The Constitution Party on the War on Terror

The Constitution Party ^ | 4-11-06

[SelectiveJNJ]

Hey thanks...thats one Third Party I will never join!

"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."

Was he saying that 4 years ago or only after we found no WMDs?

And how can they call themselves teh Constition Party when they endorse a specific religion? Hellllo?

[pcottraux]

From a domestic conservative stand-point, the Constitution Party sounds great.

However, as you've demonstrated, their position on Iraq/the War on Terror shows them making classic Buchananite mistakes.

They make wrong assumptions that somehow combating terrorism aggressively is "unAmerican," and that using military force during times of war somehow "expands government powers" and "erodes our liberties."

However, the idea of being anti-military and anti-war is actually a classic left-wing Marxist doctrine.

[KevinDavis]

I'm planning on doing that.. I thought about voting for the Libertarian Party, but since the Ohio recount fiasco, I will never vote for that party.. As for the Constitution, never..

[TheGunny]

Im with you. It looks like they are simply the party of disenfranchised losers! They are destined to be nothing more than a giggle/ hiccup in American political history.

[bill1952]

Jesus Christ, nobody is going to read all of that drival!

Constitution party equals another wasted vote. Period.
They will never hold one national office and probably not one state office.

[bill1952]

Exact thing for me, as well.

Now I wasn't going to vote libertarian in any national election, but I was sympathetic to most of their stated ideals until their leaders started the isolationist and anti war drums.
Even watching that unfold was embarrassing.
That green party Ohio vote alliance thing tore their credibility to shreds with me.

The GREENS???
Heck, why not just David Duke or the flat earth society?

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

Too bad, so sad. Another party comes to the forefront when the main two just 'aint doing their job. Maybe they'll clean up their act...

[dighton]

Another party comes to the forefront when the main two just 'aint doing their job.

The Rats are already doing cut and run quite nicely, thank you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

for your information

[Albion Wilde]

Thanks for the ping... to the 19th century?! :-D

[backtothestreets]

The Constitution Party is a toothless lion where defense is concerned. Everyone needs to read the Party Platform carefully, then ask themselves honestly if our nation would even exist today had their platform been the law of the land in WWII. Specifically read the following:

Conscription

Compulsory government service is incompatible with individual liberty.

We oppose imposition of the draft, the registration law, compulsory military training or any other form of compulsory government service.

Difficult times sometimes require extraordinary measures to preserve the nation and thus individual liberty. Any political party or leader that makes a contractual obligation (party platform) excluding such actions if it becomes necessary to the preservation of the nation is unfit to serve as no one can assure that party or person would enjoy only peace during their time in office. Worse yet, such a contractual obligation invites hostilities.

Many an Freeper had a father, grandfather, or uncle that served during WWII, and while few like the thought of being drafted, the option of voluntary enlistment was always open to all.

The following should also be noted:

Defense

We reject the policies and practices that permit women to train for or participate in combat. Because of the radical feminization of the military over the past two decades, it must be recognized that these "advances" undermine the integrity and morale of our military organizations by dual qualification standards and forced integration.

It must be noted that the "feminization" of the military the Constitution Party criticizes is the direct result of an all volunteer military.

[SJackson]

It's the America First Committee rehashed, with some pseudo-Constitutional trappings.

Except for Panama, who apparently we're going to war with.

[fortheDeclaration]

We reject the policies and practices that permit women to train for or participate in combat. Because of the radical feminization of the military over the past two decades, it must be recognized that these "advances" undermine the integrity and morale of our military organizations by dual qualification standards and forced integration.

This is also a good view.

[fortheDeclaration]

It must be noted that the "feminization" of the military the Constitution Party criticizes is the direct result of an all volunteer military.

The one doesn't lead to the other.

Because there is no draft, men do not feel obligated to serve?

There is no excuse for exposing women to combat.

[inquest]

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.

Did you read the actual platform? They want to "renegotiate the treaties with Panama by which the ownership of the canal was surrendered to Panama." They also say: "Congress and the President should take advantage of Panama Canal treaty provisions to negotiate the return of a U.S. military presence at the isthmus of Panama." This is not about invading militarily.

They add: "At a time when the U.S. Navy is one-third its former size, it is essential that rapid transit of U.S. military vessels between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans be assured." Very true words.

[inquest]

According to their platform, they demand that "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". Now it may be open to interpretation whether this might pertain to airstrikes, but I'd think that almost any act of war is going to result in a "field of battle" rather quickly.

At the very least, it would seem to fall under the "letters of marque and reprisal" provision within Congress's granted powers.

[TBP]

At the very least, it would seem to fall under the "letters of marque and reprisal" provision within Congress's granted powers.

Exactly, which is why such a strike wouldn't demand a declaration of war.

If Iran responds in a warlike manner, then we declare that a state of war exists between us and Iran and we go to it. But a bombing raid seems to be authorized, declaration or not. And this platform plank doesn't contradict that. As you said, marque and reprisal seems to cover it.

[TBP]

The two-party system presupposes that the two major parties are offering meaningful alternative policies. When they are not, a new party is called for.

The two major parties do not at present offer meaningful alternatives. Both are effectively Big Government parties; it's just that the emphasis of where to put the Big Government resources varies slightly.

And Republicans move a little more slowly. When Democrats are in charge, it's like driving off a cliff at 100 MPH. At least Republicans drive the speed limit -- but they're still taking us off the cliff. We need to turn the car around.

We are the owners of this country, and I want my country back. It's time to take back our streets and take back our cities and take back our country.

[Sir Gawain]

I did. Clearly you're a one issue voter, which is fine.

Nah, the Constitution party is right on 99.9% of all the issues compared to the Respineless party. NOT voting for the CP because of their stance on the WOT makes YOU the one issue voter.

[oh8eleven]

The CP is an exercise in single issue futility.
Obviously you never bothered to read the entire platform. Pity.