It's time for a new party: The Constitutional Party

[LuckyBrush]

As long as there even is a "political" party, we're all up Sh** creek without a paddle.

 

[rcuhljr]

Political parties are not government, they are private associations. Are you saying that it should be illegal for a private association to endorse religion or help members of that religion get elected?

Of course not. I'm pointing out why people find it contradictory that a group basing itself around the constitution making a specific religion one of it's basic arguments.

If you don't like their choice, you simply don't vote for them.

Exactly. This thread is about why they aren't a widely known party, and some purported that perhaps this contradiction was the reason why.

I mean when you combine that with the hundreds of other strongly religious and often misleading erroneous arguments they make it's not wonder they aren't that well known.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations

Returning to BIBLICAL LAW? And you don't see that as a conflict of no preferred government religion?

Really they just end up being a libertarian party for the extremely religious, I'll take my political parties sans forced religious arguments.

 

[cce1302]

Diluting the Vote with 3rd, 4th or 5th Parties insure a long line of Obama Democrats. Vote 3rd Party or stay at home and insure their continued victory. All Politics are local, Change what we have from the ground up. No Pork, Smaller Government, States Rights, Term Limits etc.

And voting for people like McCain and the republicans will get you either Obama or McCain. Not a significant difference there. I didn't want McCain to win any more than I wanted Obama. Forgive me for voting for the guy I wanted to be president.

 

[4sarge]

And voting for people like McCain and the republicans will get you either Obama or McCain. Not a significant difference there. I didn't want McCain to win any more than I wanted Obama. Forgive me for voting for the guy I wanted to be president.

Well you helped give us Barry Obama and Thanks for that Keep voting 3rd Party or just write in Mickey Mouse and we'll have Obama forever

 

[cce1302]

Well you helped give us Barry Obama and Thanks for that Keep voting 3rd Party or just write in Mickey Mouse and we'll have Obama forever

News flash: so did you. Obama got more than 52% of the vote, so no matter how you split the other 48%, Obama would have won.
I can't believe how many people keep blaming 3rd party voters for Obama. It's like their 1st grade math teacher failed them.

Anyway, you're welcome. As I said, I didn't want McCain to be my president any more than I wanted Obama.

Thanks to you and all those that voted for McCain. if you had all voted for Barr, he would have gotten 48% of the vote instead, and that would have made a huge difference.

 

[4sarge]

News flash: so did you. Obama got more than 52% of the vote, so no matter how you split the other 48%, Obama would have won.
I can't believe how many people keep blaming 3rd party voters for Obama. It's like their 1st grade math teacher failed them.

Anyway, you're welcome. As I said, I didn't want McCain to be my president any more than I wanted Obama.

Thanks to you and all those that voted for McCain. if you had all voted for Barr, he would have gotten 48% of the vote instead, and that would have made a huge difference.

Your Quite Welcome, and proud to say that I didn't throw away my vote. Mickey has a chance to win the next one but it'll probably be Barry Forever. Thanks for your help in CHANGE'ing America forever

 

[cce1302]

Your Quite Welcome, and proud to say that I didn't throw away my vote. Mickey has a chance to win the next one but it'll probably be Barry Forever. Thanks for your help in CHANGE'ing America forever

Wow. You really don't get it.
Bye now.

 

[Glockster]

If they are so much about the Constitution, why are they trying to destroy the Founders beliefs of Seperation of Church and State?

Ding Ding Ding Ding....exactly. My OP was that this Constitutional Party starts by imposing their religion before getting to the constitution part. Like it or not, that approach will NEVER become a party of sufficient appeal to become electable. Can't we just have a party that supports the Constitution without interjection of all the other trappings?

 

[smokingman]

All I want to know is which party is for the angry, meat-eating, gun toting American!

Libertarian. Libertarian Party | Smaller Government | Lower Taxes | More Freedom
For smaller government,lower taxes,and more(restore)freedoms.
What is The Libertarian Party?

The Libertarian Party is your representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and competent individual.



America's Heritage

Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility. Libertarians recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this precious heritage for our children and grandchildren.
Free and Independent

Libertarians believe that being free and independent is a great way to live. We want a system which encourages all people to choose what they want from life; that lets them live, love, work, play, and dream their own way.


Caring For People

The Libertarian way is a caring, people-centered approach to politics. We believe each individual is unique. We want a system which respects the individual and encourages us to discover the best within ourselves and develop our full potential.
Principled; Consistent

The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
Tolerant

The Libertarian Party is for all who don't want to push other people around and don't want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.

 

[Joe Williams]

Ding Ding Ding Ding....exactly. My OP was that this Constitutional Party starts by imposing their religion before getting to the constitution part. Like it or not, that approach will NEVER become a party of sufficient appeal to become electable. Can't we just have a party that supports the Constitution without interjection of all the other trappings?

Since when is stating what they believe "imposing?" You are free not to believe the same things and free not to join the party. It's downright honest of them to tell you what they stand for and who they are looking for. "Imposing" is hardly correct.

 

[flightsimmer]

If they are so much about the Constitution, why are they trying to destroy the Founders beliefs of Seperation of Church and State?

Hold on there, there is no "seperation of church and state" clause in the Constitution period or the bill of rights. That's a lie that has been passed on almost from the beginning.
If you read the Constitution and the Federalist papers carefully you will find that they wanted to prevent a state sponsored chuch like the church of England which was the only officialy recognized church and banned all others. People were tortured (dare I say that) if they didn't swear allegiance to the church of England and the founding fathers wanted that stopped.
They didn't want any one religion being favored over any other. They had no intent of keeping God out of our politics as witnessed by there inclusion of His name all around our capitol and in our laws ect. ect.
That is precisely why we are in the shape we find ourselves in because we have told God to stay out of our business and so He has.
I remember well what Jesus said, "You can do nothing without ME" and whether you believe it or not it is true.

 

[Glockster]

Since when is stating what they believe "imposing?" You are free not to believe the same things and free not to join the party. It's downright honest of them to tell you what they stand for and who they are looking for. "Imposing" is hardly correct.

You are correct, Joe. Everyone is free not to join their party (and they seem to be doing a good job of that). My point is the conflict that I observe in the first sentence of their preamble and the 1st Amendment. Please explain to me how you rationalize the freedom of religion language in 1A and the Constitutional Party's declaration that Jesus Christ is the "ruler....of the United States". Why can't they just simply support the constitution without bringing in a specific religion? This renders them untenable as far as ever winning elections, and therefore, they are no use to me.

 

[level.eleven]

Well you helped give us Barry Obama and Thanks for that Keep voting 3rd Party or just write in Mickey Mouse and we'll have Obama forever

You do know that the 2 major parties wrote into law many barriers to entry for 3rd party candidates to attain ballot access. One of the usual stipulations is that the 3rd party must receive X% of the vote to remain on the ballot in that given state. Writing in Mickey Mouse is truly "throwing your vote away".

I will never feel shame for voting for what I believe in. I am no interested in receiving the results of the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still...well, evil.

Instead of trying to stick blame on people for voting for Libertarians, maybe the R's should work on winning some of those people back with a focus on liberty and less big government growth. To borrow/manipulate a famous quote...."I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me."

 

[Pami]

FWIW, although it's a little late, the Hamilton County Libertarian Party is having a meetup tonight at Barley Island on Conner Street in Noblesville at 7 pm. It's an informal gathering of LP members as well as the LP curious where we discuss current issues such as the CIB issue, property tax caps, education, etc. Most counties have just recently had their annual conventions, and LPIN just had the State convention last month, so there's a lot of talk about who our candidates in the next election are going to be.

Indiana is very fortunate to actually have a strong Libertarian Party. Because our Secretary of State candidate has successfully won 2% or more of the vote, the LPIN doesn't have to go through the whole entire process of getting candidates on the ballots such as another independent party would.

If you're even curious about what the LP issues are or what the Party stands for, I strongly encourage you to come to one of these meetings. Hamilton County meets on the first Thursday of each month, generally at Barley Island. Marion County's informal meetups are on the third Wednesday of each month, generally at the Border's at 86th & Keystone (although they are looking for a bigger place to have it since there have been a lot more people curious about the Party in recent months).

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to send me a PM. I'm still new to the Party myself, but if I don't feel comfortable answering your question, I know people I can pass it on to and get the answer for you.

 

[Pami]

Side note: It is ABSOLUTELY about building the party from the ground up. We need to start with city/county council members, we need to start with assessors (for as long as those positions are available, anyway), we need to start with state legislators, we need to start with mayors, governors, secretaries of state. Start on the local level, and when a third party presence is demanded, the national level will HAVE to make room for it.

 

[4sarge]

Side note: It is ABSOLUTELY about building the party from the ground up. We need to start with city/county council members, we need to start with assessors (for as long as those positions are available, anyway), we need to start with state legislators, we need to start with mayors, governors, secretaries of state. Start on the local level, and when a third party presence is demanded, the national level will HAVE to make room for it.

 

[Ogre]

Sorry if my comment offended you Ogre. However, I don't need to do any further research to believe in my description of the Libertarian Party as impotent. I go to the polls every year. I see the results. Nuff said.

Actually, my comment about working on your research was in regards to the fact you came up with a whole new political party that, in fact, has been around for nearly 16 years... And as far as the "impotent party", it looks to me like the R's need a "viagra" just as much as anyone....

 

[finity]

Hold on there, there is no "seperation of church and state" clause in the Constitution period or the bill of rights. That's a lie that has been passed on almost from the beginning.

True that that exact statement was not in the Constitution but that doesn't make it, as the theory behind the freedom of religion clause in the 1A, any less valid.

That exact statement was, however, written in a letter explaining the meaning of the 1A by a guy named Thomas Jefferson. You know him don't you? He was a pretty influential guy back then.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson

Jan.1.1802.

That phrase has been used by the SCOTUS in at least two major decisions on the meaning of the 1A:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.
98 U.S. 145 (1878)​

At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.​

Everson v Board (330 US 1 [1947]):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

There is a very interesting discussion of the subject here:

Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

They didn't want any one religion being favored over any other.

Or any religion favored over none. IOW, atheists have religious freedom, too.

They had no intent of keeping God out of our politics as witnessed by there inclusion of His name all around our capitol and in our laws ect. ect.

Strangely though, & very telling, is the conspicuous lack of any reference to god in the Constitution.

References to god on our money & in the Pledge of Allegiance was not made until way later in our history.