The Constitution Party

I woke up this morning with a crazy idea. Let's start a new political party. As for myself, I've been a Democrat, been a Republican, backed Perot's Reform Party, have leaned towards Green and have leaned towards Libertarian...and have always been an independent free thinker. But if I had to narrow my views to a single political concept, I would say "I'm a Constitutionalist."

***Considering that last week, President Bush signed a Military Commission Act that blatantly violates the U.S. Constitution, refusing the writ of habeus corpus to "enemy combatants" in the so-called war on terror.

***Considering the Patriot Act is also an affront to constitutional protections,

...it is getting more obvious by the day and hour that neither the Democratic or Republican Party have enough respect for the Constitution to want to defend it.

To my surprise, I found the existence of a burgeoning party called the "Constitutional Party" online at http://www.constitutionparty.com. In reading the introduction to this party, I found that it's primarily a conservative party, which I have no problem with. Of course, I was very interested in what their take on 9/11 might be. So I went to their platform page and read their position on "The War on Terror." It reads as follows:

"America is engaged in an undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy (terrorism), a war which threatens to be never ending, and which is being used to vastly expand government power, particularly that of the executive branch, at the expense of the individual liberties of the American people.

The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs.

We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as "Patriot II").

The National Security Act is used by the federal government as a shroud to prevent the American people and our elected officials from knowing how much and where our tax dollars are spent from covert operations around the world. The National Security Act prevents the release of Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, e.g., PDD 25, to the American people and our elected representatives. Not only are many of these used to thwart justice in the name of national security, but some of the operations under this act may threaten our very national sovereignty.

The USA PATRIOT Act permits arrests without warrants and secret detention without counsel, wiretaps without court supervision, searches and seizures without notification to the individual whose property is invaded, and a host of other violations of the legal safeguards our nation has historically developed according to principles descending from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Since we will no longer have a free nation while the federal government (or the governments of the several states, as the federal government may authorize) can violate our historic rights under such laws, we call for the rejection of all such laws and the ceasing of any such further proposals including the aforementioned Domestic Securities Enhancement Act.

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, the United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward the 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 the 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."

Perhaps we should make an effort to reach out to members of the Constitutional Party. They must be interested in reaching a larger block of voters, and let's face, the 9/11 truth movement is one of the fastest growing, most active political movement this country has seen in decades. But we lack structure, something a political party would give us.

9/11 was more than an attack against innocent non-combatant human beings. It was an attack on our Constitution. The fact that our leaders in both major parties have failed to keep their oath to defend the Constitution means that we now face a constitutional crisis of gigantic proportions.

Perhaps it's time for a Constitution Party to step forward.

I like it, but I thought the

I like it, but I thought the Patriot Party would be cool also. They when the talk about us they have to call the "Patriots".

My favourite party ...

My favourite party ... is the COMPUTER CONTROLLED COMMUNISM party. (CCC)

The candidate for election is a 'pentium III' computer. It just takes orders from the voters and is not bribable. Its cheap to run amd always votes as being told by his district's people.

I recommend to allow children to vote, too. Voting is authenticated by an anonymized fingerprint.. separated from being identifyable by an abstraction layer.


And now ... something completely different
Republicans Sweep to Victory : Diebold Announces Midterm Election Results Early

The voting machine giant Diebold has announced the winners of next month's midterm elections. The Republican party has scored a major victory and has actually increased its majorities in both the House and Senate. Poll results are still being examined but preliminary tallies also show the President has won an unprecedented third four year term.

"Diebold prides itself on giving quick and accurate election results." Says President Thomas W. Swidarski. "This year we have done even better by delivering the results ahead of schedule and under budget. This is a very impressive achievement and I would like to thank everybody at Diebold and the Republican National Committee who made this possible. This is truly a great day for Diebold and America."

Diebold announced the tallies this morning igniting a firestorm of self doubt and criticism inside the Democratic party. The results have taken the Democrats completely by surprise and a leadership shake up seems inevitable as party rank and file wonder what went wrong.

"We have a lot of hard thinking to do" says party leader Howard Dean. "Our fifty state strategy had been formulated around an election date of November 7th so I have to admit we were caught flat footed on this one. We are going to look into our internal systems and see how this could have happened."

At the White House Tony Snow spoke to the media about the victory.

"America has spoken. America has chosen the Republican party and the President to lead us out this terrible mess we find ourselves in. The President is overjoyed that his party has maintained control of the Congress and he is eager to spend his political capital to further his polices during his third term."

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=2004


Funny eh?

If you appreciated the above, PLEASE make your prediction who will win in this poll:

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/2006-midterm-elections-bush-party.html

Thanks.

u2r2h

Unfortunately...

I've described myself as a left libertarian on this site before, so my reaction to the platform of the Constitution Party is probably predictable. Although the promise of a group of people who support the Constitution and oppose the war on our civil liberties is appealing on the surface, especially if they would take a pro-Truth stand, we'd also have to deal with their views on

Abortion
"We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father."

That means no abortion access even in cases of rape or incest.

The "Family"
"The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. "

So, not only are they opposed to equal rights for gay families, they base that opposition on their interpretation of divine will.

On the plus side, I give them credit for this:
"We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage."

Civil rights for gay people:
"We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions." (my emphasis)

What's that? You don't want laws made to prohibit gay bashing, aka "public resistance to (homosexuality's) expression"?

Pornography, also known as Free Speech rights, even for speech you don't like:
"We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy."

Clearly a tough one for them, because they really really like free speech but they really really hate porn. So they decide to do an end run around the issue by invoking the principle of obscenity, giving to judges the right to determine "what is truly speech."

I'm not taking this lightly. Here in Oregon, the Constitution Party is fielding a candidate for governor named Mary Starrett. She is rumored to even doubt the official story of 9/11, although I haven't seen any direct citations. I thought about voting for her for approximately 24 hours, because that's how important 9/11 Truth is to me. Given the many ways the Constitution Party reveals itself NOT to be a truly libertarian party, from my left-libertarian perspective, I'm glad she hasn't come out and made a clear statement promoting 9/11 Truth, because without it, my decision is more easily made.

Thanks for your honest response

Casseia,
I am a Christian evangelical for 9/11 truth, so that puts us on the same page on some issues, but not all.
I believe liberty is a God-given concept, an "inalienable right" from the Creator, and is a blessing to a nation that follows the Lord. So, in all honesty, issues such as gay marriage, pornography and abortion on demand, in my opinion, lead not to liberty, but enslavement.
Anyway, I find myself on the same page with the Constitutional Party in many ways, ESPECIALLY if they were to take a stand for 9/11 truth. I think I may start a dialogue with them. It sounds like they are on the right road in opposing the Patriot Act and questioning the motives for the "war on terror".
Since you're a libertarian, let me ask you this. What is your view of prostitution? Should it be legalized?

Short answer: Decriminalized.

Let me make clear that one of the things I knew from the get-go in the Truth movement is that I would be working with people with whom I disagreed on other important issues, and I really appreciate your candor.

I don't believe that liberty is "God-given" -- I don't believe it has to be "given" by any entity for us to have it, and for it to be our inalienable right. (I am not, incidentally, an atheist -- I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, as you may know.) For me, the freedom to love and partner with the one you desire, freedom of speech even including pornography, and the right to be sovereign over one's own body, even if it is occupied by another, are integral parts of human liberty. So it looks like we're at a big and I hope congenial point of "agree to disagree" here.

As for prostitution, I don't think the State has any legitimate interest in criminalizing interactions between consenting adults. Not consenting, yes. Not adults, definitely yes. On the other hand, if "legalizing" it means subjecting it to regulation, then that's a no-go for me, too. Therefore, I prefer the idea of decriminalization, or simply removing it from the purvue of the State.

Incidentally, I take a similar tack in my thinking about gay marriage. I'm not sure why anyone wants to invite the State into their marriage at all. It makes more sense to do so if the aim is protecting the rights of children, but as we all know, many marriages don't involve children and many relationships that do involve children don't involve marriage.

I hope you have success in reaching out to the Constitution folks about 9/11!

Thanks

Thanks Casseia,
Congenial is good. One of the things that interests me about the 9/11 movement is the eclectic mix of political views.
I'm not sure how many born again Christians are active in this movement. I tend to think I'm part of the minority here. But my hope is for the Christian right (which is a large block of voters in the U.S.) to come to a new awakening about 9/11 truth. The Constitution Party might be one of the vehicles for that to happen.
I think the Constitution Party stand on abortion may be too extreme. Not that I wish for abortions to occur. But there is no clear consensus on this issue. The rights of the woman and the rights of the unborn child compete with each other, especially in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.
On many of these issues, the collective "will of the people" becomes the overriding principle. For instance, on the issue of prostitution, the "will of the people" considers prostitution to be a crime of immorality. Just because it involves two consenting adults doesn't mean it isn't a detriment to society. If a married man is tempted to meet a prostitute, his decision to do so would adversely affect his marriage, and would have a negative effect on his children and family. The "will of the people" overwhelmingly sides with the family. Which is why you won't see political parties or candidates (if they want to win) endorcing any change in the current laws in regards to prostitution.
In terms of 9/11 truth, the "will of the people" in this country, if the polls are correct, is for a new independent investigation of 9/11. But the Democrats and Republicans won't go there. So this is an opportunity for these other parties to gain some momentum.
I will encourage the Constitution Party to endorce a new independent investigation of 9/11.
As for their stance on abortion, what they propose would probably require a Constitutional Amendment. If that's "the will of the people" then so be it, but as I said, there doesn't seem to be any consensus for that. The Constitution Party should be about defending the Constitution, not changing it.

please, please do whatever

please, please do whatever you guys can to stop this lunacy
all join a new political party whatever it takes

In the Netherlands we have found no-one among the six established political parties willing to speak out about this but due to new political parties at least three people will be elactable on November 22nd, when we have our next elections, who speak out about the lies about 9/11.

I wish you guys the best of luck and wisdom.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell