Posted on 04/11/2006 7:31:43 AM PDT by SJackson
Respectfully, the actions by this Administration have not put the Constitution in jeopardy.
Truth in Advertising:
The Tinfoil Hat Psycho Jesus Party - not the Constitution Party.
I swear - throwing in the word "Constitution" is all it takes to get some slack-jaws in an excited lather.
Abortion, if a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. , who is going to find that ban on abortion the CP contends is in the Constitution? The Executive Branch?
Social Security, eliminating it is a losing position, but a position at least. The CP notes the government has an obligation to pay those who've paid ss taxes. That's fine as a moral position, though it conflicts with their contension that SS is unconstitutional. As does there proposal to eliminate the pensions of legislators, also an obligation. How are they going to continue SS payments as the program winds down, if the SS tax is unconstitutional and thus won't be collected? They do know it's a pay as you go program, don't they?
Panama Canal. To propose that the government of the United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity while at the same time promising never again shall United States troops be employed on any foreign field of battle without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by the United States Constitution is just plain silly. Are we going to declare war on Panama, and if not how does that fit with except in time of declared war, for the purposes of state security, no state national guard or reserve troops shall be called upon to support or conduct operations in foreign theatres.
Eliminate the "general ticket" electoral concept, return the election of Senators to the States, people are up nights worrying about that issue.
Eliminate the income tax, ss tax, and estate tax as unconstitutional, oppose to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals on similar grounds I presume, and fund the government with tariffs. You better have some solid data to back that idea up with.
jury shall be fully informed of its right to nullify the law, what's that, outreach to OJ supporters?
You may suupport them in totality, but in my view the platform is a hodgepodge to pick off single issue voters. And they're not even successful at that.
Of course not, there should be no war on terror, simply punishment of the criminals involved.
Individuals responsible for acts of terrorism must be punished for their crimes, including the infliction of capital punishment where appropriate. In responding to terrorism, however, the United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward the United States and its people;
By and large, I find myself in complete agreement with the CP. But you're right, this one issue is pivotal, and that statement stands in complete contrast to an otherwise soundly conservative platform.
Read the documents showing the connection between the Saddam regime and AQ, and those showing the information on the WMDs.
Why? We SHOULD have declared war in Congress for all this. If we declared war, not only would it be constitutional, it would also bring into play those nice things like sedition laws and make other necessities kosher as well.
Sedition laws? You better reread the platform, I can't imagine the CP supporting sedition laws.
That particular plank of the Constitution Party is so incomplete regarding the US Constitution that it is breath-taking.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
As most anyone can see, the constitution provides for all kinds of military action less than all-out war. It also provides Congress the authority to make and pass laws. Congress has passed various laws that define and control military operations that are less than all-out war.
If you think the Constitution Party is "single-issue," it shows that you haven't bothered to read the platform. I find myself agreeing with much more of it on a range of issues than with any other party's platform or policies.
"Compulsory government service is incompatible with individual liberty."
I don't think history bears that out. I tend to be sympathetic to the CP, but I don't really like a lot of their platform. They seem to be a bit over the top.
What's the Constitution Party's stance on Iran's nuclear weapons and/or China's still targetted nuclear weapons on American sites? I'm not trying to make a point, I honestly don't know and would like to.
Thanks!
I've read it, address posts 24 and 31 please.
IMO the CP garners support, and not much of it, by picking off single issue voters. The platform is shallow, inconsistant and bereft of details on programs that would turn the country on it's head..
You may suupport them in totality, but in my view the platform is a hodgepodge to pick off single issue voters. And they're not even successful at that.
Don't know, though it's clear in their it would take a Congressional declaration of war to act.
So this "party" believes in surrender and aligns with Kerry on Terror and War. Bye-bye.
I don't intend to, I was simply interested in supporters explain some of their positions, as noted in post 24 and 31.
Yes, thanks for the post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.