Jump to content

Talk:Constitution Party (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Estrill5766 (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 26 May 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiProject Political Parties Template:Election box metadata

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

Far-right

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Vice-presidential candidate

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution_Party_(United_States)&oldid=292503804"