Replies

I've read the Constitution Party web site. There are lots of things I agree with. I also see lots of things I agree with in the Republican site. And even the Democrats put up some nice platitudes too. But the devil is in the details and in Gov't deals are always made to get things done (the Founders were no strangers to deal-making). If a party does not recognize this necessity they just aren't ready for prime time. Here's a few questions I had that I either missed or didn't see answered by the Constitution party.

How would the Constitution party handle the filibuster tactics from the Democrats? Did they support or oppose what Republicans were calling the Constitutional amendment and Democrats were calling the nuclear option?

What is the CP position on the War on Drugs? Should it continue, expand, or end?

What kind of tort reform, if any is appropriate to be enacted by the Feds?

Are there any other business interests of Americans that should be regulated? Which and for what reasons?

Would the CP censor the Internet for any reason?

How would the CP deal with terrorists actions towards Americans in America, and on American business interests overseas? Do we receive no protection from our Gov't when outside the borders of the US?

Did the Federal Gov't have the right to look at the laptop computer owned by the 9/11 hijacker who didn't make his flight? Is the Wall discussed in the 9/11 report a good thing or is that one aspect of the so-hated Patriot Act that should be retained?

Does the CP see any limitations at all on the 2nd amendment? If not, how would you explain to soccer moms that it's Constitutional to keep and bear nuclear arms (once they are more freely traded in the world market and cheaper)?

How does this nation decide that one of its neighbors is threatening them sufficiently to take those weapons away from them (i.e., declare war). What if those coming after you have no nationality and just move freely?

If a wall is to be built along the Mexican border should states that border Mexico bear a larger brunt of the cost or is it entirely a Federal cost? Would it be cost effective to send immigration officials to demand "papers" from everyone living in federal subsidized housing and deport those who cannot produce them (before federal subsidized housing is closed, of course)? Does the Fed Gov't have a right to demand landlords verify they are renting to citizens? Since those born in this country ARE for the time being citizens, are they allowed one parent or two parents to work and take care of the child? Must they be biological parents? Homosexual parents?

Now I expect lots of replies...some thoughtful, some spiteful and best of all some humorous. But a real party has to define itself a little better than just telling me what they're not (RINOs, RATS, etc.). I betcha lots of people who vote Constitutional Party have different ideas about these questions I asked...just like Republicans.

Politically what I'd recommend is that the Constitution Party focus on a few house seats where you might actually have a chance just to try for some publicity and build credibility. If the CP tries to run candidates everywhere, including the White House they are not serious about being a party that governs. Instead they are on the outside trying to drive the parties in a particular direction which in my mind makes them more of a special interest group. I can vote for a party that might actual govern, I can't vote for a special interest group.