopted a religious based system of morality. Remember that Islam is a religious based system of morality also, which should tell you that religious based morality is not morality at all, nor either are the systems developed by the Jews or Christians, or any other group whose primary purpose is to set forth a hypotheses on the origin of the universe and the principles by which we should live.
We are much better served if we separate our speculation about the origin of the universe and the moral principles by which we best can live, and the Constitutional Party fails by mixing the two intellectual endeavors.
Your worldview is your morality. There is no form of morality that isn't based on "religion", so to speak, whether your religion believes in a God or not. Apparently, you just prefer a more humanistic worldview, as opposed to their Christian worldview. No problem with that, but it isn't quite honest to claim that theirs isn't "solid morality" because you disagree with the worldview that formed it, while claiming that what formed your worldview is different and, so, legitimate.
MikePGS
Member
From my experience, the constitution party seems to be a one issue party: Abortion. They use the word constitution in order to get people interested in them, but they seem to be a rather religious group that wants to ban abortion completely. So i guess they differ from the libertarians in a lot of ways really. They oppose abortion and euthanasia which differs from the libertarians in the sense that the libertarians believe that you should be able to do whatever you want with your body (though there are some libertarians who think that abortion is simply a state issue and are in fact pro life). The Constitution party also thinks that immigration should be illegal where the libertarian party is somewhat divided on this issue. The constitution party opposes homosexual unions, which is something libertarians generally support. Sorry for the long post, but someone asked for some of the differences. Everytime i've personally seen members of the constitution party, they seem to always be talking about making abortion illegal, which is why i said that they seem to be a one issue party to me. On the bright side though, they are pro second amendment.
LAK Supply
Member
Every time I see the Constitution Party come up in discussion on these boards, I always see people comparing them to the Taliban and other religious extremist groups.
If one would take the time to ask questions and read up on some of their candidates, they may see that they wish to uphold Biblical principles in the US. That would be terrible except for the fact that:
These principles are what the Founding Documents are already based upon.
These principles worked very well for a very long time. I'm not a particularly religious person, but I have no problem with the law of the land (the Constitution) being based on Biblical principles. If those principles are not there, the Constitution would be void.
If one would take the time to ask questions and read up on some of their candidates, they may see that they wish to uphold Biblical principles in the US. That would be terrible except for the fact that:
These principles are what the Founding Documents are already based upon.
These principles worked very well for a very long time. I'm not a particularly religious person, but I have no problem with the law of the land (the Constitution) being based on Biblical principles. If those principles are not there, the Constitution would be void.
MattC
Member
I do not want to enter into a religious dispute, since that cannot help but go off the high road in an online forum. I do want to mention, however, that the Constitution is secular and, though parts have commonality with the Christian Bible, and many parts of the Bible have commonality with other Western religions, the framers did not allow the word "god" to enter the Constitution when they were writing it. This was not an accident. Some of the founders were freethinkers, as well. The Constitution is established on an objective morality, some of which is shared with popular religions.
Please, if someone wants to specifically debate religion, send me a PM instead of posting. I hope I succeeded in keeping my post on-topic: about the Constitution Party and their interpretation of the Constitution.
I disagree. The principles are objective, not theocratic. The constitution stands as a secular document. Therefore, the Constitution Party is misrepresenting the Constitution and the founders for private religious purposes.LAK Supply said:
Please, if someone wants to specifically debate religion, send me a PM instead of posting. I hope I succeeded in keeping my post on-topic: about the Constitution Party and their interpretation of the Constitution.
Prince Yamato
Member
To get back on the 2A topic. The Constitution Party wants to roll all gun laws back to pre-1968 levels. I believe they would still retain the '34 GCA act. On other issues, they are basically disenchanted conservatives.
The Constitution Party advocates a conservative and Christian government, limited to the Constitution, as it was intended and written.
The Constitution basically divides questions of government into two categories: "Can We" and "Should we." The Constitution Party uses the Constitution to answer the first question, and if the answer is "yes, we can," they answer the question as "paleo-" social and economic conservatives would.
They sound a lot like the Libertarian Party because libertarians almost always answer the first question "no," and that happens to be consistent with the Constitution more often than not. The problem with Libertarians is that many wouldn't complain if the first answer is unconstitutionally answered "no." As an example: can a State ban pornography? The Constitutional answer is "yes," but you won't see many libertarians who are happy with that, and many would support an unconstitutional usurpation of power by Congress or the federal courts to keep it from happening.
The Constitution basically divides questions of government into two categories: "Can We" and "Should we." The Constitution Party uses the Constitution to answer the first question, and if the answer is "yes, we can," they answer the question as "paleo-" social and economic conservatives would.
They sound a lot like the Libertarian Party because libertarians almost always answer the first question "no," and that happens to be consistent with the Constitution more often than not. The problem with Libertarians is that many wouldn't complain if the first answer is unconstitutionally answered "no." As an example: can a State ban pornography? The Constitutional answer is "yes," but you won't see many libertarians who are happy with that, and many would support an unconstitutional usurpation of power by Congress or the federal courts to keep it from happening.
limbaughfan
--------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
That means; they believe that legislating them is the realm of the States as individual sovereign states - not the federal government.
--------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Politically, the united states is NOT founded on biblical principles. It is founded entirely on the Lockean premise that men, existing in a state of nature, band together, ceding certain limited powers unto government for the purpose of enhancing their own ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness, while retaining all other such powers and rights not otherwise indicated.
This premise appears nowhere int he bible that I am aware of, will be interested in hearing anyone cite chapter and verse on that.
As much as I object to the utilization of our national operating system to enforce a leftist collectivist utopia upon us all, I object equally to the utilization of our national operating system to enforce a christian utopia upon us all.
Our national OS is specifically designed to prevent BOTH of those possibilities, WHILE AT THE SAME time preserving our own ability to live our lives and practice our faiths as we see fit.
In short, it is designed such that we can build our own utopias for ourselves, while at the same time requiring us to leave others to their own pursuits.
This premise appears nowhere int he bible that I am aware of, will be interested in hearing anyone cite chapter and verse on that.
As much as I object to the utilization of our national operating system to enforce a leftist collectivist utopia upon us all, I object equally to the utilization of our national operating system to enforce a christian utopia upon us all.
Our national OS is specifically designed to prevent BOTH of those possibilities, WHILE AT THE SAME time preserving our own ability to live our lives and practice our faiths as we see fit.
In short, it is designed such that we can build our own utopias for ourselves, while at the same time requiring us to leave others to their own pursuits.
LawBot5000
Member
The constitution party are like old fashioned small government conservatives with a religious leaning. I think the religious angle is an attempt at coalition builiding because federalism works well for both libertarian and religious goals. The fight between libertarians and religious groups would then take place at the state level.
I personally think this is ok because I am more worried about socialists digging into my pocket (which they do automatically through withholding) than conservatives peeking into my bedroom window (which is protected by the 4th amendment and various trespass laws). And I would much rather have to deal with bad state level laws than bad federal laws. If CA wants to tax people at 50 percent and legalize sodomy and marijuana, let them. If FL wants to ban people at 0 percent and legalize machine guns, let them.
I personally dont think the US Congress has any business:
-passing laws for or against marijuana
-passing laws for or against abortion
-doing anything education related
-passing laws that harm gun ownership or use
-punishing crimes that only occur in one state. This "effect on interestate commerce" BS has to stop. Just because a gun was made in another state doesnt mean the crime it is involved in relates to interstate commerce. If it is obvious to a 10 year old, why not a supreme court justice?
and by extension, I certainly think the Supreme Court has no business passing such laws either.
I personally think this is ok because I am more worried about socialists digging into my pocket (which they do automatically through withholding) than conservatives peeking into my bedroom window (which is protected by the 4th amendment and various trespass laws). And I would much rather have to deal with bad state level laws than bad federal laws. If CA wants to tax people at 50 percent and legalize sodomy and marijuana, let them. If FL wants to ban people at 0 percent and legalize machine guns, let them.
I personally dont think the US Congress has any business:
-passing laws for or against marijuana
-passing laws for or against abortion
-doing anything education related
-passing laws that harm gun ownership or use
-punishing crimes that only occur in one state. This "effect on interestate commerce" BS has to stop. Just because a gun was made in another state doesnt mean the crime it is involved in relates to interstate commerce. If it is obvious to a 10 year old, why not a supreme court justice?
and by extension, I certainly think the Supreme Court has no business passing such laws either.
Autolycus
Member
If you want to preserve freedom you should look at the Libertarian party rather than the Constitution party. The Constitution party has a great sounding name but in all truth they seem to represent the religious right at heart. Its a clever disguise.
LawBot5000
Member
If you want to preserve freedom, you should vote in the dominant primary in your state, not the general election. The libertarian party only gets to compete after the election has already been decided.
cbsbyte
Member
Don't be fooled
The Constitution party is nothing more than a thinly vailed attempt by a group of people who want nothing more than to create a theocracy on the level of Iran in this country. Its best to stay with the seperation of Church and State.
The Constitution party is nothing more than a thinly vailed attempt by a group of people who want nothing more than to create a theocracy on the level of Iran in this country. Its best to stay with the seperation of Church and State.
Autolycus
Member
Well I would have to register Democrat as they share more of my views as of late rather than the GOP.
I think that since the Libertarians represent about 99% of my views they should be the party I vote for.
Ratzinger_p38
Member
LawBot5000 has it right. They are what youd call nowadays 'Paleoconservatives' - the small goverment, usually anti-war (as it is 'immoral') conservatives. Imagine your 1950s Republicans like Eisenhower, only more religious.
You guys calling them comparable to Iran are way wrong. Honestly, as a Libertarian I agree with them on most things, it is religion where Libertarians and Paleos diverge.
You guys calling them comparable to Iran are way wrong. Honestly, as a Libertarian I agree with them on most things, it is religion where Libertarians and Paleos diverge.
I'm a big fan of the Constitution Part (the Concerned Citizens Part at the state level here in Connecticut). I have actually had the oppertunity to converse with their former CT US senate candidate as well. In the November election I voted for 4 of their candidates and 5 Republicans. For the record, I'm registered Republican.
Major differences:
Abortion- many libertarians are pro-choice. As a rule of thumb, Constitutionalists are going to be very pro-life.
Religion- Libertarians often see the incorporation of religion in public/government as religious indoctrination and contrary to the 1st Ammendment. Liberterians are usually especially opposed to the 10 Commandments being posted in schools. The Constitutionalists believe in freedom of, not from religion and actively support public displays of traditional Christian values.
Drugs- The Constitutionalists believe that drug enforcement is constitutional.
There's probably some more that I'm not listing...
Major differences:
Abortion- many libertarians are pro-choice. As a rule of thumb, Constitutionalists are going to be very pro-life.
Religion- Libertarians often see the incorporation of religion in public/government as religious indoctrination and contrary to the 1st Ammendment. Liberterians are usually especially opposed to the 10 Commandments being posted in schools. The Constitutionalists believe in freedom of, not from religion and actively support public displays of traditional Christian values.
Drugs- The Constitutionalists believe that drug enforcement is constitutional.
There's probably some more that I'm not listing...
- Status