Constitution Party

Discuss principles, issues, news and candidates related to upcoming elections and voting.
Post Reply
Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Constitution Party

Post by Tribunal »

For those of you who are members of the Constitution Party:

What makes you think your party won't be infiltrated and taken over by socially-minded individuals like the Republican Party has? What sets the Constitution Party apart from any other political party?

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Post by jbalm »

It could be taken over, I suppose, if the members of the Constitution party don't learn from history.

Has anyone stated that the Constitution party is immune from evil influences? I don't recall any such thing.

Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Post by Tribunal »

I know that no one is immune to the influences of socialism, but I believe the Constitution Party has potential since its focus seems to be rooted at the family level. Something you don't see with the Republican Party or even the Democratic Party.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

The Constitution Party

Post by lundbaek »

The CP espouses the principles of the Declaration of Independence and codified in the US Constitution. The Democrat and Republican parties do not, are largely controlled by LDGs, and are leading America into a socialist dictatorship. I fail to see how they can be turned around.

Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Re: The Constitution Party

Post by Tribunal »

lundbaek wrote:The CP espouses the principles of the Declaration of Independence and codified in the US Constitution.


That doesn't prevent socialists from infiltrating the CP and perverting it just like they did the Repubican Party.
The Democrat and Republican parties do not, are largely controlled by LDGs,
What is LDG?
and are leading America into a socialist dictatorship.
I agree!
I fail to see how they can be turned around.
I agree!

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Infiltration of the CP

Post by lundbaek »

LDG = Latter Day Gadianton, as explained in some of my previous posts.

Infiltration is conceiveable, but if each individual sticks to constitutional principles, what more can one ask for. Speaking of infiltration, I'm amazed at the infiltration of socialists and socialist principles into the LDS Church. And that inspite of the warnings by latter day prophets and apostles.

Tribunal, are you hinting that we should give up on the CP out of fear of infiltration? About 3 x a week I decide to give up trying to promote constitutional principles and just go with the flow and get our preparedness program in order and prepare to co-exist with the new world order. That usually lasts only a few hours.

Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Re: Infiltration of the CP

Post by Tribunal »

lundbaek wrote:Tribunal, are you hinting that we should give up on the CP out of fear of infiltration? About 3 x a week I decide to give up trying to promote constitutional principles and just go with the flow and get our preparedness program in order and prepare to co-exist with the new world order. That usually lasts only a few hours.
Heck no! I think everyone should be aware of the CP for what it is. It's like attending church but instead of lessons on the Gospel we learn about our Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

Although I'm not a member of the CP I did attend their state convention here in Utah and I will honestly say that I felt the Spirit there. I've been involved with politics for eighteen years and been to plenty of conventions. What I experienced at that convention was a first!

In the last few years I've observed a major takeover of my Party here in the 'righteous' state of Utah and because I believe and promote constitutional principles, I'm made out to be some rightwing religious wacko!

Just last week I had a debate with a faithful member of my Church who is also a faithful believer of socialism. To top it off he's a professor at a major university here in Utah. What's the world coming to? :cry:

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Post by lundbaek »

Thanks, Tribunal, for your reply. It's been many decades since I've actually had an LDS admit to being even a Democrat, never mind admit to espousing socialism.

I feel the same way about the Constitution Party as you do. Considering the admonishment LDSs have in their D&C 98 to "befriend" the Constitution, my concern is the strong feeling I have about constitutional principles in government, and the lack thereof on the part of others who I consider better LDSs than I am. For example, why to certain "pillars in the church" that I'm acquainted with ignore my suggestions that they consider the Constitution when they consider whom to vote for, or in other words remain oblivious to the Constitution and their responsibility or obligation to "befriend" it ? Why do they not recognize the "shredding" of our Constitution by the Republicans they seem to think are so great. I also am considered a bit of a right wing wacko by some in my ward.

I have the distinct idea that only a certain relatively few of us are given something that drives us to try to promote constitutional government, and I wonder why don't more LDSs especially, who have the admonitions in the D&C, get that same whatever it is that drives us. I expect a look at the election results this November will show us how few people feel the same as we do. If every "pillar" in every ward in Utah supported the CP I think it would be noticed in the election results. We'll see in less than a month.

User avatar
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6047
Location: Driven

Post by SwissMrs&Pitchfire »

Is the Utah Liberatarian party also in support of the Constitution? I do not know and ask only in relation to your last statement about election results.

That is when you tally CP votes + (are there any other parties even close to supporting the constitution?) then we will have a good idea of how many voters vote for the Constitution.

I do not live in Utah and am unaware of the answer.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Good Question

Post by lundbaek »

Good Question, Pitchfire. I believe the Libertarian Party comes closer than any other party to the Constitution Party in principles. Congressman Ron Paul, the only 100% supporter of the Constitution in Congress, once ran for President as a Libertarian, and Richard Mack, an LDS and strong supporter of the Constitution, is running for the US Senate against incumbent Senator Kyle from Arizona. I think in some places the Libertarian Party has more and stronger membership than does the Constitution Party. That's certainly the case in Arizona. But I think there are some thorny differences that prevent any sort of merger of the LP and the CP. I should know the differences and am embarrassed that I do not.

Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Post by Tribunal »

Mr. Mack is LDS? I did not know that! Who said anything about being a Democrat? This person admitted to being a down-right socialist and openly promoted Mr. Marx and others if his kind. It's been an interesting debate and I've learned a lot but...

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Post by lundbaek »

Tribunal, you wrote that you learned a lot from your chat with that LDS Marxist. It would probably be good for all of us here if you could share what you did learn. We all need to understand the enemy.

I recently had a discussion with an LDS Democrat who complained that many other members think one cannot be a Democrat and also a good member of the Church. Her position is that the government needs to take care of citizens who cannot meet their own needs or do certain things for themselves. I have noted that some LDS Republicans also believe the government can take care of a lot of things more effectively than individuals or smaller organizations. Following are some of the "lines" I hear:

In a democracy, the government has a responsibility to ensure the welfare of its citizens. (Such people don't seem to know that the U.S.A. was established as a constitutional republic, not a democracy.)

Human welfare is the first and final task of government.

If industry cannot employ workers, it must be prepared to pay its share of the cost of unemployment insurance and the cost of employing these same people on public projects.

People who disagree are uncaring, heartless, not Christ-like, etc.

The Constitution was written for an earlier time

The "Welfare Clause" in the Preamble permits welfare spending as it is done today.

On the subject of the Welfare Clause, many people have interpreted the welfare clause as a general authority to the Congress to do whatever it felt was for the welfare of any person(s), groups, regions, or foreign nation(s). Probably most prominent among these was Alexander Hamilton. Initially, Hamilton’s views seemed to square with those of Madison, Adams, and Jefferson. But it appears that Hamilton veered from the Constitution after he became Secretary of Treasury of the United States, changed his opinion and maintained that the welfare clause in the Preamble allows the FedGov to do anything it thinks is for the welfare of anyone or any part of the country, even if it is not included in the “enumerted powers”, and even if it is for local or special welfare instead of for the general welfare. I believe this is what is used to justify the kind of welfare we have in America today. In 1936, Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts , in the Butler Case, wrote the opinion that apparently settled the issue in favour of Hamilton's later, “revised” concept of welfare, which is what we have today. The Supreme Court decided to bend previous tradition and use Hamilton to justify our modern day welfare, especially beginning with those programs initiated in FDR’s “New Deal”.

Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Post by Tribunal »

The points your brought up about your discussion with an LDS Democrat pretty much sums up my discussion with this socialist professor.

We talked a lot about the differences between positive liberty v. negative liberty and how socialism according to some of the greats, such as Karl Marx, is the most similar to Joseph Smith's United Order.

He claimed that capitalism was not God's system but socialism was. He called capitalism something like social darwinism.

He had all this information about Joseph Smith trying to instill an early concept of Christian-socialism but it failed because the people were too selfish.

I think I should get this thread back on course! The philosophy of this professor is pretty common among the two major political parties. I'm amazed at how social-Republicans justify the need to socialize everything for the sake of being charitable and Christ-like. My concern is for those who will eventually join the CP if it gains a hold in government.

Swmorgan77
captain of 100
Posts: 518
Location: Bluffdale, UT
Contact:

Post by Swmorgan77 »

Tribunal wrote:The points your brought up about your discussion with an LDS Democrat pretty much sums up my discussion with this socialist professor.

We talked a lot about the differences between positive liberty v. negative liberty and how socialism according to some of the greats, such as Karl Marx, is the most similar to Joseph Smith's United Order.

He claimed that capitalism was not God's system but socialism was. He called capitalism something like social darwinism.

He had all this information about Joseph Smith trying to instill an early concept of Christian-socialism but it failed because the people were too selfish.

I think I should get this thread back on course! The philosophy of this professor is pretty common among the two major political parties. I'm amazed at how social-Republicans justify the need to socialize everything for the sake of being charitable and Christ-like. My concern is for those who will eventually join the CP if it gains a hold in government.
It absolutely sickens me that ANY member of the church would refer to the United Order as "Christian Socialism".

Absolute free agency and private property are integral principles to the United Order.

Did you inform him that Marx was funded by Western Capitalists, as was the Bolshevik revolution, and that Communism is, in practice a system tailor-made for an oligarchy to centralize and maintain control?

Furthermore, Socialized welfare is not "Christlike" at all, unless you are maintaining that Christ would put a gun to someone's head and force them to give to others.

Post Reply