Talk:Constitution Party (United States)

Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

• Constitution Party (United States) color Content:      
• Constitution Party (United States) shortname Content: Constitution

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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. [1] 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

This can't be the third largest party

Both this page and the Libertarian page both claim to be the third largest parties in America. Since the Libertarian Page has three sources, and this page has only 1, I think we should go with the page with more evidence.99.174.92.174 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, if not with the conclusion. Surely there must be official records of registered voters for these organizations which can settle which is larger. Actual records should be favoured over more citations. But otherwise I agree, only one of these should be marked as the third-largest. TheSix (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)