1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

New 2004 Preamble to Constitution Party Platform

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by KenH, Jul 2, 2004.

  1. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    The CP was not hijacked. It has always been on the "extreme religious right" from its inception in 1992. </font>[/QUOTE]Then they should change their name to the Christian Party rather than the Constitution Party.
     
  2. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Works for me. [​IMG]
     
  3. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hardsheller, I don't know why this is so difficult. The CP is against having a constitutional convention. The Constitution makes provision on how to call for it using the democratic process. That is because at any given time some would be for a concon and some against it.

    You seem to be implying that any time some Joe Blow says "let's have a constitutional convention", anyone who says "not now" is violating the constitution.

    Of course, that cannot be true. I don't know if you are aware of the issues surrounding a call for a convention, but as far as I know, nearly 100% of those opposed to it are opposed because they respect the US Constitution.
     
  4. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Pa. Jim,

    You cannot ignore the inconsistency of the CP regarding this matter. If you regard the U.S. Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers as a sacrosanct document to be held up against all challenges then you must accept the provision that allows for a Constitutional Convention.

    What I am saying is simply what the Constitution is saying. The Congress and the States have a Constitutional Right to call a Constitutional Convention. To oppose that provision of the Constitution is a REJECTION of the Founding Fathers' Intent.

    You simply cannot say as the CP is attempting to say that we believe Government should operate only within the realm of Constitutional Law and then on the other hand oppose one of the provisions of the Constitution.
     
  5. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, your position is that if anyone calls for a constitutional convention, the constitution requires that one be held?
     
  6. Kiffin

    Kiffin New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    This Preamble does make me wonder however if the CP is interested in becoming a serious 3rd party.

    The Preamble at the outset is making it clear that no non Christians need apply. A Jew, Muslim or another faith who has similar political convictions will certaintly not agree with the Preamble. Is the CP a Political Party or a Parachurch? It seems clear that the CP has established themselves as the Christian party with this Preamble. That is fine if that is what they want but it seems to doom the CP into being a minority party that is not serious about challenging the GOP and the Democrats.


    It is also not necessarily true "This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ"

    Well, Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian, Thomas Paint an Athiest, Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian either. That statement sounds very similar to the WALLBUILDERS gang of David Barton that often distorts American history. I think the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians and acknowledged we receive or rights from God (Declaration of Independance) but the US Constitution is actually the foundation of all our laws.
     
  7. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    People of all religious faiths would be better treated under a government run by Christian principles that any other government. Some of them recognize that.

    The quotation was, I think, from Patrick Henry. Wallbuilders likes to quote the founders, although that's not too popular today.

    You may be correct that the general public will reject Christian values in government. That's between them and God. I just try to follow Him.
     
  8. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, My position is the same as the U.S. Constitution.

    .....That if a Constitutional Convention is requested by the Constitutionally Authorized parties then it must be held.

    READ THE CONSTITUTION!

    Article. V.
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate [Possibly abrogated by Amendment XVII].

    2/3 of 50 States is 34 States. That's 34 State Legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention then after the Convention any Amendment(s) has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

    Now what is so awful about this Constitutional Provision?
     
  9. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes Kiffin,

    The CP is insuring that they will self destruct. They make some good points about Constitutional Law and I'm for that but they are too narrow when it comes to their extreme Christian viewpoints to ever attract any more than a fringe following.

    If they want to become a Viable Third Party they must stick to the Constitution and the Constitution alone.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So what? I've only voted for a Democrat or Republican presidential candidate three times out of seven elections through 2000. I'm used to being on the fringe. [​IMG]
     
  11. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
  12. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothng. It calls for a process to be followed. Nobody is disputing that. Part of the process is getting the states to call for a convention. Part of that process is for states to pass the measure in their legislatures. Part of that process is to be for or against it. Both the "for" and "against" parties are following the constitution.

    Were you for the ERA? I wasn't. Was I going against the constitution for being against it? Nope, that was part of the process. Same here. I think a constitutional convention would be dangerous, so I am against it for any reason that is cited at this point.

    See?
     
  13. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Nothng. It calls for a process to be followed. Nobody is disputing that. Part of the process is getting the states to call for a convention. Part of that process is for states to pass the measure in their legislatures. Part of that process is to be for or against it. Both the "for" and "against" parties are following the constitution.

    Were you for the ERA? I wasn't. Was I going against the constitution for being against it? Nope, that was part of the process. Same here. I think a constitutional convention would be dangerous, so I am against it for any reason that is cited at this point.

    See?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Pa. Jim,

    Yes, I see that. A private citizen of the U.S.A. can be against any Constitutional Provision that he wants to be against. That's Liberty.

    But a Political Party that prides itself on upholding the Constitution of the U.S. should not pick and choose which Constitutional Provisions they want to uphold and which ones they'd like to discard!

    I still maintain the C.P. should change their name. They do not support the entire U.S. Constitution but only the parts they like and which support their positions.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Didn't you argue this same point a few months ago?

    Whoever argued it then didn't make any sense to me and, sorry, but you are simply not making any sense to me this time, either. If the CP as a party of individuals sees no reason to support a constitutional convention at this time, they have every right to do so. If conditions change in the future and there is a need based on a limited, constitutional government agenda to advocate a constitutional convention, then the CP can change its platform.
     
  15. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Wasn't me but I'd be glad to elaborate.

    Here is the C.P.'s Mission Statement.

    Constitution Party Mission Statement

    The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

    Last time I checked (yesterday) the Provision of the Constitution that allows for a Constitutional Convention was still in place. (Article 5)

    Are you saying the C.P. can quote their own Mission Statement and then say they don't agree with a part of the U.S. Constitution with a straight face?

    What is their reasoning? :eek:
     
  16. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    This would have been voted on by the delegates at their 2000 convention, you would probably be able to get an answer to your question if you contact the CP HQ.
     
  17. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hardsheller, you still don't understand.

    Please read what I am about to say carefully:

    The consitution makes provision for calling a constitutional convention. It calls for a democratic process, where state governments can vote FOR it or AGAINST it.

    Get it??? FOR it or AGAINST it.

    It doesn't say that you have to be FOR it.

    That's why there is a PROCESS to VOTE for WHETHER OR NOT one should be held.

    IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO BE FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Repeat:

    IT IS NOT, NOT, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO BE FOR IT.


    To rephrase:

    YOU CAN BE AGAINST IT, THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS!!!!!


    How difficult can this be?

    [ July 08, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
     
  18. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Pa. Jim,

    You know it is amazing. There must be something about this Right Brain - Left Brain stuff.

    Here's what the C.P. Platform says about Constitutional Conventions. READ IT CAREFULLY!

    We affirm the original text of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We affirm that the nation’s Charter, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution contain the foundational law of the federal union. We condemn, therefore, all legislative, executive, and judicial action that departs from the texts and intent of the Charter and the Constitution and their original meaning.

    Now notice the subtle twist - We affirm the original Text but.....

    We oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional Convention, for any purpose whatsoever, because it cannot be limited to any single issue, and such convention could seriously erode our Constitutionally protected unalienable rights.

    Now look at that last paragraph one more time. The C.P. opposes any attempt to call for a Constitutional Convention even though the Founding Fathers thought it wise to include the process by which one might be called in the Original Constitution.

    IN EFFECT WHAT THE C.P. IS SAYING IS THIS - "WE DON'T THINK THEY THOUGHT THIS ONE THROUGH" - "YOU CANNOT TRUST THE PEOPLE INVOLVED TO DO THE RIGHT THING EVEN IF IT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"

    In Other Words. We Affirm the Original Text of the U.S. Constitution but we really don't in all of its parts.

    So if 2/3's of the 50 states successfully make application to the U.S. Congress for a Constitutional Convention in full accord with Constitutional Law - the C.P. will have opposed it all the way - siding with their archenemy - "UNCONSTITUTIONALITY".

    Yep - Pa. Jim, If all this makes sense to you then this is definitely the party for you! :eek:
     
  19. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also think a constitutional convention would be a disaster. I too would oppose it. So, under the provision of the constitution that you cited, I would participate constitutionally and oppose the proposal. There's nothing constitutional about that. I don't know why you can't see that. You don't have to be FOR a convention to follow the constitution. Nobody is saying that there should not be a right to call a convention, just that they would oppose such a proposal. Perfectlly constitutional.
     
  20. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2
    Perfectly inconsistent with their major premise. :rolleyes:
     
Loading...