The Constitution Party

To list the differences side by side would be a VERY long post. You can find where each candidate from each party stands on the issues at http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/

But the best way would be to read the Party platforms. Keep in mind that both the Republican and Democrat parties don't require their candidates to agree with the party platform. The Constitution Party requires their candidates to take an oath to argree to and abide by the party platform.

 

NP,
Why should I vote Constitution this fall? Why would it be better than voting Republican?

MA

 

micahaaron,

I will tell you the same thing I told TWade, I recommend that you browse the Constitution Party's Web site and read their platform, then take a look at Michael Peroutka's site(www.peroutka2004.com), listen to his speech, watch his videos, and then you will have the information you need to make a decision about the party. You will get different opinions about all of the parties from everyone you ask, but the only opinion that matters is yours when you cast your vote in November.

Some people tell me that I am wasting my vote because I am voting for Michael Peroutka and the Constitution Party in November. I believe the only time you waste your vote is when you vote for something you don't believe in.

If you believe in the liberal policies of the Democrats then you need to vote for them. If you believe in the "compassionate conservative" policies of the Republicans then you need to vote for them. If you believe in the principles found in the United States Constitution, then you need to vote for the candidate who will protect and defend it, regardless of their party affiliation.

What are some of the main issues that are important to you? Instead of listing ALL of the differences between the two parties, maybe we can look at some of the issues that matter to you.

 

NP and TW,
For me and my wife,
The rage of same-sex marriages.
Abortion.
Jobs.
Tax Credits for families.

I see Bush as a compromizer.

MA

 

Sure they are. They either last or they don't.

You're willing to compromise your values and vote for Kerry just because You think the President doesn't hold your values.

Makes sense to me. NOT!

 

Here is some differences side by side on these issues:

same-sex marriages

From the Constitution Party's platform:

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. We affirm, therefore, that no government may authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.

From President Bush:

"The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," Bush said.

"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

Abortion

From the Constitution Party platform:

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father

From President George Bush:

Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.

Jobs

From the Constitution Party's platform:

we oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America’s economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which will impoverish American families, undermine American communities, and diminish America’s capacity for economic self-reliance.

From the Bush Administration:

The movement of American factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush administration said

Tax Credits for families

From the Constitution Party platform:

We will propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an unapportioned direct tax.

Moreover, it is our intention to replace entirely the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, Social Security taxes, estate taxes, and inheritance taxes).

From President Bush:

"Today in America, people pay more in federal, state and local taxes than they do in food and clothing and housing.. This isn’t right, folks. We ought to send some of your money back to the people who pay the bills."

 

Hardsheller,

I find that what Kerry would do over the next 4 years is closer to my values than what I think Bush II would do over the next 4 years.

That doesn't mean I'm compromising my values. I'm not. I vote candidate over party. The national Republican party is becoming more moderate under Bush II's leadership.

Republican defeats when they run moderate candidates...it is my hope...will return the party to the principles it espoused when it was out of power. It wasn't really all that long ago that they were talking about term limits and a balanced budget amendment. How seen we forget!

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
<QUOTE> You're willing to compromise your values and vote for Kerry just because You think the President doesn't hold your values. <UNQUOTE>

I agree with you...that statement doesn't make sense to me either.

 

CalvinG,

I am a little confused by your statments. You see that the GOP has become "moderate" and you want the GOP to return to the "principles it espoused when it was out of power" You aslo stated that "what Kerry would do over the next 4 years is closer to my values than what I think Bush II would do over the next 4 years."

I believe that Kerry is a very extreme left-wing liberal, and I agree that the GOP has become "moderate", but I think by doing so they have moved to the left, away from the "principles it espoused when it was out of power", but have moved toward to the left-wing principles of Kerry.

If you support conservative principles why would you not vote for Michael Peroutka instead of Kerry?

 

What will Kerry Do? He hasn't even said!

But what we know he will do is:

Raise Taxes.
Appoint Liberal Pro-Choice Judges.

That's enough right there for me to vote for Bush.

 

I believe that Kerry will try to raise taxes and appoint liberal judges, but he will be blocked by the GOP Congress, we will have four years of gridlock if Kerry get's elected, and four more years of federal growth if Bush gets elected.

 

Why would the GOP block Kerry's moves? They never blocked Clinton's liberal appointees. They are gutless.

 

Net Publicist, you answered your question before I could get to it.

I didn't say that what Kerry espoused was closer to what I espoused...I said what he would DO was closer to my values. He won't be able to get much done due to gridlock...as opposed to a left-wing Republican sailing through programs growing the federal government and expanding the deficit.

Meanwhile, the Republicans notice that Bush II was a 1-term president like his father and perhaps decide running moderates isn't the way to go.

Make sense?

I don't think the Republicans invariably appoint pro-Life judges either. Just look at their voting records. Kennedy. O'Connor. And...call me cynical...but I think the Republicans would much rather have abortion at the national level as an issue than actually see Roe v. Wade overturned and returned to the states. Just imagine the races for state legislature if abortion were an issue. It doesn't strike me as what the Republicans want because most Americans have become pro-choice due to ready availability of abortion over three decades and the insinuation of liberal women that being anti-choice is being anti-woman or anti-equality.

 

If Michael Peroutka was elected, what would he acccomplish, especially with passing bills through the house and senate?

 

As president he would have the power of the veto. Thus with only 1/3 of the House or the Senate and with the power of the veto, a President Peroutka could put a stop to the growth of federal government profligate spending and the growing strangle hold the federal government has on our economy and personal lives.

www.peroutka2004.com

 

If he DID get elected, I think some in the House and Senate would be willing to work with him, while it would be a major conservative wake up call to the rest. I think America would hear Biblical and Constitutional principles from a US President that haven't been heard in our lifetime. People would be encouraged to actually read the US Constitution, and demand that the politicians they vote for do the same.

 

It's funny how we sometimes answer our own questions like that

 

I find it interesting that in the uncontested primary for the Constitution Party affiliate in California on Tuesday that Mr. Peroutka received about 24,000 votes, while the three candidates in the contested Libertarian Party primary received a total of only about 18,000 votes.

 

Howard Phillips recieved only 3,022 in the California 2000 Presidential Primary. Does this mean that the AIP/Constitution Party in California is eight times larger now than it was in 2000? I would say this is good news, knowing that it's rare to see 100% turnout for a Presidential Primary.

 

Is Michael Peroutka a christian?