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.
If I have my history correct, there was no such thing as Panama. The land belonged to Columbia, the US blocked Columbian troops from protecting it, and then dealt with the “leaders” of that time.
Considering our means of acquiring just about the entire southwest, we can’t really get up in arms about our means of expanding our power in Panama. It was a natural outgrowth of our view of the Monroe Doctrine.
One more thing, as a member of the CP you could attend their convention and work to change that plank or to drop that portion of it altogether.