[POL] - Differences between Constitution and Libertarian Parties?

[Kimber]

Believe it or not, I'm still a bit "undecided." I've been struggling between Peroutka and Badnarik for awhile now.

Dems and Republicans need not reply, as I already know the arguments - and you already know why some of us won't vote for Bush or Kerry. I would like to keep this thread constructive.

So, for you third party voters out there, can you tell me why you've picked Constitution or Libertarian (or even Green if any are out there)?

At present, I think I'm voting Constitution Party, but I really do like Bandarik. Both favor a strict construction of the Constitution. What is swinging my vote is the acknowledgment of God's blessing by the Constitution Party. And the Libertarian Party itself is split on abortion - but I believe Bandarik is against it because unborn babies also have rights.

Finally, I think that the Libertarian Party philosophy extends to the state level, while the Constitution Party leaves states with the rights granted by the Ninth Amendment. For example, I think I'm correct that the Libertarian Party wants drugs legalized even at the state level, while the Constitution Party doesn't. while I'm personally against any war on drugs, I don't mind if this is left to the state's as people can always vote with their feet.

So, I'm open to suggestions and still could be converted at the last moment.

I'm sorry to post this in the main forum, but if I threw in the political thread, any constructive comments would likely come too late.

David

P.S. I'm a libertarian with a small "l", and not a member of any political party.

 

[Dennis Olson]

I could never vote Libertarian. One of their absolute core beliefs is a completely open border with Mexico. IMO that permanently disqualifies them from consideration.

 

[Onebyone]

I can not vote Constitional Party though I support the Constitution.

I have read in many places how the Constitutional party is not pro woman at all and in fact they believe the man is head of the household. If they live that way in their own home so be it that is their right to do so but they do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on others who do believe that. I have also read where they believe one vote for each family. In their statements saying men are head of the family then I feel they would leave women out in voting.

I will not lose my vote for any party. I am a woman and will fight as much as any man would if someone tries to take my vote.

I am with you in that the DEMs and REPs are not an option this time due to the freedom taking Patriot Act by Bush and Kerry is to pro UN.

I am therefore supporting Libertarian this time.

There is another thread you can read if you search where someone has addressed the border problem and the true libertarian view on it.

edit typo

 

[Camasjune]

I am a woman and I voted Paroutka of the Constitution Party.

Onebyone, you may have read much disinformation about the Constitution party, but have you actuall examined their platform for yourself?

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

The only thing I can detect that can be twisted to "anti-women" is the Sanctity of Life platform and I thoroughly support that.

We have many Libertarian candidates in our state and after reading their platforms and personal beliefs, they are flaming liberals and fruitcakes! It seems they've co-opted the Libertarian party in this state.

 

[Swampthing]

I can not vote Constitional Party though I support the Constitution.

I have read in many places how the Constitutional party is not pro woman at all and in fact they believe the man is head of the household. If they live that way in their own home so be it that is their right to do so but they do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on others who do believe that. I have also read where they believe one vote for each family. In their statements saying men are head of the family then I feel they would leave women out in voting.

edit typo

You have yet to substaniate any of that other than "I read somewhere" or "you find the link" it's the same as spreading propoganda.

 

[Anjou]

I could never vote Libertarian. One of their absolute core beliefs is a completely open border with Mexico. IMO that permanently disqualifies them from consideration.

Dennis, I've been curious about how folks who feel strongly against immigration conceptually view the U.S.'s old history with Mexico (and the war that started somewhere in the vicinity of the Rio Grande), and the eventual treaty that gave the U.S. a lot of its western lands?

I'm not saying open borders are practical, per se. Just never talked with anyone about the immigration topic in context of its background.

 

[Dennis Olson]

Anjou - in a nutshell...

That was then; this is now.

Many nations were imperialistic in centuries past. I loathe what we did to the Indians in America, as well as slaves, but again - that was then; this is now. We cannot be held eternal hostage to the atrocities committed in an earlier age, when sensibilities were not even close to what they are today.

 

[Aleph Null]

The "Constitution Party" is not just anti-abortion, they take an extremist position on the matter.

OS put it best when he said the "Constitution Party" would be better named the "Christian Theocracy Party".

-A0-

 

[fruit loop]

The "Constitution Party" isn't

They want a religious theocracy, and a "Christian Country." Their view of Christianity is very narrow and considered extremist by a lot of other Christian denominations.

Libertarians believe government should be in the business of running government. IE, the government is BUSINESS, not private life. Issues such as birth control, abortion, education, gay agendas, race issues, medical care, etc, are private matters that should be privately decided by the parties involved, not by government officials.

The Constitution Party thinks the USA is a "Christian" country founded on "Christian" principles (never mind that there are many different Christian denominations that agree unanimously on NOTHING) and that the government has a God-given mandate to enforce Christian morality. Abortion is of course the hot-button issue, so we'll use that one. Christians disagree on this issue. Some believe the soul enters the body at birth and therefore abortion is not evil. Some think that every egg is a potential baby and that therefore birth control is an abortion. Never mind that though: the COnstitution Party believes it is the "real" Christian government and that its views are correct and must be enforced on everyone.

You decide.

 

[BigDog]

I could never vote Libertarian. One of their absolute core beliefs is a completely open border with Mexico. IMO that permanently disqualifies them from consideration.

How many times are we going to see misleading post like that? You fail to mention that they want to militarize the border, and eliminate illegal immigration. They want to eliminate the welfare state thus eliminating the motivation for illegal immigration. There is considerable support to modify the Libertarian party plank to require that all immigrants be sponsored to gain entry and have a employment arranged prior to entering the country.

I on the other hand could not vote for the Constitution Party, which is essentially the American Taliban.

If we are going to post things that influence peoples opinions and decisions on how they vote, we should be careful not to be deceitful in our post.

 

[Birdlady]

Indeed libertarians want to eliminate "welfare" for "everyone,<b> including</b> illegal immigrants.......BUT they also have this in their May 2004 platform: <p>
<i><b> "Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.<p>

Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally."</i> </b>

Whole thing here: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

 

[Camasjune]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble

Preamble

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. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;
That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and
That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.
*****************************************************************

Froot Loop, how is this a threat to your flavor of nonbiblical christianiity?

 

[Kimber]

Thank you everyone for posting.

I don't agree with 100% (or even 90%) of the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party. However, both do believe in a federal government restricted to enumerated powers. That makes either of them infinitely better than the big two.

A question for you Big Dog (or anyone else), how much of the religious aspect of the Constitution Party this election is driven by Peroutka as the candidate? Was Howard Phillips of the same view?

David

 

[milkydoo]

I've never really dug too deep on the Libertarian's border position. I know that I like probably 95% of everything I've heard from them and I believe in voting in a general direction, not just on one or two issues.

Whevever their exact stand on immigration is, we *must* have fully secured borders or we are comitting suicide in more ways than one.

 

[Libertarian]

The "Constitution Party" is not just anti-abortion, they take an extremist position on the matter.

OS put it best when he said the "Constitution Party" would be better named the "Christian Theocracy Party".

-A0-

Worth reposting.

 

[Libertarian]

How many times are we going to see misleading post like that? You fail to mention that they want to militarize the border, and eliminate illegal immigration. They want to eliminate the welfare state thus eliminating the motivation for illegal immigration. There is considerable support to modify the Libertarian party plank to require that all immigrants be sponsored to gain entry and have a employment arranged prior to entering the country.

I on the other hand could not vote for the Constitution Party, which is essentially the American Taliban.

If we are going to post things that influence peoples opinions and decisions on how they vote, we should be careful not to be deceitful in our post.

Bigdog, That is what this Libertarian thinks. I differ with the party on this issue. We can not ever open the borders fully as the wish not even if we eliminate all forms of social welfare.

I can not support the elimination of all forms of social welfare either. There are some people who can never support or take care of themselves. Euthanasia is not the answer. Nor is forcing any single small group to care for those who can not care for themselves.

I do support weaning 90+% of those on welfare off of it over a two year period though. I am a Libertarian but I have a heart.

 

[Jumpy Frog]

A decade ago I considered the Constitution Party (CP) but as Big Dog and A0 have said it rings loudly of a extreme hard-core, our version only, theocracy. While I don't adhere to the Libertarian Party (LP) views on open borders (I know of no LP member who does), I do agree with 90%+ of their views and positions. Thats 40-50% more than the Reps. and 60-80% more than the Dems.

The 2 party system has IMHO betrayed the people of the USA and what is worse than that is we let them do it to us!!! I wrote the Prez and congress over the open border/amensty program....got a form letter back from the White House. Wrote them again on the AWB, no reply, but it didn't get passed. Wrote on the Patroit Act and was phoned and told thanks for your support and understanding for a important step in protecting the Gov't from those who would see it harmed......I wrote against the Act,,,not for it. and wasn't it created to protect the citizens ....not the Gov't???

 

[rryan]

Badnarik is in favor of open borders on the condition everyoen who coems through is checked out---he has also suggested using the military to stop any who want to coem across without following the rules.

Immigration is NOT going to be stopped no matter what, right or wrong. At least we could be sensible about it.

 

[Dennis Olson]

So as long as we "check out" 20 million Mexicans, it's "okey dokey" for them to come and live here and take our jobs? And who PAYS for that "check"?

 

[penumbra]

Thanks for the info on this thread, I really don't know that much about the Constitution Party, so everyone's input is greatly appreciated.

That said, the biggest difference that I see between the two parties is that the Constitution Party doesn't exist here, and the Libertarians are running for almost every seat on the ballot!

Also, as far as the Libertarians go, I thought that one of their main goals was to decrease the size of the Federal government and give more power to the individual states.

 

[Jimmy Splinters]

Thanks for all the input here on the 'other' parties. I just got back from voting for Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. I have voted "3rd party" now for the past 3 presidential elections.

As others mentioned, I don't agree 100% with their platform, but it's a hell of a lot closer than either of the two majors.

Dan V.

 

[BoneDaddy]

I could never vote Libertarian. One of their absolute core beliefs is a completely open border with Mexico. IMO that permanently disqualifies them from consideration.

And what is your opinion of incarcerating homosexuals?

HIV / AIDS is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting HIV / AIDS.

i.e. ANYONE engaged in homosexual activity should be considered criminals...ergo...imprisoned. This position violates individual rights.

also....what is your position of self-sovereignty? Do you believe that our rights are endowed by or creator, or do you beilieve that the state provides us with our rights? IF you believe the former, then the constitution party is in conflict with your personal beliefs. For what god has granted, no man has the right to take away. The constitution party's belief of the continuation of the illegal war on drugs is inconsistant with self-sovereignty.

You have previously stated that you feared the use of executive orders by the Libertarian Party if we were to gain power. However, you fail to mention, either by lack of understanding or by design, our belief is in agreement with the constitution party, that executive orders are unconstitutional.


So, yet again......Do you believe that our rights are endowed upon us by our creator? Or.......are you a statists in sheeps clothing? The constitution party would impose it's beliefs upon the populace as does the Republicrats. It is clear by their stance in their party plank. NO ONE has a RIGHT to tell me what I can or can not do, if in the procress, I am not violating anyone else's rights. I own my body. It is my private property. Not you, nor the government, has a moral prerogative to dictate my behavior when I violate no other's rights. If it bothers you that I MAY be introducing a mind altering substance into my body....TOO BAD. You still have no rights greater than my own. If I become a danger to my neighbor, wife or children...that would be another story.....for I would be violating their rights.

 

[cin]

This thread really made me re-think my vote, after I'd been decided for months. I went to bed thinking about it, and woke up thinking about it too. hmmm

What I worry about is voting for a third party in a close election, and Kerry taking over a close race. Is California in general still a sure Kerry state? I should know this but I'm not sure.

 

[Dennis Olson]

Any political party that DOES NOT RESPECT NATIONAL SOVREIGNITY is treasonous to the Constitution IMO.

End of story.

All the other issues must be run through Congress, but the President could open our borders by EO. I consider that the single most detrimental action possible to the survival of the nation.

 

[FREEBIRD]

A question was asked re: Howard Phillips of the the Constitution Party and whether he held essentially the same religious views as Peroutka---the answer is yes.

I voted for Peroutka as I do not agree with the Libertarians on immigration or abortion, but I in no way think Peroutka is the perfect candidate or the Constitution Party the perfect party. It's a very broken world we live in. I believe I needed to vote in favor of limited government and against the Democrats and Republicans.

 

[BoneDaddy]

Any political party that DOES NOT RESPECT NATIONAL SOVREIGNITY is treasonous to the Constitution IMO.

End of story.

All the other issues must be run through Congress, but the President could open our borders by EO. I consider that the single most detrimental action possible to the survival of the nation.

YET...an EO would be, in our opinion, unconstitutional. So I will ask yet again ...

DO you or DO YOU NOT believe that our rights are endowed upon us by our creator?

I would venture to surmise by your statement above, that you do not....ipso faco a statist.

Furthermore, stating that the LP doesn't respect National Sovereignty is absurd. I see that you HAVE NOT read what I sent to you.

 

[Dennis Olson]

BD - rights and secure borders are inexorably linked. You cannot have one without the other.

 

[BoneDaddy]

BD - rights and secure borders are inexorably linked. You cannot have one without the other.

And as I have previously provided, there are two camps in the LP. The purist hold that no obsticles should exist for free people to seek better econimic freedom. There is also the other camp (where I reside) that believes that immigrants should be sponsored financially and have gainful employment PRIOR TO entry.

You disagree with that issue of the party plank as do I. It is the ONLY issue I disagree with on the plank.

The disagreements on the Republicrat or CP's plank are numerous. The CP is no better, with respect to individual liberty, than their tax funded counterparts. I can not and will not advocate the incarceration of individuals based upon their sexual preference. I may disagree with their position, but they own their own bodies and I have no right to dictate their behavior unless they violate the rights of others.

Many of the LP's positions are interlinked. You CAN NOT have an open border WITHOUT the elimination of the welfare state accompanied with the elemination of minimum wage. This is a morally consistant view. Furthermore, your fear of an EO being utilized in unfounded and a typical scare tactic. When both the CP and the LP agree upon this principal, it serves no justice to spread unfounded propaganda.

What would prevent Peroutka from utilizing the EO from dictating that all schoolchildren should pray to his god at the beginning of each day? What would prevent Peroutka from issuing an edict, criminalizing the embibing of alcohol due to it's inherent wicked results? What would prevent Peroutka from declaring via EO that abortion and birth control illegal based upon his interpretation of the constitution and his belief that life begins at inception?

The answer is NOTHING. While I may agree that my child should pray in the morning, should not drink, and that I believe abortion morally wrong, my opinions differ greatly from Peroutka. I DO NOT want someone interpreting and teaching the Bible to my children unless those views coincide with my own. I DO NOT want the government telling me I can not have an occasional beer or drink wine with my dinner. I DO NOT agree with sentient live at conception.

The CP would be America's version of the Taliban

 

[Dennis Olson]

Well, IF that ONE PLANK would be removed from the LP platform, I'm quite confident they could make much bigger inroads in the political system. But they evidently have their "Pat Buchanan fringe" that insists on that ridiculous position. Thus they will remain dondemned to the political backwaters of our country. Because that ONE PLANK is totally UN/NWO, and people know it....

 

[Aleph Null]

I've said for a long time that the reason third parties are so unpopular is that they are too extreme. One couldn't ask for a better example of the problem than this thread, IMO.

-A0-

 

[Warthog]

I've said for a long time that the reason third parties are so unpopular is that they are too extreme. One couldn't ask for a better example of the problem than this thread, IMO.

-A0-

So! Then your calling the document that our country was founded on extreme, and a problem? Thats whats wrong with this country. I voted for the Constitution Party because I will not vote for a party that signs any documents with a illegal communist organization such as the UN. Kerry has and so has Bush. End of story.

 

[Jimmy Splinters]

The problem is that the Constitution Party would have us be a Christian (their flavor) Theocracy. Nothing could be further from the intent of the document they named themselves after.

Dan V.

 

[BoneDaddy]

I've said for a long time that the reason third parties are so unpopular is that they are too extreme. One couldn't ask for a better example of the problem than this thread, IMO.

-A0-

Lets not forget military welfare to rich countries such as Japan, S. Korea, Germany and other European powers. Lets not forget unconstitutional laws and an illegal war waged upon the american people. Lets not forget taxation in the form of extortion, extracted at the point of a gun. Lets not forget a public education system based upon the communist manifesto.

Need I go on?

Your statement is a clear example of exactly what is wrong with our nation. An ill-informed electorate whose only desire is for the government to redistribute wealth for their own benefit. You may consider me an extremist, but I consider you to be anti-constitutionalst.

The latter may be more popular, but it is still treasonous.

 

[Dennis Olson]

If the LP dropped their NWO plank, I'd support them 1000%.

 

[BoneDaddy]

And likewise, if the CP dropped it's religious extremism, I would find them more palatable. I will continue my effort to change the plank. I posted a link to the proposed emmendment to the platform if anyone cares to see it.

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0408/forum1.html

As previously stated D....if you want to see it changed, assist in facilitating that change. Sitting on the sidelines and simply being the observer will not achieve your desired outcome.

 

[Kimber]

Dennis,

I'm off to vote now, and it'll be Constitution Party. You swayed me, but probably not for the reason you intended. I don't mind immigrants looking for work in a country with a dismantled federal government. That's how most our families got here. However, the multiligual, diversity in this country will help divide and destroy us. If the current crop of illegal immigrants from Mexico would learn English and assimilate into our culture, I could see an economic reason for more young workers to support our aging population. However, I don't see this happening. I also agree that if the open border part of the Libertarian platform was reformed, I would likely have voted for Badnarik.

Regarding the religious aspect of the Constitution Party. This does not bother me provided they truly respect the "no establishment of religion" clause. It sounds like they do. I do not see anything wrong with religion as a driving force behind laws. The Ten Commandments were religious, and they were one of the main foundations behind our criminal justice system. (No, I haven't forgot Hammurabi.)

Being guided by a Christian belief in one's conduct is not, in my view, a disqualification from office. We wouldn't even have the Declaration of Independence if religion didn't motivate political action - "all men are CREATED equal, and endowed by their CREATOR" etc. Even George Bush says that it is a motivating factor in what he does. Similarly, athiests have a religion as well - the belief there is no God. This motivates their political actions and beliefs. No, I don't view the Constitution Party as the American Taliban.

I'm also not a believer in 100% of what the Constitution Party believes. That being said, because of the open border issue, I find I disagree less with the Constitution Party than the Libertarian Party. And short of writing in myself on the ballot, I doubt there is any politician I agree with 100%. (Well, maybe a Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo ticket.)

Thank you everyone for your comments, they have been most helpful.

Until I return, please "talk amongst yourselves."

David

 

[Aleph Null]

This does not bother me provided they truly respect the "no establishment of religion" clause. It sounds like they do.

Not to me. But I respect your decision.

-A0-

 

[Aleph Null]

Your statement is a clear example of exactly what is wrong with our nation. An ill-informed electorate whose only desire is for the government to redistribute wealth for their own benefit. You may consider me an extremist, but I consider you to be anti-constitutionalst.

So based on my one practical comment you have concluded that I consider you personally to be an "extremist", that I am anti-Constitution, ill-informed, want the government to redistribute wealth, etc... doesn't your knee get tired from all that jerking?

I actually abhor both the Dems and the Reps; the party that comes closest to matching my own personal beliefs is in fact the LP (though I too do not agree with them on all positions.)

Principle and practice can be worlds apart. Much as I prefer the LP over the Demopuglicans, I recognize that in their current state, the LP has nearly no chance of ever being elected. The fact that even someone like Dennis Olson can't be pursuaded to vote for them shows part of the problem. The fact that someone like you (or me) can't vote for the "Constitution Party" shows why they will never be elected either.

-A0-

 

[BoneDaddy]

So based on my one practical comment you have concluded that I consider you personally to be an "extremist", that I am anti-Constitution, ill-informed, want the government to redistribute wealth, etc... doesn't your knee get tired from all that jerking?

As uncontrollable as my jaw sometimes

I actually abhor both the Dems and the Reps; the party that comes closest to matching my own personal beliefs is in fact the LP (though I too do not agree with them on all positions.)

Agreed. I chose, however, to work to change one issue. What other issues do you take exception>?

Principle and practice can be worlds apart. Much as I prefer the LP over the Demopuglicans, I recognize that in their current state, the LP has nearly no chance of ever being elected.

I would disagree. I think it more the product of the Republicrats receiving tax funding and state laws that almost insure ballot exclusion. If you accompany that with the winner take all electoral process, which has not always been the case, and you have quite the nice monopolly.

I respect ANYBODY more if the =vote for ANYONE other than for a political welfare recipient.

 

[Ought Six]

The Constitution Party feels that Xn dogma should be passed into law by the government to rule us all. The Libertarians do not; they believe in pure natural law, the principle on which this nation is founded. I disagree with the 'open border' policy of the Libertarian Party, as does just about every libertarian I have met thus far. However, they by far more closely mirror my views than any other party, so I am voting straight Libertarian wherever possible this time around.