According to one explanation of the US treaty with Panama in 1903, the US received rights to a 5 mile wide canal zone on each side of the canal in perpetuity.
I remember the Carter years debate, and we had no doubt that the Canal was under our control. As part of the US force that put Noriega in his proper place in Dec ‘89, we still knew the place was rightfully US purchased territory.
The problem with that “treaty” is no Panamanian government sanctioned representative signed it - the land was not for sale and so the U.S. never ‘bought’ it.
We had the rights to manage and control the canal, not own it outright as part of the United States.
Switch the places of each nation: would the United States sign away part of its nation to a foreign entity? I sure as Hell hope not! And I cannot imagine any citizen agreeing to that kind of deal.
“The party’s stated goals include restoring the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited federal government based on Biblical foundations.”
I believe that the very Progressive attitude and actions taken by those pushing the treaties on Panama a century ago would have astonished and alarmed our Founders. Christian men that they were, treating another nation in a manner the U.S. would not have tolerated, well, it is not something they would have done.
I like the Constitution Party’s platform and if they change that one plank towards Panama I will join with them whole-heartedly.