Constitution Party

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You asked what the difference is between the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party.

The Constitution Party would need around three times the number of votes they received in 2004 to be as irrelevant as the Libertarian Party?

Our system of government is enormously biased towards a two-party system. This doesn't mean that third parties can't succeed; but it does almost certainly mean that there is almost never three viable parties in an election at once. Even where third parties have been successful, it is the result of an implosion of one of the existing two major parties.

To give an example, the last successful third party - the Republican party - formed after the implosion of the Whig party and represented an alliance of many different parties all opposed to slavery.

 

[Soybomb]

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.

I'd like to clear up the libertarian side of that a little. When I object to the 10 commandments being posted in classrooms, its not on the basis of asking from freedom from religion, its me asking that there be no government establishment of religion. I do not want any portion of my tax dollars going toward paying for religious activities. This of course includes teaching religion in schools that I pay for. I support public displays of all religions as long as I'm not paying for them.

 

[rlb]

If Congress passed a law requiring all schools to post the ten commandments, it might come close "respecting an establishment of religion." It wouldn't, [it is, however, unconstitutional on other grounds] but assume it does.

If a State requires it, is that State "Congress"? Is a local school board "Congress"? Is an individual teacher "Congress"? Does posting the ten commandments in every classroom in one State respect an establishment of religion for the entire country? One school district? One classroom?

If you're willing to change words of the Constitution to get a result you'd like, what's wrong with doing the same thing to the 2nd amendment next?

 

[Erinyes]

If Congress passed a law requiring all schools to post the ten commandments, it might come close "respecting an establishment of religion." It wouldn't, [it is, however, unconstitutional on other grounds] but assume it does.

If a State requires it, is that State "Congress"? Is a local school board "Congress"? Is an individual teacher "Congress"? Does posting the ten commandments in every classroom in one State respect an establishment of religion for the entire country? One school district? One classroom?

If you're willing to change words of the Constitution to get a result you'd like, what's wrong with doing the same thing to the 2nd amendment next?

Constitutional limitations apply to the states, too, through the 14th Amendment. Letting individual states mess with rights and violate constitutional restrictions makes no more sense than letting the fed gov do it.

 

[rlb]

Constitutional limitations apply to the states, too, through the 14th Amendment. Letting individual states mess with rights and violate constitutional restrictions makes no more sense than letting the fed gov do it.

Assuming that the 1st amendment is incorporated against the States... what's the result? The right protected by the establishment clause is the right not to be forced to financially support an official church of the United States.

Presumably we can substitute "state legislature" for "Congress," but the clear intent of the first amendment was avoidance of a national religion, like the Church of England. Several States had established religions when the amendment was written, and continued for a long time after. It is a national protection, not a local one; and it seems almost impossible for a State law to respect an establishment of religion for the entire country. If Utah declares the LDS to be its state religion, does it respect a declaration of a state religion for the entire United States? I don't think so. An honest incorporation of the First Amendment against the States would have almost no effect on them.

 

[geekWithA.45]

An honest incorporation of the First Amendment against the States would have almost no effect on them.

er, I don't think so.

The 14th clarifies that the B of R pertains to the states as it does to the feds, and constrains the state legislatures from trespassing upon immunities, rights and privileges in the same way as the federal legislature is. ("Incorporation", per se, is an abberant extraconstitutional judicial teaching, and as such, is a different topic altogether.)


Hugh Damright and a (very) few others disagree with that interpretation of the 14th, and argue for the primacy of the Free States, but have never explained what systematically limits of the State's power to trample the rights of the individual.

 

[rlb]

I meant that it would have almost no effect as it relates to the establishment clause. Obviously the other parts would.