Posted on 04/11/2006 7:31:43 AM PDT by SJackson
Since third parties, specifically the Constitution Party, have become an issue
Constitution Party on Immigration
Constitution Party gains strength, could hurt Republicans
I thought it might be helpful to look at issues other than immigration. The entire platform is in post 1, since there are issues other than the WOT and immigration.
Terrorism and Personal Liberty
America is engaged in an undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy (terrorism), a war which threatens to be never ending, and which is being used to vastly expand government power, particularly that of the executive branch, at the expense of the individual liberties of the American people.
The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs.
We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as "Patriot II").
The National Security Act is used by the federal government as a shroud to prevent the American people and our elected officials from knowing how much and where our tax dollars are spent from covert operations around the world. The National Security Act prevents the release of Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, e.g., PDD 25, to the American people and our elected representatives. Not only are many of these used to thwart justice in the name of national security, but some of the operations under this act may threaten our very national sovereignty.
The USA PATRIOT Act permits arrests without warrants and secret detention without counsel, wiretaps without court supervision, searches and seizures without notification to the individual whose property is invaded, and a host of other violations of the legal safeguards our nation has historically developed according to principles descending from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Since we will no longer have a free nation while the federal government (or the governments of the several states, as the federal government may authorize) can violate our historic rights under such laws, we call for the rejection of all such laws and the ceasing of any such further proposals including the aforementioned Domestic Securities Enhancement Act.
The Constitution Party is unalterably opposed to the criminal acts of terrorists, and their organizations, as well as the governments which condone them. 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; and
In accord with the views of our Founding Fathers, we must disengage this nation from the international entanglements which generate foreign hatred of the United States, and are used as the excuse for terrorist attacks on America and its people. The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments.
----------------------
Peroutka’s Plan for Iraq
April 16, 2004
"I like President Bush personally. He is a sincere man. I respect his office. But, it is becoming painfully obvious that he has no plan to get our country out of the un-Constitutional, bloody, deadly, mess going on in Iraq. In fact, Mr. Bush and John Kerry both favor putting more troops into Iraq. In his recent press conference, Mr. Bush said our troops would be in Iraq 'as long as necessary,' 'for a while,' until Iraq is 'a free country.' He said Iraqis would provide their own security 'eventually.' I strongly disagree. As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war.
"I, like President Bush, hope that the Iraqi people, and all people, will be free from tyranny. But, unlike President Bush, I realize that, Constitutionally, as President, it would not be my job to use our military to spread 'freedom' everywhere in the world. Unlike President Bush, I, as President, would realize that I had been elected President of the United States, not President of the World.
"In 1821, John Quincy Adams said, of America:
'She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.'
But, ignoring Adams' wise advice, President Bush, using our military, has gone abroad and destroyed the monster Saddam Hussein who posed no threat to the vital national security interests of our country. The result: We are bogged down in a bloody and expensive mess with no end in sight. If elected President, however, I would move immediately to end our involvement in Iraq. I am not one who believes that when you are in a hole you should not be in, you should keep digging. "
For God, Family and the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka
----------------------
Peroutka says, "Article I.8 of the US Constitution does not grant to Congress the power of "nation-building." If I am elected President, no longer will these United States seek regime change nor the concept of spreading democracy through warfare, and the children within these United States will not be committed to engage in a war to `free' any people."
And a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage, and a winning lottery ticket.
If you've read the platform, then you know it's not single-issue in any way. The party platform covers the waterfront of issues.
And it's very consistent. Every plank is about restoring the constitutional limits on the Federal government. Believe me, with a Constitution Party government you'd keep a LOT more of your own money, have a LOT less government to pay for, and be freer, wealthier, and every bit as secure.
Read later.
I suppose it's really hard to say that you completely agree with a party's platform, unless you found the party. Granted, there are some planks that I disagree with the CP about, but I find myself agreeing more with the Constitution Party than with the Republican Party. It's just that the current election law makes it a pain for the CP to get out there like the Majority Parties can, so they don't stand a chance of winning.
But personally, I'll probably split my ticket this next election between CP's and Republicans. It all comes down to the candidates. I'll be voting for a Republican governor in Michigan, but the CP for my state district house and representative.
I voted CP in '96 and '00. Peroutka in '04 called the Iraq action "immoral."
That tore it for me.
Of course not. See post 24 and 31. They highlight the WOT, Social Security, Abortion, Taxation, and the use of military force; those are major issues people vote on, not tangental. Personally, I'll take the RP hands down.
Of course, the pubbies have a lot of pretty words in their platform too. It is unfortunate that none of it means anything. At the moment, I wouldn't trust a republican OR democrat politician to accurately predict the sunrise.
Same here. Open borders (kinda like the republicans and democrats) pretty much kill it for me too. Drug legalization is not an important issue for me, except for the fact that some of the worst legislation and court precidents have come in the name of the WoD.
Right, the Believe me Platform.
Address the inconsistancies in post 24 and 31
No income tax, no social security tax, though benefits will continue, no sales tax, no VAT, the government will be funded by tariffs.
Please provide me with credible research, which itself could be wrong, to justify turning the country on it's financial head. Convince me that that leads to a freer, wealthier nation, with me keeping more of my money, as opposed to a recipe for financial meltdown and anarchy.
The CP has the buzzwords right, beyond that it's believe me
To some extent you're right.
It's a shame when the pics get pulled, still better than having them replaced with porn. Wish FR had a way of hosting them.
Don't know, though it's clear in their it would take a Congressional declaration of war to act.
No, not at all, and you know that.
To conduct an actual, all-out war constitutionally requires a declaration of war. Although the Constitution doesn't specify the form that should take, it's generally considered that a statement declaring openly the existence of a state of war should appear in it somewhere.
But to take down Iran's nuclear facility, while military action, is not to mount a full-scale war or invasion. It is a specifically targeted military action. It would be helpful if Congress authorized it, but the President as Commander in Chief has pretty broad authority. It is not unlimited, however.
But shouldwe choose to undertake a specific, targeted military action, that appears to be covered short of declaring war.
A herculean task.
"If elected President, however, I would move immediately to end our involvement in Iraq."
Funny, his name doesn't look french.
I support the CP, but their stand on Iraq is wrong.
It ignores who the enemy is. Their position is that the enemy is poorly-defined, therefore we shouldn't attack them. It ignores what lengths the enemy is willing to go to to inflict harm on us. It ignores the potential for harm that modern weapons are capable of, thus does not see a need for pre-emptive action.
The CP is composed of brilliant people, therefore I don't believe that they are short-sighted idiots like the democrats.
I tend to believe that the CP is taking this position so that they can be seen as a party that is distinct from the Republicans. I don't believe that they need to do this...the GOP has now moved to the left-of-center all on its own.
So while the CP may be right on all other issues, I will not be able to vote for them if they choose to be wrong on this very important issue.
I suggest that freepers support the Republican Liberty Caucus and work for change from within the Republican Party. I think it would be much easier to purge the party of Bush-type compassionate conservatives and replace them with actual conservatives than it would be to start a new party.
What do you consider signing Campaign Finance Reform and flushing money away on unconstitutional education and health care programs?
I imagine Democrats reading that platform would foam at the mouth. Of course, so would Republicans.
I call it bad politics.
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.