Talk:Constitution Party (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article is such a demonstration of lack of NPOV I don't even know where to start. Example: "We [bias] are the only party in our country [bias] that believes in the Constitution [bias]." (paraphrased) -- ShadowDragon 09:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

copied from http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_history.htm, now removed. --Jiang 09:20, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The description here of the Constitution Party's principles is extremely incomplete, seeing as it makes no reference to the CP's explicit Christianity. Without this clarification, the CP sounds like another variety of libertarianism or liberal republicanism.

If you check the Constitution Party's webpages, state by state, there is ONLY ONE state affiliate named AIP (CA) and ONLY ONE (MI) which is still named Taxpayers. (That is only because the party's petition to have the name changed to CP was rejected by the secretary of state.) The information in the article is plainly wrong in its current wording.

Fixed. Mcarling 16:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Christian?

Reading through the platform I see no emphasis on Christianity? Reference? Dominick 18:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See the preamble to the Constitution Party's platform, at http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php

Is this the example? This is similar to other preambles in Federalist documents of the 18th century. That is the aim, I think. It has a bent towards that I agree, but it certainly doesn't read like a theocratic organization. Dominick 16:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The preamble does reference God and Jesus Christ, and the party means it. The Federalist founding fathers indeed "meant it" when they included references to God in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. (It is interesting to note, that perhaps due to Thomas Jefferson's odd faith, neither document references Jesus Christ. Jefferson was also a Democrat, not a Federalist.) The Constitution party seems to me to be the biggest U.S. political party which is true to the principles of the Federalists, who died out as a party early in the 19th century. From a neutral POV, even a cursory browsing of the Constitution Party's web site reveals an emphasis on Christian principles and the Bible. I would agree that the CP is not a theocratic organization, but it certainly is a Judeo-Christian one, if not simply Christian. --Locarno 18:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quick fact check; "God" is referenced in the Declaration and the Constitution as the God of Nature or Natures God. This is a deistic worldview (Deist big D the Enlightenment movement) not a Christian one. The only positive statement (by a Founding Father) about Christianity I found was one by Patrick Henry. Of course he was an anti-Federalist and opposed the Constitution.

This phrasing is most likely derived from William Blackstone's "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," i.e., "natural law" and revealed law (the Bible). Cf. http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-002.htm where Blackstone says, "But every man now finds...his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.

"This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, has been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures." --Travisseitler 20:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who keeps on editing the beginning parts and saying that Roy Moore is a theocrat, but it seems like someone's trying to make the CP look like some sort of theocratic party. A quick glance at some points. Roy Moore is not advocating a state religion and nor is he wanting to force people to worship God. All he is wanting to do is ackowledge that a lot of our laws came from the Bible. While I'm on the subject, for those of you who might be interested, I'd encourage you to read the 1892 Supreme Court decision of Holy Trinity v. the United States. August 5, 2006.

Nolan Chart

The Nolan Chart is not a Libertarian thing. It might be considered a libertarian thing (or classic liberal thing), but I doubt even that. Plenty of people use it because it is useful. When two entities are the same on the left-right spectrum knowing their ideas on freedom-security can help to differentiate. see also [1] and [2]. At http://uselectionatlas.org (link 2) many many people (in the forums) show their political compass rating despite identifying as Republican, independant, Democrat, and other (including Constitution Party members). Accoriding to [3] Peroutka is right between Conservate and Authoritarian. According to [4] he is again between Conservative and Authoritarian, but not as extremely so. I'd appreciate you not changing my additions again because they are in fact useful to some people. Dustin Asby 20:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's a libertarian thing, to show how great libertarians are as compared to all those other people who are authoritarian about various things. It also only makes any sense at all in a US context. john k 22:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Plenty of things in Wikipedia only apply to the USA, that doesn't matter a bit. And I should think that people would believe that freedom is good, however whether they do or not doesn't change the fact that people can be placed on a liberty-security scale. In other words, it only "shows how great libertarians are" to those who have a libertarian point of view. Those who prefer security over freedom shouldn't have a problem with a chart that shows that opinion, nor should they mind seeing others, that think along their lines, on that chart. Your argument is like saying that when a Republican calls a Democrat liberal it is a bad thing. It is "bad" to conservatives, and it is "good" (or fine) with liberals to be called such. If I point out someones opinions and they are bothered by it, then it isn't truly his/her opinions. Should I use the political compass chart rather than the Nolan Chart (since Nolan himself is a Libertarian)? Dustin Asby 01:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Dustin Asby. It's useful. 13:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Winger opinion

It should not be the purpose of any page that summarizes a particular political party to insist upon deriding it. Let the vote totals and registration figures be what they are.

First, it is entirely speculative to say that AIP registrants in CA didn't want to register that way. Second, the suggested language only guesses at how the State of California classifies voters who indicate a preference for "Independent," and if they do this, how many are involved. And third, any minor party IS, in point of fact, "independent" in one sense of the word, being an adjunct in a predominantly two-party system such as ours. This further casts doubt upon the article's ability to determine what all the registered voters of the party, or any party, intended when registering.

Sorry, it's sourced and verified. You may not agree with Winger but that's no reason to delete his opinion from this article. Rhobite 15:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I googled for it, using +"Richard Winger" +"Independent American Party" and couldn't find any statement by him to that effect. Where is it? Rad Racer 15:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's one man's opinion, NOT FACT.

Fortunately, opinions also have a place in Wikipedia if they're properly attributed. You're free to add the Constitution Party's take on the matter of registrant confusion. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is not synonymous with "no point of view." Around here, we don't delete debates - we describe them fairly. I'm re-adding Winger's opinion. If you think I summarized it incorrectly, please modify it. Rhobite 19:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Not "christian democratic"

I read the article on Christian democratic parties, and the CP certainly does not match, so I've removed that. Also, please hesitate identifying the CP too closely with Christians; they have been making efforts to be a party for those who have similar principles regarding government, regardless of religion; there are significant amounts Jews and secular people in the party. However, we can't deny that the CP is heavily influenced by the Bible and Christian thought. --Locarno 15:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Theocratic! That's a good description. Rad Racer | Talk 19:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The CP does not try to impose rule by any one church or even by "Christians" in general. It has the position that biblical principles should be applied to prudent governance - that's distinctly different. — ChristTrekker 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian vs. Constitutionalist

See Why not the Libertarian Party to see why, although the two parties share some positions on economic issues, they ultimately are rooted in entirely different beliefs. Rad Racer 12:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Somehow "Christian Right / Libertarian" still doesn't seem to describe them correctly, since that could mean they are either Christian Right, except they economic self-governors (correct) or Christian Right, except they are personal self-governors (incorrect). Actually, I think the main problem is that "the right," which according to the World's Smallest Political Quiz supports economic freedom, has become associated with such hypocrisy on economic issues, that at first glance it doesn't seem like the right word to describe the Constitutionalists. Rad Racer 20:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the right supports "economic freedom" is a rather recent one, and is certainly not an integral part of what defines "the right". Liberalism is about economic freedom, but liberalism is neither of the left nor the right (or of both, I guess). Traditional conservatism certainly had little interest in economic freedom. john k 22:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was using the labels from World's Smallest Political Quiz. These terms have constantly-shifting meanings and therefore are somewhat arbitrary. Rad Racer 23:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I see the CP supporting a largely libertarian agenda. It's merely that they derive their platform from biblical first principles rather than secular/humanist principles, and therefore differ on a few points. But in a general sense, the CP is indeed libertarian. — ChristTrekker 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought I would add this, since I saw the term recently. Another way to describe the difference between the LP and CP is to look at where each believes the source of authority lies. One could say the LP view is autonomy, and the CP's is theonomy. Theonomy is distinct from theocracy in that whereas theocracy says that God rules, theonomy simply acknowledges there is a higher law than man's and hence man's law must be in accordance with God's. That may be too fine a distinction for some to grasp, but an important point is that lawmakers who ascribe to this view ought to govern with a sense of humility, as they realize they are subject to higher law, and not let their positions make them self-important. Of course, there are differing views as to what exactly God's law says or how it applies to a changing society, and since freedom of conscience/religion is so important (in the Judeo-Christian tradition), theonomy seems to dictate that the government that governs least, governs best, lest anyone's sincerely held beliefs be impinged. This is indeed very similar to the libertarian view, though it will naturally differ in some details. — ChristTrekker 13:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideology

• Is Paleoconservative the self-descriptive term for the Constitution Party's ideology? If not, the ideology field in the summary box should be brought into alignment with the other U.S. Parties (Green Party (United States), Libertarian Party (United States), etc.) that use self-descriptives. Actually, beyond that issue, I think paleoconservative is somwhat inaccurate. Daniel Quinlan 22:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Beyond which issue? Overall, paleoconservativism (at least as defined in its wikipedia article) seems to match up with the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party is also libertarian economically (though more authoritarian with regards to social issues.) --Tim4christ17 09:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Strict" is more accurate than "traditional" when describing the moral positions of the party. "Traditional" is somewhat pejorative for "out of date", when the members of the party certainly believe that their morals are correct for today. Also, I'm sure that there are some "traditional" positions which the party members are against. I've reverted the article to "strict". Any other thoughts? --Locarno 20:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Their ideology should be "nationalism" not "patriotism". Patriotism has the connotation of being a "positive" thing while nationalism is a more neutral word. --TwelveStones 23:30, 21 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. If no-one in the political mainstream (defining that very loosely) ever says "I am not x", it's utterly useless as a descriptive political term. No-one ever says "I am not a patriot" who hopes to win an election, therefore it's useless to describe someone as 'patriotic' in an encyclopaedia. --Malthusian (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Membership

There is considerable overlap between the membership of the Constitution Party and the Alliance for the Separation of School & State. Remember me 22:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move?

Should this be moved to Constitution Party which now redirects here? Its the only one around and so I don't see the purpose having United States at the end. Any objections? Falphin 22:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Confirm that there is no "Constitution Party" in another country? Then go ahead. — ChristTrekker 16:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, probably better to leave as is. You never know when another country might create a "Constitution Party" and then you need to move this back and create a disamb. page. Leave it where it is, and you only have to change the redirect to be a disamb. page. Current naming is consistent with other major US parties, too. — ChristTrekker 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not direct any Constitution Party searches directly to the Constitution Party page,and list a "Click here to see Disambiguation" link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.198.99 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Please put part platform in overhaul.

The whole part should go into much more detail and be fixed. Also where they supported by the NRA?

I'm adding a link to their platform. --Tim4christ17 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not finding an endorsement by the NRA, though the Constitution party's platform does state that "We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968. We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms."--Tim4christ17 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian party?

If User:71.131.252.60 is going to insist upon Wikipedia:Citing sources, he/she ought to insist on Wikipedia:Reliable sources; that is why I moved {{fact}} to the end. Stephen Compall 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the whole sentence needs a citation because it says they oppose government recognized homosexual marriage and are against abortion. This is in their platform and for encouraging morality and decency in public life is stated in pornography. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble

Someone keeps adding Judeo back to Christian values and it is very sticky for a variety of reasons:

1- Not all Christian denominations look over the old testament 2- You have many different types of Jews and many follow Talmudic law. 3- Christian values means biblical values in general so it doesn't need to be mentioned.

There are many more points to go over. Would I go and add Judeo-Christian to everything? Would I go and say Judeo-Christian values were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition? Jews would be pissed off and they would demand that it would be removed. Its innaccurate to say Judeo Christian to the article and I have never once seen the Constitution Party advocate "Judeo" Christian values. They only emphasize Christian values and that is what I put. If the CP specifically put "Judeo-Christian" anywhere it needs a citation from a reliable source. It was not mentioned on their platform which is a good indication that they didnt mention it anywhere. If it was important as you say it is I assure you they would have mentioned it in their platform but they didnt write the word Judeo infront of Christian values. Someone keeps adding Judeo and I merely asked for a citation to resolve the problem because I am nearly postive that they never said it.

From the Wikipedia article on Judeo-Christian: "Judeo-Christian is ... typically considered (along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values." This is a set "fundamental basis," that is commonly understood with reference to history, politics, and law. The dispute over whether certain sects of Jews and Christians agree with eachother is irrelevant - the term itself has a set meaning. Back on topic - I did a Google search of the Constitution Party website, and turned up "Judeo-Christian" only once: in a press release by the party chairman [5] which indicates that he agrees with General Boykin's statement that "we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian" --Tim4christ17 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• If there are Christian groups that don't look to the Old Testament, how come they look at the Ten Commandments? The term Judeo-Christian fits the Roy Moore, et al agenda quite well.

Wins?

Has the CP ever won an election on any level of government? If so or not, that should be put in the first paragraphs. Tim Long 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick Jore was the only "victory" in a state legislature or higher that I'm aware of. --Tim4christ17 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In April of 2002 three party members won non-partisan elections in Wisconsin: John DuPont to the Waukesha city council; Paul Trelo to the Appleton city council; and Mark Gabriel to the Calumet County Board. [6]. John R G 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I just found this site about State Senator Sheila M. Kiscaden here is the link. [7]

I just found another site with people who are in office from the Constitution party website. [8]. John R G 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Another editor has suggested merging Constitution Party (United States 1952) into this article. I have no problem with that, just didn't want to step on anyone's toes by doing it. I'd prefer someone else do it, if y'all want it to merge. Wjhonson 17:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Merge - To my knowledge, these two Constitution parties have no relation to eachother. A more appropriate thing to do would be to create a Historical Third Parties article to put things like that into. --Tim4christ17 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge -- two different parties, two different articles. Ground Zero | t 18:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was that editor. Thanks for the feedback. I guess that does make more sense - if merged and then the 1952 party were fleshed out, we'd just want to split it off again. I'll remove my suggestion from that other page. — ChristTrekker 17:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians

What's the issue with the user category? That's there only one member or what? Wjhonson 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User categories don't belong on articles (and vice versa). See Wikipedia:categorization#User namespace. -Will Beback 23:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The user category is new I started it yesterday. I thought it would help out the Constitution Party. If you want to join you can see the link on my page. John R G 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a category for right-wing persons? I see the one for right-wing organizations, but I need one to tag people's bios with as well. Wjhonson 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:American conservatives and related? ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

High-profile members

Yes, Pat Buchanan flirted with the idea of running on the CP ticket, and Bob Smith ran for President as a CP candidate for a few months-before rejoining the Republican Party-but describing them as "members" of the Constitution Party is inaccurate, to say the least.

The most notable member of the Constitution Party-to the best of my recollection-is Howard Phillips, a former bureaucrat in the Nixon administration, conservative activist, and presidential nominee.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and "Fair Tax"

Changed the language in: "Constitutionalists support reducing the role of the United States federal government through cutting bureaucratic regulation, reducing spending, and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in favor of a fair tax system" Saying they are in favor of a fair tax system isn't NPOV so its changed to "a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes" from their website.

Is there a less cumbersome way of phrasing that?

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonably succinct to me. -Will Beback 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.

I would have gone with a hyptertext link to the "Fair Tax" article, but defining the premise behind the Fair Tax is a good alternative.

Ruthfulbarbarity 06:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

platform section

I've broken this out to be a little more manageable. I would like to see the views in each "area" summarized (something akin to what the party infobox does) so that readers can skim and quickly get a thumbnail view of the party ideology. The very first line should give a high-level view of the CP position, like how Foreign Policy currently does: "Additionally, they favor a noninterventionist foreign policy.". "Noninterventionist" is a good general summary. This whole section probably needs a going-over now that I've rearranged it...maybe when I have some more time. — ChristTrekker 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Intent

The platform section states that the party seeks to run government by an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but then advocates rule by Biblical law, which is historically considered to be very clearly not the original intent of the Framers. I suggest changing this to statement to "claim to" seeks to run government in that fashion since it's clearly in contrast with how the majority of Constitutional scholars would frame their actual beliefs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.56.10 (talk • contribs)

The Constitution party does not seek to "rule by Biblical law", but rather to govern the nation by the Biblical principles that were advocated by the Framers and which are part of the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This position does have a good deal of scholarly research and opinion supporting it. --Tim4christ17 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Creationism has scholarly research and opinion supporting it, too. The Bible was not the basis for our Constitution, no matter how much the Constitution Party pretends that it is. 66.57.225.77 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just passing through, but by outright saying "Biblical principles" it implys religion based rule. But then again, it can depend on how the person viewing takes it. --72.152.101.103 09:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, you could base some laws on the biblical mandates to not murder and not steal. This does not mean that any religion is governing the state, or that the state is mandating a particular religious worship. Yet the principles of respecting the right to life and private property do make for sound civil government. It makes a lot of sense to use them. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Past Office-holders

If anyone could find all of the past public office-holders, that would make for a useful list next to the current office-holder list. I can't imagine it would be very long. Tim Long 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

semi-protect this article

This article sees a lot of vandalism from non-logged IP addresses. Removing anonymous edits would save most of the effort of reverting those.

I put in the request, and it was denied. "Declined not enough activity. Please watchlist and revert any vandalism you come across. Cowman109 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)" Sometimes I really don't understand WP's policy of allowing anonymous edits. Watching for vandalism to revert is a waste of time, when you could simply deny anonymous edits and be rid of 90% of these problems. If you've got something worth saying, be willing to stand behind it. Oh well, enough venting... — ChristTrekker 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[9] is not vandalism. That's called a content dispute. Please read WP:VAND. Moving forward I'll undo any reversions of content changes like that as "vandalism" because it simply is not. You'll need to work out why it's not an acceptable content change in talk, not simple revert it under a blanket term like vandalism. FeloniousMonk 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From someone anonymous that can't be responded to, with no supporting comments, when the issue has already been beaten to death (and managed to arrive at a decently unbiased POV) in the past? Yeah, that's vandalism, pure and simple - it may not be obscene/joking/blanking, but it's not "good faith" and the repetitious nature makes it "inarguably explicit" in my view. There are better ways to handle POV disputes, and tactics like these inhibit the use of them - you can't discuss anything with someone who refuses to talk or even leave a name. You just happen to agree with this vandal - but at least you'll sign your name. Hey, maybe the CP is theocratic - come forth and make your argument for that view! As far as I'm concerned, this thread is working out why those have not been acceptable content changes. If you can't support your statements (or are unwilling to) then you lose. — ChristTrekker 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians against anonymous editing

I know this is not related to the Constitution Party but if we get enough people to join it maybe it can make a difference. John R G 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy Moore is not a theocrat

He merely upholds the Biblical tradition of our nation's founders.

Your nation, perhaps. But the US's founders did not have a "Biblical tradition". {Bubbha 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}

Criticism

Why is there no section for Criticism? Dlong 21:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from adding one. — ChristTrekker 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How can they claim to be so strongly in favor of freedom yet at the same time oppose abortion and gay marriage? {Bubbha 17:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}

One first needs to understand what true freedom is. I submit this for your perusal. Perhaps you will find it of use. — ChristTrekker 17:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an important distinction between liberty and license. --Tim4christ17 ^talk

Is there any source for the statement that Moore and Rushdoony support the CP, or is someone reaching this dominionism conclusion a priori? If not, this should be stricken from the article. People may still think the CP to be a "dominionist" organization, but not for any association with them. Beyond the bit about Moore being courted for nomination by CP members, I'm not aware of any association whatsoever. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Election

I think the Constitution Party did pretty good in the election. I feel they would have done alot better if they would run in contests that are easier to win like the Libertarian Party does. Maybe they should just go for winnable elections that are really small and build from there.

Does anyone know of anymore election victories by the Constitution Party? John R G 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some here...haven't checked if all the victories are in the article - seems like there weren't all that many victories, though. [10] --Tim4christ17 ^talk 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the LP didn't have any candidates on my ballot, though there were several CP. Also, a big issue with the selection of offices is the major CP tenet that it's the top levels of gov't (state, fed) that are most in need of reform. CP people simply aren't as likely to run for small offices, because by-and-large those offices are doing their job OK. Also, CP people tend not to be career politicians, and thus not interested in building up a political résumé before running for high office. That's how I see it. In a practical sense this does hurt their chances - the very nature of government works against efforts to keep it under control. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

name templates

I cleaned up and expanded Category:Party shortnames templates (United States), which should be of use to some of you that frequent this corner of WP. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Constitution Party In California?

Isn't the Constitution Party on the ballot in California known as the American Independent Party? According to this Link: http://www.constitutionparty.com/view_states.php?state=CA I had added California and this link in the Ballot access section and somebody has deleted it. Also a quote from the link used to show the number of states the Constitution Party has on ballot is 13 and NOT 12 including California. "Constitution: California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah. The party will almost certainly have North Dakota in a few weeks, since it has finished its petition and the state is likely to approve it. It is possible New Mexico also recognizes the party; the law is very unclear." http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/11/14/ballot-status-tally-for-president-in-2008/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf78 (talk • contribs)

The CA CP is indeed the AIP. However, the ballot access section is specifically referring to the 2008 presidential race. That's probably why you were reverted. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually ChristTrekker, if you take a another look at the second link I provided it shows 13 states on the 2008 state ballot including California. I am a California resident somebody I know who is more involved with the party says that California is on the 2008 ballot as the American Independent Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf78 (talk • contribs)

I reread that, and the revert is probably due to the last paragraph. Technically ballot access won't be secured until February. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel

Does anyone know the CP position on Israel? If so, that would fit well in the foreign policy section. Seeing as how the party is religiously motivated, it would be significant to know if they support Israel, the typical evangelical position, or are neutral, the typical paleocon position. Their reason would also be notable.Tim Long 00:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the Foreign Policy plank of the platform. It calls for strict noninterference and an end to foreign aid. I don't recall that I've ever seen this point addressed specifically, however. My "feel" is that many CP folks are likely personally sympathetic to Israel's position, but as a matter of principle would refrain from making that public policy as it is a bad precedent. ⇔ ChristTrekker 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

moving transient/historical sections

I was considering moving certain transient and historical elements (office holders, electoral results, etc.) to a separate article and retaining only a summary here. I feel this article goes into too much detail. What do you think? Yea/nay? Any insights based on other party articles, or from other wikis? ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to remove the recent election results. Maybe leave the '06? I recently revised these.

Drugs?

The page doesn't mention the party's policies on drugs. Anyone? Ppe42 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected this oversight. Thanks. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Far-right

This party is listed as Far Right on that page. Is it? Nssdfdsfds 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's what the mainstream press would label it, so you can certainly find citations to reference it. Sad that abiding by the law of the land (the Constitution) makes you extremist... Not sure that adding a "position" to that infobox template was a good idea, since it is redundant with (and less informative than) ideology, and it is just an opening for obviously pejorative terms (e.g. "far right"). ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ChristTrekker...lulz. So you care to explain why the "pejorative" term far-right is considered appropriate for other Wikipedia articles on political parties with similar social/political orientation, but not this one?

No, it's sad that people like yourself support making the law of the land something only the most far-right fringe desires. There is no non-perjorative label for these policies, and "far-right" is the least bad option. 125.175.156.47 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What's sad is that there are actually people who support this nonsense, which is in blatant violation of the constitution (outlawing abortion, etc.).Cameron Nedland (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not if the Constitution is Amended, dumbo.98.165.6.225 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking back on it in the light of today, it'd probably be considered 'extreme right' rather than just 'far right'. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Cameron Nedland, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have supported abortion, they just couldn't have foreseen what an issue it would be. BenW (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor would they have supported this country being based on Christian Ideology, which this party clearly supports. Dumaka (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your conjecture and opinion, but please stop inserting it into the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You just don't give up do you? Typical conservative. Dumaka (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• It would be nice if you stick to the issue and not worry about editors political affiliations (which, BTW, I don't support the Constitution Party. They're too extreme for my tastes). The text you are trying to insert is an interpretation that legal scholars and historians differ on. However, it is inappropriate for this article because the article is about the party and their beliefs/platform, not their place in the historical debate over church and state. Your insertion presents a POV that is not neutral, nor is it supported by a WP:RS. That puts it squarely in the realm of WP:OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. You have a good point. I'll let it out then. Dumaka (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's far right-- that it's not listed as such is plainly pro-Conservative Party bias/spin by editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.119.122 (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone vandalizing this page by putting "far-right" will be suspended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Roy Moore & Alan Keyes

Moore has drawn the attention of some CP members and has spoken at a couple events, but AFAIK he has not made any advances toward the party himself. That is, he has no formal attachment to the party whatsoever. Should he even be noted in this article? Same deal for Keyes. CP members tend to like him, but how does that signify any affiliation with the party? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Both are clearly affiliated with the party. See the CP site.

Don't be lazy—provide a reference. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WRT Alan Keyes, try http://www.renewamerica.us/news/070108concord.htm Jhobson1 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

American Patriot Party

Does the American Patriot Party belong in the "See also" section as a similar party? I don't think they even have an abortion stance. Tim Long 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually they do and are similar: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/issues/#Abortion

Other similar stands follow the intent of the Constitution's Founders: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.172.23 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Category

If I'm not mistaken, constitutionalist with a lowercase c indicates someone who holds a philosophy of respect for the Constitution, which an uppercase C indicates a member of the party. Shouldn't we then capitalize the C on the "Category:(State) constitutionalists" categories? And shouldn't we also remove them from people who have left the party, like Michael Peroutka? Tim Long 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There was some confusion about whether "people by political stance" categories were philosophical, partisan affiliation, or both. For now the category seems to be for partisan affiliation so you are probably right. Personally I don't think it's a big deal, and I don't know that any admins would want to bother with fixing case when there are other things to do. As for removing the category from former members, how is that handled for other parties (particularly regarding prominent members)? ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Amendents

I have looked over the party's website, and I can find no reference to a goal of revising the First Amendment, or repealing the Eighth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth or Twenty-First or Twenty-Sixth. I realize, looking at the history section, that this has been a matter of some debate/deletions in the past. I propose that whoever has added these claims provide some sort of evidence or citation to support them, or that this section be deleted permanently. 24.168.65.83 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The platform section does need more citations, in general. I am unsure what, specifically, you are referring to here, however. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Christtrekker: The portions I mentioned above were deleted a few weeks ago, so no matter. On a related topic, there is a reference to the party supporting the right of states to secede from the union without federal interference. This statement cites the party website, which makes no such statement. All it talks about is getting the federal government out of ageas that are arguably the purview of states or private business. Again, this seems to be inaccurate, and I think it ought to be changed.38.117.162.35 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Directly from the referenced page: "We acknowledge that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary." ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Damnit. I must have missed that line. Oh well, nothings perfect. Nice way to twist around one sentence. So, what I can't figure out is if the guy who wrote that wiki part is a Cofederate apologist or an arsonist.98.165.6.225 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

CfM nomination

The U.S. state subcategories of Category:Members of the Constitution Party (United States) are being considered for merging into their parent category. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. szyslak 09:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-abortion violence movement

Does anyone have any evidence that anti-abortion activists refer to themselves as part of an "anti-abortion violence movement"? I've never heard of that phraseology and it sounds biased.

Silverstarseven (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound biased. It is certainly not true among mainstream anti-abortion activists. Where in the article did you see this statement? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I've also noticed that the Constitution party is the only one of the top five political parties by members to have a criticisms section. Either all five of the U.S political parties need this section, or none of them should have it. There is no reason to treat this party differently than the rest. I'm in favor of removing this section, as I doubt that it will be added to the other four topics without months of hassle.

Silverstarseven (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having the section removed. Let's see what other people say. The claim about the Iranian revolution appears to be a bit outlandish. The claim about the party being linked to dominionism is quite true and would only be a concern to people who don't like dominionism. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The CP shouldn't be treated any differently than other parties. I will remove that section. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vice-presidential candidate

Who is the Constitution Party's vice-presidential candidate for 2008? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Darrell Castle campaigned for Vice President in 2008. 12.41.204.3 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Split in AIP in California

The AIP in California has split into two factions. See talk:American Independent Party. I will hold off on updating this article until it is resolved which faction has ballot access or until there is some consensus how to handle this. Paul Studier (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that the AIP is no longer a part of the CP. There have been two failed lawsuits by the pro-Baldwin faction and they have lost. That faction now calls itself the Constitution Party of CA. This brings up an interesting problem, however, because Wikipedia largely lists the CP as one of the top three third parties. Since the majority of CP membership went away with the AIP, can we accurately continue with that label? --Estrill5766 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The case for the AIP is still in court. It has never been heard on merits, and cannot be called "failed". The majority of active membership of the AIP is still for the CP and is awaiting the court decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.10.224 (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Far right or Right?

As this article is in my watch list, I came across this edit and also saw the two or three preceding ones. Can either of you who have edited it give a source or a to prove your point. It is, in my opinion, obvious that the party is right. But I think a source would be necessary to prove its far-rightness.

C mon thinks that facts not assumptions should be used. I would agree except nobody has presented any sourced facts. And I don't see how far right should be understood to be more factual than right when there are no verifiable sources.

Itanesco says asks why it should be far right on social issues if it is a right wing party. I myself think that it very well may be called either right or far right, depending on your definitions. (That's why a source would be useful.)

Shii says that saying that is right rather than far right is POV. I find this hard to understand. Why should one be POV over the other if no one has presented a source for either?

Your thoughts? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, first, you need to use sources, not complain. Second, I did not say that "right" was POV. Some anonymous IP changed all the instances of "far right" to "centrist" and "Founding Fathers[' views]". This is a Very Silly thing to do for reasons which should be self-evident. I couldn't tell you myself whether this is a right-wing or far-right group. Shii (tock) 04:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no sources off-hand, but the Constitution Party is almost universally considered to be "right-wing." Far-right usually refers to parties that employ fascist, racial or other distinctly non-egalitarian ideas. -- LightSpectra (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Shii. I didn't look to see what you had changed it from or didn't look closely enough to see. You are correct that it was POV. My apologies. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted user:Itanesco's edit making "far right" into "right-wing". The reason I reverted Itanesco was that his reasoning was flawed. His reasoning appears to be "this party is rightwing, therefore all its positions must be rightwing". But why have subdivisions for its position on economic and social issues if these will conform to the left right dimension?
I think that external, reliable, sourcing for these positions on the left-right dimension is necessary. I recently found a nice expert survey for this for European parties, (see here). But I know of none for American (third) parties.
I am no expert on the constitution party, but I from my perspective, the term "far right" on social issues for U.S. political parties should be used for those parties which are significantly more rightwing than the Republicans on this issue. That is what from a political spectrum perspective the term far right implies independent of its connections to fascism. On Far right this is how the term is said to be typically used: "Far right is typically used to describe a political viewpoint that advocates strong social conservatism or social authoritarianism, rejects liberalism, and rejects communism." The issue that simply becomes is the U.S. Constitution Party significantly more socially conservative than the U.S. Republican Party? I leave that question to the experts.
BTW on the article far right the whole party is called "far right" and this reference is given: Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right–Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford. Maybe that can help in your discussion.
— C mon (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hysterically reactionary, self-important, left wing neocon pressure group the Anti-Defamation League call them "far right" as an attempt to manipulate media coverage and hope to extinguish any support this party may recieve.

I am presuming that they have labelled the party so, because CP have a more traditional Toryism, non-interventionist outlook to foreign policy - ie, they don't want the USA to be a global police force, which if you are militant zionist relying on US support in Israel like ADL, this is not a desirable outlook. We need a legitimate, third party, neutral media source calling them "far right" to warrant inclusion, not privately funded, political bias. Victim complex "yooman rights" totalitarians like the ADL are obviously not a reliable source.

I'm not a Zionist and I think they're far right and in any case Wikipedia's standards for sourcing thankfully aren't dictated by crackpots like you.

In the field of left right politics used in its most correct sense, conservatism is always centre or right. This is because even the most full on traditional conservatism via Edmund Burke is an offshoot of classic liberalism. Radicalism is left, ultra monarchism is far right. Since CP is neither, just "right" will do, they're similar to UKIP. - Set Recordd (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Monarchism has nothing to do with the definition of right/left wing except specifically during the French Revolution. The CP is in no way an heir to classical liberalism, and while it may have some similar policies to the UKIP, it's socially much further to the right of the UKIP-- the UKIP is secular the Constitution Party Dominionist.

You do not have to be a monarchist to be "far-right". The UK is a monarchy and is far from the ultra-Right. The Constitution Party, with its xenophobia and economic nationalism, is Far-Right in the American political spectrum. Note: American.--Drdak (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This party has the same platform as most center-right parties so why isn't it labeled as center right? It's against racism, it's pro legal immigration, it's pro religious freedom and has no traits of a far right party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ideology

We need to settle this, since we're on the verge of an edit war.

Firstly, because the party is so vehemently opposed to free trade and foreign wars, and they support strong socially conservative measures, the phrase national conservatism applies. Since this is more specific than simply "conservatism", I hope we can all agree to use the former.

Now, the question is, are they also paleoconservatives? I don't think so. Paleoconservatives have a tint of libertarianism (see: Ron Paul, Robert Taft), yet I don't detect any of this within, say, Chuck Baldwin. However, many organizations have labeled the Constitution Party as a paleoconservative party; should this be placed in the party box, even though this is not entirely accurate? -- LightSpectra (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that paleoconservatives by extension have to be libertarian? Pat Buchanan is often cited as an important paleoconservative figure, but his stance on social issues and foreign trade by no means makes him seem at all "libertarian".

Good point. I suppose that means "paleoconservative" is a wide enough label to also apply to the Constitution Party. -- LightSpectra (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Far as I know, Pat Buchanan is a cultural conservative who believes that states should implement very restrictive social policies, but I don't think he's ever quite called for the federal government to do so. Paleoconservatives, owing to their distributist influence, are typically highly decentralist (while still conservative) on social matters. The Constitution Party, by contrast, is an intrinsically Hamiltonian centralist party, owing more to the Whigs of old than to the decentralist Old Right. I don't believe they can thus be properly classified as paleoconservatives - they are Christian nationalists and American nationalists, not localists and federalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.139.177 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if this belongs under Ideology or if it deserves a new topic for "Platform", but I was quite surprised to see that there is no mention of the Party's Christian underpinnings which form the foundation of its agenda and philosophies. From the Party's Mission Statement page... "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."... and from the Preamble of its National Platform... "The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States." Shouldn't these core beliefs of the Party be referred to somewhere in the article? JBinMD (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely there should be some mention - probably as a sub-section of "Platform". However, you would need to be very careful to be NPOV and use WP:RS when writing it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Back up accusing the CP making jokes about Obama

The page claims that Constitution Party leaders have been making fun of Barack Obama's skin color. Nothing has been shown verifying such claims. If it cannot be verified then the comments are on the chopping block for deletion. 12.41.204.3 (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncited user: This link takes you to one particular writing on the CP website from their communications director. The "baby mama" and "baby daddy" references in context serve as backup. http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=846 Danprice19 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually it says "While Obama’s mamma’s baby’s daddy was a Kenyan", but I don't see where that is making fun of his race.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And when they call him a "half-black" on their own official party site.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Obama IS half-black. Why is stating that fact "making fun of his race"? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of the context in which they said it is offensive. Dumaka (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's very true that context can make a lot of difference. Which of these are you talking about? The baby mamma quote or calling him half black? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Both. Being called "half-black" is very condescending and rude. People who are of mixed blood prefer to be called mixed or by their dominant race. And the baby mamma quote, let's not even go there. [11] Dumaka (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• While I realize it is WP:OR, in my personal life, the only people I've heard refer to Obama as being half black ahve been other blacks. Regardless, as you pointed out above, context is important and "half-black" is not always condescending and rude and more than it is always acceptable. So we have to look at context. Here is was used in the context of "Here goes the country’s first (half) Black president reinstating slavery." I'm really not seeing it as being any more offensive than when Obama talked about his grandmother being a "typical white person". What I see is a reference to the irony of a mixed race president pushing for what this group considers to be a form of slavery. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm right, it's just how I see it, which is kind of the point. The quote will be seen by some as racist and by some as not......so labelling it "racist quote" and inserting it into the article promotes the POV of one side as fact. That's not terribly neutral sounding. As for the other quote, which in context is: "While Obama’s mamma’s baby’s daddy was a Kenyan, Rahm’s father was an Israeli and a member of a Zionist group called Irgun". I, like you, can't really tell you the authors intent, only how I see it and I don't see that it is terribly offensive in my view. However, we are dealing with the quote of one party official and trying to make it an issue for the party as a whole. Would that be any more fair than trying to say that the senior Democratic senator Robert Byrd spoke for the entire party when he used the term "white nigger" in a 2001 interview or that Democratic Presidential candidate Jesse Jackson was speaking for the entire party when he called Jews "Hymies" and called New York City "Hymietown"? Considering that Alan Keyes felt comfortable enough with the party to seek their nomination, I'd suspect that there is not a policy of racism in the Constitution Party. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the way they promote the language is very condescending and rude. It was meant to be rascist while masquerading as PC Dumaka (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Masquerading as PC? You're kidding, right? That didn't sound very PC at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Dumaka (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• But when did failing to follow the artificial standards of political correctness become an automatic ticket to "racist"? Political correctness is....well, often nothing more than a way of avoiding stating something simply. Euphamisms and cutsey phrases don't change facts. Calling someone vertically challenged doesn't make them less short than they really are, nor will calling someone bi-racial or mixed race make them more black (or less white) than they really are. While I would prefer that race not be an issue at all, when the person makes their race an issue (as Obama did during the campaign), one can't get angry that others who don't agree with him make reference to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course his race became an issue, and it was smart of him to address his race during his campaign. You may disagree but that is the way America works. The CP used the phrase "half-black" in an insulting way. Granted the President is half-black, but the context of which the CP uses it can be implied by some as offensive. Just as others have used his middle name "Hussein" as a reference to him being Muslim (which he isn't). It may seem pc to use his full name; however, the context in which they said it was for the purposes of insult or trying to connect him with Saddam Hussein (which is completely outrageous). So, is it safe to say that the CP used the term "half-black" in that context? Dumaka (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The CP used the phrase "half-black" in an insulting way." In your opinion, which is fine for you to have, but that doesn't make it fact.

"Granted the President is half-black, but the context of which the CP uses it can be implied by some as offensive." And that is the point, isn't it....by some. Some do, some don't. So inserting it into the article demonstrates a POV that we can't even show with evidence is a majority opinion.

"Just as others have used his middle name "Hussein" as a reference to him being Muslim (which he isn't). It may seem pc to use his full name; however, the context in which they said it was for the purposes of insult or trying to connect him with Saddam Hussein (which is completely outrageous)." And I see that as an overblown "controversy". I can name the middle name of every president from FDR on without pausing and can tell you the full name of most presidents off the top of my head. That's something that happens with presidents. The alleged "implication" was much ado about nothing. I found it funny to hear people say using his middle name was "racist", despite that fact that a) it was in fact his name and b) his first and last name also indicate his heritage. Then, after his election, he went to the Middle East and touted his Muslim heritage to leaders there. So pretending that he doesn't have a Muslim heritgae is disengenuous, especially since Obama himself says he does.

"So, is it safe to say that the CP used the term "half-black" in that context?" Opinions vary, which is why we shoot for NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't touting his Muslim heritage like a badge of honor, he was simply trying to find common ground in the Middle East. You're ignoring the fact that people have used his name as a fear tactic to scare people into believing he is a Islamic Terrorist. (i.e. Terrorist Fist Jab). Yes he has Muslim roots but he is a Christian. That is apart of who he is and nothing can change that. Moreover, it is safe to say that The CP has been making fun of the Presidents hertiage and race simply because of the tone of language they use on their website. However, I don't believe it should be included because that would be POV. Dumaka (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever his purpose was, he and his supporters cried foul every time it was mentioned in the campaign (some supporters even denying it existed), but then he was more than happy to use it when it suited his needs. Can't have it both ways folks. "Moreover, it is safe to say that The CP has been making fun of the Presidents hertiage and race simply because of the tone of language they use on their website.". Sorry, I don't see it as "safe to say" because, as you admit yourself, it is something only "some" see. It would be safe to say that it is your opinion, but not even close to a fact and so far, not even a majority opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what his supporters say or think have to do with the fact that the CP is condescending toward his race and background. The only time he cried foul was when people where calling him a Muslim. Don't you understand the difference between heritage and a persons religion? He may have that background because his fathers side of the family is Muslim. But he is not Muslim, and he should correct those people when they call him something he is not. I heard the speech and he aluded to his family and heritage. Just because the man wants to find common ground with people who are different from us by talking about his family's background does not mean he is something he is not. Dumaka (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• What one has to do with the other, to me, is the tendency sometimes to make a big issue about something small. It was a parallel. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. Yes, I understand the difference between religion and heritage, but do you understand that not everyone who uttered his middle name made the claim that he was a Muslim? Some were simply referring to the heritage. Again, my point was it it was something that supporters denied (even to the point of denying a heritage), but that Obama himself later used to his advantage. Unfortunately, we're pretty far off topic now and soon someone will remind us that this isn't a forum. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We will leave the article as is. We disagree on certain things but that is moot as of now. We will stay NPOV for the sake of the article. (Despite the fact that I'm right) Dumaka (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Glaring omission

The Constitution Party is rabidly anti-gay. Its one of the party's cornerstones. There's no mention of this ANYWHERE in the article. Discuss. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for this, then add it. The platform only says affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior, without being specific as to what is offensive, and that they oppose recognizing gay marriage and gay adoption. I don't think that this is enough to call them rabidly anti-gay. Paul Studier (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. You're not with the party, are you? --24.21.148.212 (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you can see from my talk page that I am a Libertarian. Why does this make any difference? Find a source and modify the article accordingly. Paul Studier (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Constitution Party and Paleoconservatism

I have edited the introduction of the party from "conservative" to "paleoconservative". This is consistent with the article's info box. An examination of the party's platform reveals that it is closer to the paleoconservatism of Pat Buchanan than the conservatism of William F. Buckley Jr. --NebraskaDawg (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should take out the paleoconservative as they don't share much of the same views as paleoconservatives. In example, Paleoconservatives are very anti ferderalist which counterdicts the political party's stance. --TEX ^t_c 01:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Racial Issues

What positions, exactly, does this party take on issues relating to race relations? The article currently does not say. I know some high-profile supporters of CP candidates (such as European Americans United, the Council of Conservative Citizens, and The Political Cesspool's James Edwards) are openly pro-segregationist, pro-Confederate and anti-Martin Luther King Jr., but I haven't found any definitive evidence either proving or disproving that the party itself shares these views. Are there any disagreements between Northern and Southern Constitutionalists on these issues? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

They basically want to bring back slavery and segregation. Dumaka (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion, but please refrain from inserting your opinion in the article in the form of editorializing. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said they wanted to bring back slavery and segregation in article. It may be true but I left it out. Dumaka (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to imply that you were putting that party in the article, I was just referring to opinion in general. I would be interested though in seeing what evidence you have to support the claim that they want to bring back slavery and segregation. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Constitution Party wants to restore the nation to it's roots of the late 1700's. So it's safe to say that they want to bring back slavery and/or segregation. Dumaka (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but that's a leap I can't buy into. Using that same logic, they'd also be for eliminating cars, airplanes, the internet, air conditioning, bottled water, x-rays and most medicine. Are you ready to make that claim too? If their platform was to restore slavery and segregation, why would a black man actively seek the nomination of the party? Do you have actual evidence, like a party official saying that? Or is this just an inference you arrived at on your own? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They don't want to get rid of all our technological advances. They simple want to restore the country to it's original form. And the fact that a black man is actively seeking the parties nomination is due to the fact that he doesn't know the parties true intent. This is why he is now apart of the America's Independent Party. Not to mention that Alan Keyes is a Birther who hates his own race. Dumaka (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again, this is your inference that they want to return slavery. Thus far, you've shown no evidence beyond "I said so". I would submit to you that Keyes knows more about the party than either you or I do and then point out that he didn't go to the AIP until after failing to get the nomination from the CP. I'd caution you that BLP applies to talk pages as well as article space. True, Keyes is a "birther", but stating he hates his race could be seen as a libelous statement. Nonetheless, Keyes is black and was more than happy to not only associate with the party, but seek to be their standard bearer. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I give up. Dumaka (talk)

Dominionist organization

As Christian Nationalism is a direct redirect to Dominionism. The Constitution party does qualify as a Dominionist organization and it should be put under that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.156 (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Find a source and give a citation. In the meantime, it might be wise to keep in mind that even the article on Dominionism states "The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy." That article also lists several contradictory definitions of Dominionism, some of which probably would include this party, but most would not. ~ MD Otley (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dominionism is quite inappropriate. Soft Dominionism is a term that is used by critics, and is certainly not a self description. I would suggest starting an article on Christian Nationalism. I've already redone the redirect so that it points to the soft Dominionsim section. JASpencer (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Listing candidates

Why are candidates, who don't have notability established on their own, listed in the article? Listing them and linking to their campaign website gives the appearence of using the encyclopedia as a campaign tool. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

this is true. should this list be presented in a different way?64.129.127.5 (talk)

Actually, Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. Nor is it an indiscriminate repository of information. Nor is is free webhosting. This list does not belong here and should be removed. Ground Zero | t 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the list to a separate article where it can be better organized and easier to navigate. Ground Zero | t