![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is such a demonstration of lack of NPOV I don't even know where to start. Example: "We [bias] are the only party in our country [bias] that believes in the Constitution [bias]." (paraphrased) -- ShadowDragon 09:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The description here of the Constitution Party's principles is extremely incomplete, seeing as it makes no reference to the CP's explicit Christianity. Without this clarification, the CP sounds like another variety of libertarianism or liberal republicanism.
If you check the Constitution Party's webpages, state by state, there is ONLY ONE state affiliate named AIP (CA) and ONLY ONE (MI) which is still named Taxpayers. (That is only because the party's petition to have the name changed to CP was rejected by the secretary of state.) The information in the article is plainly wrong in its current wording.
Reading through the platform I see no emphasis on Christianity? Reference? Dominick 18:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Quick fact check; "God" is referenced in the Declaration and the Constitution as the God of Nature or Natures God. This is a deistic worldview (Deist big D the Enlightenment movement) not a Christian one. The only positive statement (by a Founding Father) about Christianity I found was one by Patrick Henry. Of course he was an anti-Federalist and opposed the Constitution.
I don't know who keeps on editing the beginning parts and saying that Roy Moore is a theocrat, but it seems like someone's trying to make the CP look like some sort of theocratic party. A quick glance at some points. Roy Moore is not advocating a state religion and nor is he wanting to force people to worship God. All he is wanting to do is ackowledge that a lot of our laws came from the Bible. While I'm on the subject, for those of you who might be interested, I'd encourage you to read the 1892 Supreme Court decision of Holy Trinity v. the United States. August 5, 2006.
The Nolan Chart is not a Libertarian thing. It might be considered a libertarian thing (or classic liberal thing), but I doubt even that. Plenty of people use it because it is useful. When two entities are the same on the left-right spectrum knowing their ideas on freedom-security can help to differentiate. see also [1] and [2]. At http://uselectionatlas.org (link 2) many many people (in the forums) show their political compass rating despite identifying as Republican, independant, Democrat, and other (including Constitution Party members). Accoriding to [3] Peroutka is right between Conservate and Authoritarian. According to [4] he is again between Conservative and Authoritarian, but not as extremely so. I'd appreciate you not changing my additions again because they are in fact useful to some people. Dustin Asby 20:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It should not be the purpose of any page that summarizes a particular political party to insist upon deriding it. Let the vote totals and registration figures be what they are.
First, it is entirely speculative to say that AIP registrants in CA didn't want to register that way. Second, the suggested language only guesses at how the State of California classifies voters who indicate a preference for "Independent," and if they do this, how many are involved. And third, any minor party IS, in point of fact, "independent" in one sense of the word, being an adjunct in a predominantly two-party system such as ours. This further casts doubt upon the article's ability to determine what all the registered voters of the party, or any party, intended when registering.
Sorry, it's one man's opinion, NOT FACT.
I read the article on Christian democratic parties, and the CP certainly does not match, so I've removed that. Also, please hesitate identifying the CP too closely with Christians; they have been making efforts to be a party for those who have similar principles regarding government, regardless of religion; there are significant amounts Jews and secular people in the party. However, we can't deny that the CP is heavily influenced by the Bible and Christian thought. -- Locarno 15:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See Why not the Libertarian Party to see why, although the two parties share some positions on economic issues, they ultimately are rooted in entirely different beliefs. Rad Racer 12:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is considerable overlap between the membership of the Constitution Party and the Alliance for the Separation of School & State. Remember me 22:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should this be moved to Constitution Party which now redirects here? Its the only one around and so I don't see the purpose having United States at the end. Any objections? Falphin 22:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The whole part should go into much more detail and be fixed. Also where they supported by the NRA?
If User:71.131.252.60 is going to insist upon Wikipedia:Citing sources, he/she ought to insist on Wikipedia:Reliable sources; that is why I moved {{fact}} to the end. Stephen Compall 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding Judeo back to Christian values and it is very sticky for a variety of reasons:
1- Not all Christian denominations look over the old testament 2- You have many different types of Jews and many follow Talmudic law. 3- Christian values means biblical values in general so it doesn't need to be mentioned.
There are many more points to go over. Would I go and add Judeo-Christian to everything? Would I go and say Judeo-Christian values were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition? Jews would be pissed off and they would demand that it would be removed. Its innaccurate to say Judeo Christian to the article and I have never once seen the Constitution Party advocate "Judeo" Christian values. They only emphasize Christian values and that is what I put. If the CP specifically put "Judeo-Christian" anywhere it needs a citation from a reliable source. It was not mentioned on their platform which is a good indication that they didnt mention it anywhere. If it was important as you say it is I assure you they would have mentioned it in their platform but they didnt write the word Judeo infront of Christian values. Someone keeps adding Judeo and I merely asked for a citation to resolve the problem because I am nearly postive that they never said it.
Has the CP ever won an election on any level of government? If so or not, that should be put in the first paragraphs. Tim Long 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
In April of 2002 three party members won non-partisan elections in Wisconsin: John DuPont to the Waukesha city council; Paul Trelo to the Appleton city council; and Mark Gabriel to the Calumet County Board. [6]. John R G 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I just found this site about State Senator Sheila M. Kiscaden here is the link. [7]
I just found another site with people who are in office from the Constitution party website. [8]. John R G 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Another editor has suggested merging Constitution Party (United States 1952) into this article. I have no problem with that, just didn't want to step on anyone's toes by doing it. I'd prefer someone else do it, if y'all want it to merge. Wjhonson 17:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the issue with the user category? That's there only one member or what? Wjhonson 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The user category is new I started it yesterday. I thought it would help out the Constitution Party. If you want to join you can see the link on my page. John R G 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Changed the language in: "Constitutionalists support reducing the role of the United States federal government through cutting bureaucratic regulation, reducing spending, and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in favor of a fair tax system" Saying they are in favor of a fair tax system isn't NPOV so its changed to "a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes" from their website.
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've broken this out to be a little more manageable. I would like to see the views in each "area" summarized (something akin to what the party infobox does) so that readers can skim and quickly get a thumbnail view of the party ideology. The very first line should give a high-level view of the CP position, like how Foreign Policy currently does: "Additionally, they favor a noninterventionist foreign policy.". "Noninterventionist" is a good general summary. This whole section probably needs a going-over now that I've rearranged it...maybe when I have some more time. — ChristTrekker 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The platform section states that the party seeks to run government by an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but then advocates rule by Biblical law, which is historically considered to be very clearly not the original intent of the Framers. I suggest changing this to statement to "claim to" seeks to run government in that fashion since it's clearly in contrast with how the majority of Constitutional scholars would frame their actual beliefs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.56.10 ( talk • contribs)
If anyone could find all of the past public office-holders, that would make for a useful list next to the current office-holder list. I can't imagine it would be very long. Tim Long 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This article sees a lot of vandalism from non-logged IP addresses. Removing anonymous edits would save most of the effort of reverting those.
I know this is not related to the Constitution Party but if we get enough people to join it maybe it can make a difference. John R G 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
He merely upholds the Biblical tradition of our nation's founders.
Your nation, perhaps. But the US's founders did not have a "Biblical tradition". { Bubbha 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}
Why is there no section for Criticism? Dlong 21:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
How can they claim to be so strongly in favor of freedom yet at the same time oppose abortion and gay marriage? { Bubbha 17:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}
Is there any source for the statement that Moore and Rushdoony support the CP, or is someone reaching this dominionism conclusion a priori? If not, this should be stricken from the article. People may still think the CP to be a "dominionist" organization, but not for any association with them. Beyond the bit about Moore being courted for nomination by CP members, I'm not aware of any association whatsoever. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the Constitution Party did pretty good in the election. I feel they would have done alot better if they would run in contests that are easier to win like the Libertarian Party does. Maybe they should just go for winnable elections that are really small and build from there.
Does anyone know of anymore election victories by the Constitution Party? John R G 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up and expanded Category:Party shortnames templates (United States), which should be of use to some of you that frequent this corner of WP. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the Constitution Party on the ballot in California known as the American Independent Party? According to this Link: http://www.constitutionparty.com/view_states.php?state=CA I had added California and this link in the Ballot access section and somebody has deleted it. Also a quote from the link used to show the number of states the Constitution Party has on ballot is 13 and NOT 12 including California. "Constitution: California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah. The party will almost certainly have North Dakota in a few weeks, since it has finished its petition and the state is likely to approve it. It is possible New Mexico also recognizes the party; the law is very unclear." http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/11/14/ballot-status-tally-for-president-in-2008/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf78 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone know the CP position on Israel? If so, that would fit well in the foreign policy section. Seeing as how the party is religiously motivated, it would be significant to know if they support Israel, the typical evangelical position, or are neutral, the typical paleocon position. Their reason would also be notable. Tim Long 00:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
The page doesn't mention the party's policies on drugs. Anyone? Ppe42 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This party is listed as Far Right on that page. Is it? Nssdfdsfds 17:56, 2 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)
Of course it's far right-- that it's not listed as such is plainly pro-Conservative Party bias/spin by editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.119.122 ( talk) 03:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyone vandalizing this page by putting "far-right" will be suspended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 ( talk) 09:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You do not have to be a monarchist to be "far-right". The UK is a monarchy and is far from the ultra-Right. The Constitution Party, with its xenophobia and economic nationalism, is Far-Right in the American political spectrum. Note: American.-- Drdak ( talk) 15:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This party has the same platform as most center-right parties so why isn't it labeled as center right? It's against racism, it's pro legal immigration, it's pro religious freedom and has no traits of a far right party. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
97.95.129.245 (
talk)
09:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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".
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is such a demonstration of lack of NPOV I don't even know where to start. Example: "We [bias] are the only party in our country [bias] that believes in the Constitution [bias]." (paraphrased) -- ShadowDragon 09:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The description here of the Constitution Party's principles is extremely incomplete, seeing as it makes no reference to the CP's explicit Christianity. Without this clarification, the CP sounds like another variety of libertarianism or liberal republicanism.
If you check the Constitution Party's webpages, state by state, there is ONLY ONE state affiliate named AIP (CA) and ONLY ONE (MI) which is still named Taxpayers. (That is only because the party's petition to have the name changed to CP was rejected by the secretary of state.) The information in the article is plainly wrong in its current wording.
Reading through the platform I see no emphasis on Christianity? Reference? Dominick 18:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Quick fact check; "God" is referenced in the Declaration and the Constitution as the God of Nature or Natures God. This is a deistic worldview (Deist big D the Enlightenment movement) not a Christian one. The only positive statement (by a Founding Father) about Christianity I found was one by Patrick Henry. Of course he was an anti-Federalist and opposed the Constitution.
I don't know who keeps on editing the beginning parts and saying that Roy Moore is a theocrat, but it seems like someone's trying to make the CP look like some sort of theocratic party. A quick glance at some points. Roy Moore is not advocating a state religion and nor is he wanting to force people to worship God. All he is wanting to do is ackowledge that a lot of our laws came from the Bible. While I'm on the subject, for those of you who might be interested, I'd encourage you to read the 1892 Supreme Court decision of Holy Trinity v. the United States. August 5, 2006.
The Nolan Chart is not a Libertarian thing. It might be considered a libertarian thing (or classic liberal thing), but I doubt even that. Plenty of people use it because it is useful. When two entities are the same on the left-right spectrum knowing their ideas on freedom-security can help to differentiate. see also [1] and [2]. At http://uselectionatlas.org (link 2) many many people (in the forums) show their political compass rating despite identifying as Republican, independant, Democrat, and other (including Constitution Party members). Accoriding to [3] Peroutka is right between Conservate and Authoritarian. According to [4] he is again between Conservative and Authoritarian, but not as extremely so. I'd appreciate you not changing my additions again because they are in fact useful to some people. Dustin Asby 20:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It should not be the purpose of any page that summarizes a particular political party to insist upon deriding it. Let the vote totals and registration figures be what they are.
First, it is entirely speculative to say that AIP registrants in CA didn't want to register that way. Second, the suggested language only guesses at how the State of California classifies voters who indicate a preference for "Independent," and if they do this, how many are involved. And third, any minor party IS, in point of fact, "independent" in one sense of the word, being an adjunct in a predominantly two-party system such as ours. This further casts doubt upon the article's ability to determine what all the registered voters of the party, or any party, intended when registering.
Sorry, it's one man's opinion, NOT FACT.
I read the article on Christian democratic parties, and the CP certainly does not match, so I've removed that. Also, please hesitate identifying the CP too closely with Christians; they have been making efforts to be a party for those who have similar principles regarding government, regardless of religion; there are significant amounts Jews and secular people in the party. However, we can't deny that the CP is heavily influenced by the Bible and Christian thought. -- Locarno 15:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See Why not the Libertarian Party to see why, although the two parties share some positions on economic issues, they ultimately are rooted in entirely different beliefs. Rad Racer 12:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is considerable overlap between the membership of the Constitution Party and the Alliance for the Separation of School & State. Remember me 22:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should this be moved to Constitution Party which now redirects here? Its the only one around and so I don't see the purpose having United States at the end. Any objections? Falphin 22:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The whole part should go into much more detail and be fixed. Also where they supported by the NRA?
If User:71.131.252.60 is going to insist upon Wikipedia:Citing sources, he/she ought to insist on Wikipedia:Reliable sources; that is why I moved {{fact}} to the end. Stephen Compall 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding Judeo back to Christian values and it is very sticky for a variety of reasons:
1- Not all Christian denominations look over the old testament 2- You have many different types of Jews and many follow Talmudic law. 3- Christian values means biblical values in general so it doesn't need to be mentioned.
There are many more points to go over. Would I go and add Judeo-Christian to everything? Would I go and say Judeo-Christian values were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition? Jews would be pissed off and they would demand that it would be removed. Its innaccurate to say Judeo Christian to the article and I have never once seen the Constitution Party advocate "Judeo" Christian values. They only emphasize Christian values and that is what I put. If the CP specifically put "Judeo-Christian" anywhere it needs a citation from a reliable source. It was not mentioned on their platform which is a good indication that they didnt mention it anywhere. If it was important as you say it is I assure you they would have mentioned it in their platform but they didnt write the word Judeo infront of Christian values. Someone keeps adding Judeo and I merely asked for a citation to resolve the problem because I am nearly postive that they never said it.
Has the CP ever won an election on any level of government? If so or not, that should be put in the first paragraphs. Tim Long 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
In April of 2002 three party members won non-partisan elections in Wisconsin: John DuPont to the Waukesha city council; Paul Trelo to the Appleton city council; and Mark Gabriel to the Calumet County Board. [6]. John R G 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I just found this site about State Senator Sheila M. Kiscaden here is the link. [7]
I just found another site with people who are in office from the Constitution party website. [8]. John R G 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Another editor has suggested merging Constitution Party (United States 1952) into this article. I have no problem with that, just didn't want to step on anyone's toes by doing it. I'd prefer someone else do it, if y'all want it to merge. Wjhonson 17:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the issue with the user category? That's there only one member or what? Wjhonson 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The user category is new I started it yesterday. I thought it would help out the Constitution Party. If you want to join you can see the link on my page. John R G 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Changed the language in: "Constitutionalists support reducing the role of the United States federal government through cutting bureaucratic regulation, reducing spending, and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in favor of a fair tax system" Saying they are in favor of a fair tax system isn't NPOV so its changed to "a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes" from their website.
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've broken this out to be a little more manageable. I would like to see the views in each "area" summarized (something akin to what the party infobox does) so that readers can skim and quickly get a thumbnail view of the party ideology. The very first line should give a high-level view of the CP position, like how Foreign Policy currently does: "Additionally, they favor a noninterventionist foreign policy.". "Noninterventionist" is a good general summary. This whole section probably needs a going-over now that I've rearranged it...maybe when I have some more time. — ChristTrekker 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The platform section states that the party seeks to run government by an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but then advocates rule by Biblical law, which is historically considered to be very clearly not the original intent of the Framers. I suggest changing this to statement to "claim to" seeks to run government in that fashion since it's clearly in contrast with how the majority of Constitutional scholars would frame their actual beliefs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.56.10 ( talk • contribs)
If anyone could find all of the past public office-holders, that would make for a useful list next to the current office-holder list. I can't imagine it would be very long. Tim Long 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This article sees a lot of vandalism from non-logged IP addresses. Removing anonymous edits would save most of the effort of reverting those.
I know this is not related to the Constitution Party but if we get enough people to join it maybe it can make a difference. John R G 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
He merely upholds the Biblical tradition of our nation's founders.
Your nation, perhaps. But the US's founders did not have a "Biblical tradition". { Bubbha 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}
Why is there no section for Criticism? Dlong 21:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
How can they claim to be so strongly in favor of freedom yet at the same time oppose abortion and gay marriage? { Bubbha 17:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}
Is there any source for the statement that Moore and Rushdoony support the CP, or is someone reaching this dominionism conclusion a priori? If not, this should be stricken from the article. People may still think the CP to be a "dominionist" organization, but not for any association with them. Beyond the bit about Moore being courted for nomination by CP members, I'm not aware of any association whatsoever. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the Constitution Party did pretty good in the election. I feel they would have done alot better if they would run in contests that are easier to win like the Libertarian Party does. Maybe they should just go for winnable elections that are really small and build from there.
Does anyone know of anymore election victories by the Constitution Party? John R G 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up and expanded Category:Party shortnames templates (United States), which should be of use to some of you that frequent this corner of WP. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the Constitution Party on the ballot in California known as the American Independent Party? According to this Link: http://www.constitutionparty.com/view_states.php?state=CA I had added California and this link in the Ballot access section and somebody has deleted it. Also a quote from the link used to show the number of states the Constitution Party has on ballot is 13 and NOT 12 including California. "Constitution: California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah. The party will almost certainly have North Dakota in a few weeks, since it has finished its petition and the state is likely to approve it. It is possible New Mexico also recognizes the party; the law is very unclear." http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/11/14/ballot-status-tally-for-president-in-2008/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf78 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone know the CP position on Israel? If so, that would fit well in the foreign policy section. Seeing as how the party is religiously motivated, it would be significant to know if they support Israel, the typical evangelical position, or are neutral, the typical paleocon position. Their reason would also be notable. Tim Long 00:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
The page doesn't mention the party's policies on drugs. Anyone? Ppe42 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This party is listed as Far Right on that page. Is it? Nssdfdsfds 17:56, 2 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)
Of course it's far right-- that it's not listed as such is plainly pro-Conservative Party bias/spin by editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.119.122 ( talk) 03:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyone vandalizing this page by putting "far-right" will be suspended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 ( talk) 09:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You do not have to be a monarchist to be "far-right". The UK is a monarchy and is far from the ultra-Right. The Constitution Party, with its xenophobia and economic nationalism, is Far-Right in the American political spectrum. Note: American.-- Drdak ( talk) 15:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This party has the same platform as most center-right parties so why isn't it labeled as center right? It's against racism, it's pro legal immigration, it's pro religious freedom and has no traits of a far right party. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
97.95.129.245 (
talk)
09:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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".
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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