Replies

The Constitution Party has many parts of their platform which I like. However there are some disturbing planks and individual statements made within it.

Platform found at: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

1. Defense - "... We condemn the presidential assumption of authority to deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution."

The Congress of the United States excercised their autority and passed the ""Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War. They have also continued funding it, andI agree not without great discussion.

2. Terrorism and Personal Liberty - "...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, these United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward these 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 these 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.

From what I'm reading it implies the act of sending troops over to the Middle East after 9/11 was retaliation? I think not. Further in the first paragraph above, it appears to want to treat terrorist as ciminals. We know this is a failed policy. In the second paragraph above, the implication that our forces are occupiers is totally wrong. We occupied Germany and Japan after WWII as we determined their fates, we are not occupying Irag or Afghansistan as they have an elected government.

We can augue over the spending of funds on inappropriate ends or projects. We can argue sematics and word definitions till we come to agreement. We can argue that we are financing Iraq with foreign aid but then we are also financing other governments in this world with foreign aid. If it applys to one country it applies to all. But we must remember as we do our arguing there are forces in this world that want to destroy us and will use this against us to divide us.

The language I see appears to want to make this nation an isolationst nation much like when Wilson was president. We must interact with other nations of the world (not through the UN) and we can not afford to turn our backs and look solely with in our own country. Isolationism was shown then to be a failed policy then and still is today as many things are too complicated to turn our backs on when we can and will have an interest in their outcome.

We face a massive threat in radical Islam and those who perpetrate it and actively work to achieve it desired end. Do we wait to fight till armed terrorist are on our city streets, is that the only "good war"? As for retaliation, what retaliation was there when President Clinton order bombing Bosnia or was this a "good war" or good use of our military might. To many variables andto much lumping of factswithout specifics for me.

The platform also states under Defense that "Since World War II, these United States has been involved in tragic, unconstitutional, undeclared wars..." This statement presupposes that a military unit or military force can not be used unless Congress declares war.That violates the President constitutionally granted power as Commander-in-Chief to act in the best interst and defense of the country. An internal war, against drugs, has existed for decades and Congress didn't declare it so maybe we should stop fighting it.

During the Koran Conflict, the US went to war when President Truman sent our military into a police action, no declaration of war, but Congress did and still funds our military being there. During the Vietnam Conflict, the US went to war when President Eisenhower sent troops to Vietnam, followed by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon upping the numbers of our forces there; Congress funded this until 1970 with the Church-Ciooper Amendment on a supplemental funding bill.

Congress has exercised their authority in the "power of the purse because during Korea and Vietnam there was no War Powers act, but true they never declared war and the President acted under his constitutionally granted authority (that has never been challenged). Now we have always debated the difference between a war and a conflict.

Although there are numerous planks and paragraphs I agree with in the Constitution Party platform, for me these are killers. I can not support a unilateral withdrawal by this country and a running away from an enemy. Whether he is defined properly or not, we are in a war agaist radical Islam and it combatants who will take every means possible to destroy us and make the world a homogenus Islamic State.

We can't put our personal desires and beliefs ahead of the country's. Nor can we allow a failed ideology to reign in this country ... socialism/communism. For these reason the Constitution Party does not have the best candidate to offer in this 2008 Presidential election. That candidate would lead by retreating to failed polices going back over a century.