What is the Actual Platform of the Constitution Party

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

What is the Actual Platform of the Constitution Party

Randy · Senior Member

The only item on the platform that I have a problem with is not allowing the military to go to war without Congress declaring war. I am not willing to find myself in a situation where me and all my neighbors have 3 choices: (1) die (2) convert to Islam or (3) be a slave to an Islamist regime. While Congress dithers about whether it's wise to attack terrorists.

My other reason for not being a Constitutionalist has nothing to do with its platform.

Although I hate to make my voting choices based on 1 or 2 issues, if those issues are important enough they are sufficient.

-- Edited by Randy at 12:37, 2006-09-14

noel · Veteran Member

With the exception noted by Randy, the only fault I find with this platform is a factual one.

The nation was not "founded by Christians", it was founded primarily by Deists, and even an atheist or two (Thomas Paine). The Nation, thus created, was secular not sectarian.

Can you provide me with a "moderate" critique of the platform Cat?

arbilad · Head Chef

noel wrote:

With the exception noted by Randy, the only fault I find with this platform is a factual one.

The nation was not "founded by Christians", it was founded primarily by Deists, and even an atheist or two (Thomas Paine). The Nation, thus created, was secular not sectarian.

Can you provide me with a "moderate" critique of the platform Cat?

Actually, Noel, that is not factually accurate. The only admitted Deist was Franklin, and even he admitted later in life to seeing God's hand in the Revolution, a decidedly unDeist view. Of the rest, they publicly admitted faith in God, of his hand in the affairs of men (a very unDeist view), and many were buried in church graveyards, which at the time required membership in said church. Again, not a very Deist act.

arbilad · Head Chef

Here is a useful link reagrding whether the Founding Fathers were Deists:

Founding Fathers and religion

But I particularly like these paragraphs:

Who Were the Founding Fathers?
Historical proof-texts can be raised on both sides. Certainly there were godless men among the early leadership of our nation, though some of those cited as examples of Founding Fathers turn out to be insignificant players. For example, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen may have been hostile to evangelical Christianity, but they were firebrands of the Revolution, not intellectual architects of the Constitution. Paine didn't arrive in this country until 1774 and only stayed a short time.

As for others--George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.

The Constitutional Convention

It's not necessary to dig through the diaries, however, to determine which faith was the Founder's guiding light. There's an easier way to settle the issue.

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

Benjamin Franklin

Even Franklin the deist is equivocal. He was raised in a Puritan family and later adopted then abandoned deism. Though not an orthodox Christian, it was 81-year-old Franklin's emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Convention. James Madison recorded the event in his collection of notes and debates from the Federal Convention. Franklin's appeal contained no less than four direct references to Scripture.

And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.[2]

noel · Veteran Member

Arbi,

"Faith in God" is not uniquely Christian, Or even theist during the age of enlightenment.

Read through the annotations (or excisions) in the personal Bible of Thomas Jefferson if you have any questions about his leanings. Washington is a notable counter-example.

Add Alexander Hamilton (who was Christian for at least part of his life), with James Madison and you have the nucleus of, not only Jefferson's Declaration, but the intellectual bedrock of the Constitution formulated from a "nature's god" perspective. (John Jay excepted)

What America was, most emphatically, not is sectarian.

PS; That the founders were "influenced by Christianity" is beyond dispute. This is a different proposition than the one stated in the Constitution Party platform.

-- Edited by noel at 22:51, 2006-09-14

-- Edited by noel at 22:53, 2006-09-14

-- Edited by noel at 23:49, 2006-09-14

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Can you provide me with a "moderate" critique of the platform Cat?

I'm not sure what sort of critique you are looking for. I haven't read it through in depth. I scanned over it when I found the website. There are things I agree with, things I don't agree with, and other things that I think are scarily too vague and open to dogmatic interpretation.

I guess what I could do is take a couple individual items at a time and indicate my thoughts on them, but I have the feeling it would take a month of Sundays to go through the whole thing... And well before that time, I may be having to deal with my inner Homer saying "Boring!"

One thing I did find interesting, before getting into any actual discussion of platform of the party, is that it seems the party is not even unified in actual name. A number of states have different names for the party, and it also seems that there have been several mergers and acquisitions and divestitures of other small parties since the party was formed.

Hmmmm.... What's that word I'm thinking of that we talked about in the room for a third party discussion? Coalition? A successful political party in our system is the coalition of a range of views so that a coalition of parties doesn't have to be used to create a government. Actually, now that I think about it, the dangers inherent to a coalition government that we don't have in our form of republic would make an interesting topic of discussion too, if someone wants to start a thread on that.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Ten of the signers of the Articles of Confederation, nine signers of the Declaration Independence, and thirteen signers of the Constitution were, Freemasons. Edmund Randolph (also a Freemason), governor and Grand Master of Virginia, although an important participant in the Constitutional Convention, didn't sign the document. He did, however, fight for its ratification. It should also be noted that four Presidents of the Continental Congresses were Freemasons: Peyton Randolph of Virginia, John Hancock of Massachusetts, Henry Laurens of South Carolina, and Arthur St. Clair of Pennsylvania. (Source: Philalethes Society) Noteworthy freemason founding fathers include: America's first President, George Washington, had been a Mason. So were many other Founding Fathers, including Ethan Allen, John Paul Jones, Paul Revere, John Hancock, and of course Benjamin Franklin. Several of Washington's key officers in the continental army were also members of the fraternity.

Why is this significant. Freemasonry requires in it's members a belief in God and in the continuation of life after death. Freemasonry while not a religion required this belief as a requirement of membership. Freemasons initiations utilize biblical stories, scriptures, and every lodge has the Holy Bible open in the center of the room during meetings. All meetings are opened and closed with prayer.

While not defacto evidence of rampant Christianity among the founding fathers it does make a strong prima facia case that the founding fathers were a bit more religious than some would claim although they may have not identified with a specific denomination of Christianity many were obviously a bit more religious than "wound watch deism" many claim. In addition, the founding fathers did call for national days of "Fasting and Prayer" and the early congress often did things that involved religion. The congress has had chaplains from the earliest days and still opens with a prayer. Back in the beginning these chaplains were not Jewish or Muslim they were Christain because that's what they had.

I think it is accurate to say that the founding fathers did not want a specific creed dominating politics but the notion of a separation of church and state or the idea that they had little religious inclination is probably more the result of revisionists trying to advance modern day agendas.

noel · Veteran Member

Cat,

What I was fishing for is some idea of the planks you disagree with, and why.

noel · Veteran Member

Jason,

I have never read the phrase "wound watch deism", nor am I aware of a standardized deism. The 1770's were the high point of Enlightenment Age thinking in the United States, and there are probably as many variations under this rubric as there are "deists". What they all have in common was a rational approach to religious thought which manifest in the following ways regarding Christianity;

-The father of Jesus was mortal.

-Jesus was not raised from the dead.

-Atonement, to the extent that it can be enacted, does not come through a third party.

This leaves scads of room for "belief in God" under Freemasonry criteria, and you are right in emphasizing the importance of Freemasonry in the founding of the Republic. It was the "Civics Classroom" of the 18th century. You are also correct, in my opinion, in pointing out that projecting religious beliefs into the Founding Fathers currently carries with it the agenda of whatever cause invokes their blessing for contemporary political aims. These people were first and foremost, children of their age...not ours. We have much to gain from this, as I believe God wished us to garner from the wisdom of Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, et al. These were good men, who cared greatly about promoting liberty through as many generations as would merit it.

They were not Evangelicals, Mormons, Liberals, or Libertarians however. The task is ours to understand them in their element, not to make them fit into ours. Our freedom will depend on it.

arbilad · Head Chef

Noel, you're right - it's hard to find one definition for "Deist". Therefore, one of the best yardsticks for who was a Deist and who wasn't is what they claimed to be. Of the people attending the Constitutional Convention, only 7% didn't claim to be Christian of one sort or another, and of those, only 6% claimed to be Deists. Of those, at least one, Ben Franklin, gave up on many of the principles of Deism. He even stated in his autobiography that he had become disillusioned with Deism in many ways, not the least of which that Deism doesn't lead to a moral life (his assertion).
So anyway, from a purely factual basis, it is an easily supportable statement that most of the founding fathers were christian - they were publically known to be associated with certain christian denominations. You can argue about whether they truly supported the principles of those denominations. But it is a very hard determination to make after the fact, with only whatever writings they left behind to guide us.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

http://www.constitutionparty.org/

Both the Democrats and Republicans have squandered the Founders' legacy of liberty and justice under the Constitution. Most government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government ignore their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution Party seeks to reverse the movement of our government into a socialist dictatorship and get America back on the constitution track. See http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin315.htm

noel · Veteran Member

Arbi,

I know this is incidental to the thread topic, and I do agree for the most part with the Constitution Party platform. (Although I would not attempt to effect political change through it.)

Unless you can include disbelief in the divinity of Christ, as permissible to Christian discipleship however, the first paragraph of the platform is plain wrong.

Jefferson:

Much is known about Jefferson's religious beliefs. He was aware these beliefs would make him vunerable to criticism from Presbyterian and Congregationalist clergy if he ran for a Presidential bid, and his concerns proved to be correct. Classifying him under the categories of his day, he would be a moderate Unitarian. (Clearly deist under the definition I provided.)

Paradoxically, he also saw himself as a "restorationist". He believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ had been corrupted by priestcraft, and superstition. (Sound familiar?)

He proceeded to remove the supernatural elements from the Gospel narrative, and leave a moral/ethical construct which he felt represented the true message of Jesus.

Franklin:

Shortly before his death, he wrote these words to the President of Yale (a Minister); "As to whether Jesus is divine, I rather think not. But I just do not know. I think I will find out soon, so I do not have to spend my time now trying to figure it out."

Madison:

We have overwhelming evidence from his personal papers that James Madison was a bold deist.

The question comes down to this; Does it really matter to us that these men, and their compatriots, had problems with the "Christianity" of their day?

noel · Veteran Member

Lundbaek,

You will squander your role in making a change we both want, if you go the third party avenue.

arbilad · Head Chef

noel wrote:

Lundbaek,

You will squander your role in making a change we both want, if you go the third party avenue.

As opposed to having the Republican party ignore those same concerns? At least with the third party you can hope to evetually effect change, even if the nearterm is pretty bleak. The Republican party is working towards effecting changes that are socialist in nature instead.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

The Republican party, just like the Democrat party, is working towards effecting changes that are socialist. I don't expect many to believe this, but both parties have been infiltrated by and supported by LDGs. I know of only one tiny organization within the Republican Party that is trying to restore some semblance of constitutional government; that is the Arizona Republican Assembly. There may possibly be other groups within the Republican Party trying to accomplish the same thing. Arizona has been our home for 19 years and I heard of the organization only a few months ago. I realize the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and any other similar minded parties together will likely not make much of dent in our "awful situation". And Congressman Ron Paul, the only true constitutionalist in Congress, is a Republican congressman. Nevertheless, I believe it is too late to reverse course now. We are on our way over the waterfall and our only hope now is to rig for the safest possible splash down. We are not going to change the Republican Party. We have been living in Utah now for only a couple of weeks, and I have nosed around to get the feel of the political climate. I find so far that professed Republicans are largely Socialists in their views, certainly by the standards set by Ezra Taft Benson and H. Verlan Andersen. I cannot envision any reform being effected thru the Republican Party. Then it seems there is the other half that profess to be Democrats.

I do not consider the Constitution or the Libertarian Parties to be saviours of our nation, not at this point at least. I view them as magnets for the so-called "remnant"; those who sincerely espouse constitutional principles and who will be prepared to contribute to the restoration of constitutional government in America at some later time. They may well be the people Ezra Taft Benson was referring to when he stated: "We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: 'Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.'" (The Constitution, a Heavenly Banner, 1986, p.28) "For years we have heard of the role the elders could play in saving the Constitution from total destruction. But how can the elders be expected to save it if they have not studied it and are not sure if it is being destroyed or what is destroying it?" ("Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson", p.619-620) It is my hope that the Constitution Party will be the magnet that awakens voters to our "awful situation". And I percieve there may be some increase in awakening to the dangers that face us. I'm aware of 50 candidates for elected office in Utah from the Constitution Party of Utah. I am not sure the awakening is going to be fast enough to avoid the disaster which could very seriously result in bloodshed, hardship, and much sorrow in America, but they may well contribute to the restoration of constitutional government in America at some later time.

noel · Veteran Member

Lundbaek & Arbi,

I have no idea what a LDG is, so I guess that is just one more conspiracy I will have to educate myself on. (You would think these people could coordinate their conspiracies. )

I know the Republican Party is infiltrated by "constitutionalists", and we are not very secret about it.

How do the two of you feel about Ronald Reagan? I realize he ended up with a Keynesian economic outcome during his tenure, but philosophically...did you like him?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Yes, please tell. I am eager to hear this.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I indicated on an earlier post here somewhere that LDG = Latter Day Gadianton.

As for my feelings about President Reagan:

Probably the best president to my liking in my lifetime since 1938. He had to have known what he was doing, having been governor of California, which if it were a country, would be about the 7th largest country in the world But I cudda killed him for placing an embargo on sale and shipment of machinery being built for a Russian gas pipeline project. He had to have realized the Russians would simply turn to European suppliers for similar, and in some cases, identical machinery built under license to American companies. US companies like General Electric, Ingersoll Rand, Dresser, and others were badly hurt and had to close some departments. I was working for General Electric Int'l Division in Italy at the time and personally watched the Italian company Nuovo Pignone pick up much of the order for the gas turbine drivers, and in violaton of their license agreement with G.E., fill a large part of the order, along with other European gas turbine licensees of G.E. I thought how stupid can one get. Then years later I realized Reagan's administration was filled with people who I now, without going into detail, consider traitors. Further, in spite of his campaign commitments, he increased taxes, welfare spending and foreign aid. I have concluded he was heavily influenced by people in his administration who were seeking to destroy the USA to facilitate its incorporation into a regional and later a world government. I still like to think he means well, but I am disappointed in him none the less. Just not bitter, as I am toward Carter, Bush, Clinton, & Bush.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Another thing I'd like to relate about President Reagan. It seemed to me he was constantly under attack by mostly Democrats in Congress. And it seemed the media tried to portray him as a buffoon. An acquaintance who had worked for the CIA in the "Sit Room" during part of Reagan's terms told me of his observations that some congressmen seemed to be doing their level best to destroy the Reagan presidency even at the expense of American lives. As an example he related how some congressmen were secretly supporting the Sandanistas in Nicaragua in ways he did not describe to me. That some Americans were supporting the Sandanistas was as clear as the support given to the North Vietnamese by American interests during the Vietnam war.

arbilad · Head Chef

I think that President Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of all time. Certainly the greatest modern president. But lundbaek is right, that he did not live up to many of his promises.
It was important, though, that people started loving america again while he was president. People started feeling proud to be an american again. That's something that's sorely lacking today. And some of Reagan's line were pure genious, such as the scariest words in the English language are "We're from the government, and we're here to help."

noel · Veteran Member

OK guys, do you think Reagan would have been possible if he ran as a Constitution Party candidate?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Not hardly. Even Ron Paul gave up on the Libertarian Party and now runs as a Republican. But I see nothing but Latter Day Gadiantons as probable candidates from either the Democrat or the Republican parties. I realize many or most of you think a Republican will at least slow down the slide into a socialist dictatorship. Hogwash! Conservatives do battle with Democrats in office no matter what they try to do, but they generally ignore the actions of Republicans, who as of late have moved us toward socialist dictatorship at least as fast as Democrats would have. I strongly suspect President Bush and his administration have pushed us further into socialism than John Kerry would have gotten away with, especially with a Republican Congress. I don't think a Democratic administration would do any more damage than would a Republican administration. That's because I watch what they both do, not just listen to what they say.

I vote for Constitution Party candidates, or in some cases, Libertarian Party candidates because in doing so I join with others to send a message that I hope will awaken other Americans to the socialist leanings of the Dems and the Repubs, and hopefully awaken them to the advantages of a return to our constitutional republic. I also vote for them because of the obligation I have to "befriend" the US Constitution, which neither Republican nor Democratic voters are doing.

To put it bluntly, if people are ill informed or deceived enough to believe the Republicans are going to reverse the nose dive into a socialist dictatorship, they deserve a Democrat President and Congress. At least they will know what they are getting and maybe wise up a bit faster.

noel · Veteran Member

Lundbaek,

Do you think I am ill-informed? (It is OK to say yes...really.)

Do you think I will work any harder to promote constitutional government, because you remove yourself from the political discourse? We need you within the process!

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I believe a person’s vote is truly wasted when he does not use it to express his genuine beliefs. A vote made holding one’s nose is a sorry exercise of the voting franchise.

The Democrat and Republican parties offer a choice between driving our country over the cliff at 80 miles per hour or 90 miles per hour. I believe that President Bush & Co., like Clinton and his father before him, are but puppets of the forces engaged in surrendering United States sovereignty and national independence to a world government. I am convinced John Kerry would have done no differently. The present duopoly of power, represented by the Democrat and Republican parties, is essentially one party. Regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power, the same policies are followed.

If the fear of voting for a third party is not overcome, there will never be any hope for change or for a genuine choice besides the lesser of two evils. Voting for a Constitution Party candidate is not voting for a third-party candidate. In reality, the Constitution Party is a true second party. I believe that, for example, Utah's present Representatives in the Congress and our two U.S. Senators, all of whom are LDS and obligated to "befriend" the US Constitution, are not honoring their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

A vote for the Constitution Party is a vote for the Constitution. With one, possibly two exceptions I can think of, a vote for the Republican Party is a vote for more unconstitutional legislations and programs.