Why I won't vote Constitution party

matthew's picture

Want to know why I won't vote Constitution party? Well, I believe our nation is a grand experiment in a secular democracy: a Republic founded upon Enlightenment principles. Ours was the first Western nation to believe -- and embody in its founding documents -- that the power of government springs from the consent of the governed, not from God or earthly institutions claiming to speak for God.

Here's the preamble to the 2010 Constitution Party 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. 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 these 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.

It's hard to figure out where to start. So I'll leave it there. What room is there for a non-Christian under a system ruled by the Constitution Party? I'm not an equal partner. I'm a person of some "other" faith granted "asylum" in the land of my birth.

No thanks. Go jump in a lake, Constitution Party. You are on my "Never voting for any of your candidates, EVER" list.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
weed's picture

Foundation based on a false premise

"The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations." When you base your party's goals on a false premise, how can the result be trustworthy or stable?

As I see it, all human organizations tend to suffer the same fate as bacteria. Left untended, bacteria will grow and grow until it exhausts its food supply and dies off. Left untended, government will grow and grow until it exhausts its food supply and dies as well. However, when bacteria are kept in check in a symbiotic relationship where the bacteria and it's host organism both work together to help the other, both can survive and thrive. Upset the balance, and while the bacteria may dominate for a while, eventually both organisms die.

The proper balance happens in your guy all day long (and other areas as well), and the imbalance is happening in Washington DC. Until you get people who are in DC to serve the people, and not out to make a buck or gain power at the expense of the "host organism" (i.e. the American people), the imbalance will continue to grow until either a rebalance occurs or both organisms die.

My $.02

My $.02

matthew's picture


I agree. The method of re-balancing is usually revolution.

My fear if we engaged in a revolution in this country is that we would lose the Enlightenment principles we were founded on, and the extremists of various facets would be the ones who gain power. Then we'd be faced with a future like the Middle East is embroiled in right now.

Matthew P. Barnson

Sammy G's picture

Outcomes Of Revolution

The re-balancing is usually reformation, if this is what you mean by revolution. I do believe that if unemployment gets too high (founded on spiraling debt and deficits) we'll have a revolution, although it likely won't be military. I think we could see the country get broken apart and reformed under similar Enlightenment principles but with a re-dedication to anti-imperialist and anti-expansion tendencies. Essentially learning from, 'this is what happens when you try to police and dominate the world...you go broke.' I hope before that even gets close to happening we can get a political party and political ideology in power that treats the American society as more than just a foregoing given. That the Roman Empire and other historical empires have fallen for reasons other than founding principles should give cause for reformation prior to a revolution.

Brian's picture

I don't really think that our

I don't really think that our imperialism and expansionism are the actual problem. I mean, look at the roman empire, they were aggresively expansionistic for a thousand years and all they saw was economic growth. it wasonly when they curtailed their expansionistic tendencies an turned into a welfare state that the empire finally spiralled into the ground.

Don't get me wrong,i am against the war in iraq. It is a hugely wasted effort when we SHOULD be running a war that isn't at the end of our supply chain, say declaring war on mexico to finally let them know we are serious about their allowing armed aliens across our borders (Armed illegal aliens are a 'guerilla invasion force' despite what the liars that want cheap labor at any cost would tell you)

I think the real problems are threefold...
Unlimited duty-free 'global corporations' that license themselves as american companies and then offshore outsource all their labor and production without paying a penny in import dues are a MONSTROUS drain on the economy with no return except from American 'consumers' (Who are frankly running out of money... The unlimited corporate expansion gravy train is derailing rapidly.) The irony is that this drain is actually many multiples of military spending.
Of course, the money DOES win up in American hands, but those Americans are just a tiny minority that are richer, by far, than anyone has ever been in world history, no individuals in world history have ever had the sheer buying power of even the corporations at the bottom of the 'fortune 500'. That means that not only have Americans lost the jobs, but the government is desperately trying to stem the blood flowing from our country's welfare system, which is having to drain more and more to keep people from freezing and starving... money that is flowing, directly and indirectly, into the fortune 500 and the federal exchange, owned primarily by the same people at the top of the fortune 500. and, of course, those same companies have to keep outsourcing more and more to lower their prices and still bring in a profit, which means more jobs lost, less consumer capital, ad infinatum. I look forward to seeing the Rockefellers, Harrimans, and Jennedys in the bread lines.

Which leads us into the second monumental drain that comes from 'social services'. I totally agree that social security should support the old and infirm. What i disagree with is huge expenditures on 'educational' babysitters that teach what parents SHOULD be teaching their children, feed them pap about how perfect the government is, and spend hordes of money forcing 15-18 year old 'children' (Who should have had a job since they were 15) to learn things against their will, that they will never use or need. Let the kids that want education get it, or let their parents pay for it... i am tired of subsidizing babysitting for other people's children.
In addition, recent statistics (Yes, I know the statistic rule) estimates that over 30% of our MONUMENTAL 'social welfare' expenditures(Many of which are not line itemed under 'welfare') go to support, feed, clothe, house, and educate non-citizens, or people who only are eligible because they dragged their 8 1/2 month pregnant wife under the wire and are now not allowed to be exported out of 'consideration' for their 'american born' children that are raised in a culture of hatred and disrespect for the country they are living in, for free.

The LARGEST welfare expenditure, as well as a HUGE 'consumer' expenditure, however, is weirdly related to the collapse of social mores in this country. As the liberals (and yes, I consider myself at least partly liberal) have gained power in this country, led by an overreaching feminism movement that has taken 'equal rights' way past the point of equality and well into the realm of 'female privelege' (Need I remind you of Dennis' Ex-wife?) The demographics have shown that the largest sector hit by the employment situation has been in white males. labor laws are forcing employers to hire 'minorities' far in excess of the 'majority' and in a weird way that actually damages the equal rights movement far more than would be expected.
I am not going to quote statistics, but it's proven again and again that women who are unmarried at 35 have a vanishingly small chance to get married, or have children, despite all these television shows that try to portray 'cougars' as the best state for a woman. Generally women who concentrate exclusively on careers and 'establishing themselves' wind up old and without a family. Alternatively, the prevalence and social support for 'unwed mothers' spends millions not only on the welfare which is ALWAYS granted to an unwed mother, but also spends millions of dollars hunting 'dead beats' who can not afford to pay the child support or alimony (since now he cannot even find a job) after his wife divorces him because she's 'bored' and can get his support whether she attempts to make the marriage work or not. (Yes, I am pounding my own pulpit here) the social situation of course paints these women as the 'victims' of 'evil husbands' so of course they have no incentive whatsoever to avoid the welfare market. Ironically enough, I have heard figures varying between 75% and 90% of divorce rates nowadays being initiated by the woman. (75% for 'out of the blue' divorces, either because she found a new boyfriend or she 'is bored'. 90% for 'out of the blue' and 'my wife cheated on me so I have to divorce her'). Once again, everyone bends over backwards to help these poor, helpless victims... Any attempt to try to encourage 'working at marriage' gets roundly ridiculed by the misandrous majority. (Gees,look at the reaction to poor Sarah Palin! I wouldn't have voted for her, but the social abuse she had to put up with simply because she chose to have a family life with a 'non blueblood' was horrifyingly misplaced... The feminist majority pounded the heck out of her, heck... that one les comedienne said she'd get her big black brothers to gang**** her if she showed her face in new york!)

In short, I expect the revolution to be bloody, and I expect that it will set this country, and human rights, back at LEAST a hundred years. I think that the BEST we can hope for is state-country individuals, likely ruled by whatever military bloc happens to be closest when things go boom. Of course, I expect it won't happen before 2025, and I could sincerely wish it were a bloodless revolution, but when people start seeing their children starving, they are going to strike back against whoever they feel caused it.... and despite people's unwillingness to admit it NOW, most people are starting to recognise the symptoms of an out-of-control, dwindling economy. I am sincerely hoping we don't turn into a religious dictatorship as a 'counterbalance' to the incredibly stupid insanity that we have been pushing since the 1960's, though...It would be a heck of a backslide.

yeah,kinda soapboxing here :P

-Democracy: founded on the principal that 1000 people are automatically smarter than any one person. Excuse me?
-Dictatorship: founded on the principal that one person is automatically smarter than any thousand people. Come again?