Reply #47: I see a few problems here: [View All]

[PaganPreacher]

The name "Constitution Party" is already taken. See http://www.constitutionparty.com. That party is dedicated to "work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations." It is twice as whack as the religious right wing of the Republican Party- a true American Taliban.

That is small potatoes, though. The major problem is that you do not appear to know what the Constitution actually says. You are talking about the United States Constitution, right? :+

According to your proposal, "The sole purpose of the party is to get control of the government, throw out every single supporter of the current dismemberment of the Constitution, and restore the rule of Constitutional law to America." Ignoring the fact that you offered three purposes, and not one (hint: "sole", from the Latin solo, means "one"), your platform contains numerous violations of that same Constitution, as well as several proposals that are extra-Constitutional. To be specific:

1. The immediate restoration of habeus corpus, and its application to all places on earth where the U.S. government and its military currently hold control. At no time in the history of the United States did habeas corpus apply outside the actual "United States" or its territories. Your suggestion is extra-Constitutional, and blows the idea of "restoring the rule of Constitutional law to America" all to hell.

2. The immediate renunciation of the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, which is violation of the Geneva Convention, to which we are a signatory, and the prosecution of those officials found to have facilitated this violation and the violation of its convention on torture. As a treaty, this convention is United States Law, and we are bound by it. The Geneva Convention is a treaty, as you said. A treaty is a contract between two or more parties to engage in specific behavior, or to refrain from engaging in specific behavior. As in any contract, it takes two parties for it to apply, and then it applies to both parties. In other words, if I agree to sell you a car, your neighbor cannot expect I will sell him a car, too, just because I contracted with you; and I cannot expect your neighbor to pay me for a car I am not obligated to sell to him. That principle is actually found in the plain language of the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War; read Part 1, Article II.

Please, take some time to read the real Geneva Conventions: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

You will also find that no part of any of the Geneva Conventions prohibits "pre-emptive warfare", as you asserted.

3. The immediate restoration of the Constitutional Separation of Powers....B. The Supreme Court shall be reprimanded for declaring Bush to be President in a sui generis decision that was a blatant violation of both States Rights and the Separation of Powers. Who will perform this odd chastisement of the Supreme Court, and by what authority? Certainly not by any authority found in the Constitution! You just advocated separation of powers, yet you want another branch of government to act as superior to the Supreme Court in a judicial matter. You have contradicted yourself!

4. The immediate restoration of the Separation of Church and State, as mandated by the First Amendment and testified to by the writings of our founding fathers and subsequent court decisions. If you are calling yourself a Constitutional Restoration party, you may not legitimately use extra-Constitutional sources to "restore the Constitution". "The writings of (some of) our founding fathers", subsequent court decisions (except for those that support "the free exercise thereof", I surmise), and "the European approach" all fall outside of "restoring the Constitution".

5. The nationalization of electronic voting machine companies, and the conversion of all such electronic voting to open source software with paper trails and recount information provided. The Constitution doesn't say anything about voting machines. In fact, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution places the power with each state legislature to select Electors in the manner it chooses. That is why Bush v. Gore went the way it did in 2000- because the plain language of the Constitution placed that power with the state legislature, not any state court. Since you ignore, or worse- intend to supplant- the Constitution, your proposal is definitely not one of restoration.

As an aside, the nationalization of private business is a hallmark of fascism; is that what you propose, Benito?

6. The immediate and full funding of national elections by the government and the complete ending of the corrupt system of legalized bribery known as "campaign finance". The provision of free TV, radio, and internet airtime in a fair and proportional manner to all significant political parties, along the lines of countries such as the Netherlands. You won't find "government financing of campaigns" in the Constitution. Government pay means government control- that, dear children, is called "censorship", and is frowned upon in most societies.

Do you know that you proposed to destroy that part of the First Amendment that says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"? Was that your intention, after demanding the enforcement of that same Amendment with regard to separation of church and state? You can't have it both ways, you know. Either the whole Bill of Rights is "in", or it's "out". If you call yourself a "Constitutional Restoration Party", your only option is "in".

8. The rollback of weakening of ownership caps on media outlets, the de-conglomeration of the media...The restoration of some version of the Fairness Act... Free speech and free press- aw, fuck em! You're 'restoring the Constitution" and you have no time for little things like that!

We should fund this party on the internet.. Good luck on getting those contributions, Benito!
:eyes:

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.