Constitution Party vs. Republican Party

[Lady Bug]

I am talking about the true principles for which the Republican Party stands for, vs. the principles of the Constitution Party. I'm looking up beliefs about the latter and I cannot find much difference between this party, and what the Republican Party principles are actually supposed to be. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Please note: ONLY THOSE who want to be reasonable as to help me out should reply. If you are going to try to spiral this out of control and talk about the current acts of politicians themselves vs. the PRINCIPLES, please don't do this, because I would like to keep this thread about the basics - principles ONLY. I hope I'm making sense.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Maybe you can help:

1) What are the Republican Party's values "supposed" to be ? According to who ?

2) Why do you think the Constitution Party exists if it's values are the same as another party's principles ?

I'm kinda confused here.

Maybe you're just a Constitutionalist and don't know it .

I'm really and a Green partier not a Dem

I know it, I just vote Dem when it's necessary.

Mostly I vote Green

 

[Lady Bug]

I wish I knew how to answer 1 and 2 Cosmic Charlie. I feel like such a dolt when it comes to politics. The Constitution Party seems to resemble what the Republican Party claims it espouses, but I wanted to know if anyone here was better than I am on this who could help me.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I wish I knew how to answer 1 and 2 Cosmic Charlie. I feel like such a dolt when it comes to politics. The Constitution Party seems to resemble what the Republican Party claims it espouses, but I wanted to know if anyone here was better than I am on this who could help me.

I go look up the Constitution Party's platform.....

{Time passes}

Um....

Republican party never had a platform anything like this

ever.


If fact, this platform doesn't even hold together well. It has several contradictory planks.

It looks like a platform for the takeover of American by the Religious Right.

 

[Chany]

The Constitution Party desires a strict interpretation of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers invisioned it (according to the party's interpretation). It basically wants the federal level to only do things specifically mentioned in the Constitution, although I'm unsure if the support powers indirectly given by default. Besides that, every other decision should fall onto the states. The internal contradiction that I think Cosmic Charlie is getting at is that they want things not in the Constitution, such as the definition of legal marriage, to be regulated are a federal level, though their own logic says it should fall to the states.

They also have a very religious (and odd definition of Christian teaching) tone to them.

 

[Lady Bug]

Sometimes I think that the Constitution Party is a little harsh. As far as the Religious Right, I never bought into the idea of it being a threat to America. America is definitely not too religious. I think we're too liberal as far as I am concerned.

I still need help on this subject

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

The Constitution Party desires a strict interpretation of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers invisioned it (according to the party's interpretation). It basically wants the federal level to only do things specifically mentioned in the Constitution, although I'm unsure if the support powers indirectly given by default. Besides that, every other decision should fall onto the states. The internal contradiction that I think Cosmic Charlie is getting at is that they want things not in the Constitution, such as the definition of legal marriage, to be regulated are a federal level, though their own logic says it should fall to the states.

They also have a very religious (and odd definition of Christian teaching) tone to them.

It goes beyond that, they want almost no government involvement in anything because of "liberty" but the want the federal government to maintain a large military, control access to women's healthcare, enforce a set of marriage laws on the society in general, outlaw gambling, inappropriate contentography and enforce "good behavior".

"Liberty" and limited federal power has a funny definition in the Constitutional Party.

The want strict interpretation of "original intent" of the founder AND religious institution in public schools. Also a funny interpretation of "original intent"

If this is your glass of whiskey (which they will not outlaw but are against the consumption of) then this is the party for YOU.

Also, the platform refers, indirectly, to homosexuals as (I love this) "Sexual Criminals" .

 

[Lady Bug]

It goes beyond that, they want almost no government involvement in anything because of "liberty" but the want the federal government to maintain a large military, control access to women's healthcare, enforce a set of marriage laws on the society in general, outlaw gambling, inappropriate contentography and enforce "good behavior".

"Liberty" and limited federal power has a funny definition in the Constitutional Party.

The want strict interpretation of "original intent" of the founder AND religious institution in public schools. Also a funny interpretation of "original intent"

If this is your glass of whiskey (which they will not outlaw but are against the consumption of) then this is the party for YOU.

Also, the platform refers, indirectly, to homosexuals as (I love this) "Sexual Criminals" .

I don't think that the CP wants public schools at all. I think the CP doesn't want to abolish the Federal Govt but wants to reduce its power significantly.

I wish I knew what to say about the sexual criminals thing though. I think I missed that when I was looking at it. I shouldn't have though lol.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

CP's definitely a Paleoconservative party. They are definitely what Conservatives who are registered Republican believe, but are somehow misled into believing that the Neocons in the GOP are anything but the ex-Troskyites/ Right-wing progressives that their votes and deeds show them to be . . .


They oppose unjust wars.
Are Pro-Life.
Pro-Traditional Marriage and against Unnatural marriage.
Pro-Protectionism/Anti-Freetradism
Pro-Second Amendment
Strongly 10th Amendment
They want to repeal the Federal Income Tax
They want to abolish the IRS.
Abolish the Federal Reserve System and restore the Gold Standard.

 

[Lady Bug]

Haha I was actually waiting for Virgil the Roman to reply to this thread. I knew he was a Constitutionalist and was hoping for his input.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I left the Republicans for the CP actually. It'd been a move that I'd been considering for about two years. I was debating on joining the Libertarian party as well. Except, that I'm not a Libertarian. I do not agree with some of the Libertarian policies/positions. The CP was the best fit, although I am not in total agreement them, I do agree with good deal of their platform; enough to be of clear conscience for most anyone they put on the ballot for most of the positions.


It took me awhile to realise the Dems and GOP are two wings of the same darn party. One part of the spectrum are Left-wing Neocons, the others: Right-wing Neocons; both big Statists/Big-Governmentists.

Well, as feel good as the Democrats and being a Liberal was in my younger years, it's pie-in-the-sky accommodating the 'Spirit of the Times'; or conforming to the Worldliness of this World.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

If there are any specific questions, I'll do my best to help you out. I am no expert, but I'll see what I can do.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I admire a handful of aspects of the more-moderate American Green Party (Not the one that Ralph Nader called, 'Damn-near communistic') for its desire in good stewardship of the environment and wanting the common man to have a livable fair wage. I also like their desire to admit proportional party representation into the House of Representatives (similar to England's parliamentary system). However, just the same, I appreciate many of the Founders' original checks and balances; knowing that they have their necessary places.

 

[Sumwear]

I left the Republicans for the CP actually. It'd been a move that I'd been considering for about two years. I was debating on joining the Libertarian party as well. Except, that I'm not a Libertarian. I do not agree with some of the Libertarian policies/positions. The CP was the best fit, although a few very minor things one or two I have bit of disagreement on, but nothing substantial.

It took me awhile to realise the Dems and GOP are two wings of the same darn party. One part of the spectrum are Left-wing Neocons, the others: Right-wing Neocons; both big Statists/Big-Governmentists.

Well, as feel good as the Democrats and being a Liberal was in my younger years, it's pie-in-the-sky accommodating the 'Spirit of the Times'; or conforming to the Worldliness of this World.

I've encountered people like yourself who struggle with aligning themselves with a political party. why not just side with the man that suites you the best and doesn't have any unwanted baggage? I don't like the republicans, democrats, and I believe the green party is ripe with lunatics and psychos, but if ever a politician were to arise that is to my liking, I would have no worries in voting for either party.

 

[Lady Bug]

I'll keep you in mind Virgil if I have any questions about the CP. I actually do but I don't have the stamina to ask them right now. Sometimes I worry that implementing the CP could have a disastrous effect even though the principles for the most part seem like what we are supposed to be living by. At heart, the CP is what I feel should have been the basic platform for our country, but it seems like we are too far gone away from it. I worry that so many of the people who have lived off federal aid over the decades, whether in the form of federal scholarships, loans, Social Security, Medicare, welfare, etc. would perish if we just abolished everything. I'm sure that the CP doesn't want to abolish these things cold turkey but I am worried about the survival of people who are currently living off of this stuff. Does the CP have any real solutions to the problems that could ensue from this?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Indeed. I usually try to vote pragmatically for the best folks. Hence, why at the local levels, I'll even vote for a dem or independent or Republicans; typically at that level most are usually okay. Except for the few in local Dem party here, that I think might have ties to the mafia . . .

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I'll keep you in mind Virgil if I have any questions about the CP. I actually do but I don't have the stamina to ask them right now. Sometimes I worry that implementing the CP could have a disastrous effect even though the principles for the most part seem like what we are supposed to be living by. At heart, the CP is what I feel should have been the basic platform for our country, but it seems like we are too far gone away from it. I worry that so many of the people who have lived off federal aid over the decades, whether in the form of federal scholarships, loans, Social Security, Medicare, welfare, etc. would perish if we just abolished everything. I'm sure that the CP doesn't want to abolish these things cold turkey but I am worried about the survival of people who are currently living off of this stuff. Does the CP have any real solutions to the problems that could ensue from this?

Oh no! I know and understand completely. I think a phasing out or abolition or replacement of some services would be best. However, some governmental services, Teaching, Postal service, Amtrak and the Trains (Heck, I even love PBS and their Classical Radio stations) I think are pretty darn awesome and out to be kept. I just don't think whole-sale this over-bloated government is a good thing. It's unsustainable, but we need actual and real reform.

 

[Lady Bug]

Oh no! I know and understand completely. I think a phasing out or abolition or replacement of some services would be best. However, some governmental services, Teaching, Postal service, Amtrak and the Trains (Heck, I even love PBS and their Classical Radio stations) I think are pretty darn awesome and out to be kept. I just don't think whole-sale this over-bloated government is a good thing. It's unsustainable, but we need actual and real reform.

Phaseouts with real, practical, feasible solutions are what is best. As for the government programs you mentioned, limited government doesn't necessarily mean no government but nowhere near the level of power it has now either. I'm sure that governments can evolve with time and can incorporate programs like you mentioned and still not transcend their vision. I'm not good at talking politics. I'm a dolt compared to some. I have rather simple opinions on political issues without much or any ability to substantiate my opinions. It's hard to agree with everything in a party. Some people have such a blind, cult-like allegiance to their party that they will never ever criticize anything that anyone in the party does. I mean, that's bad. Political parties are not religion. The faith is supposed to have the complete truth, but parties can be flawed, even if we agree with the majority of its platform.

Maybe the Constituation Party can have a "liberal," (whatever liberal means in this case, which I don't know) conservative, and moderate branch. I don't know. Unfortunately I don't see it ever happening in this country