Talk:Constitution Party (United States)/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: copied from http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_history.htm, now removed. --Jiang 09:20, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: 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.
:Fixed. Mcarling 16:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: 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  and . 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  Peroutka is right between Conservate and Authoritarian. According to  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)
replies: text: Of course it's a libertarian thing, to show how great libertarians are as compared to all those other people who are authoritarian about various things.  It also only makes any sense at all in a US context. john k 22:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of things in Wikipedia only apply to the USA, that doesn't matter a bit. And I should think that people would believe that freedom is good, however whether they do or not doesn't change the fact that people can be placed on a liberty-security scale. In other words, it only "shows how great libertarians are" to those who have a libertarian point of view. Those who prefer security over freedom shouldn't have a problem with a chart that shows that opinion, nor should they mind seeing others, that think along their lines, on that chart. Your argument is like saying that when a Republican calls a Democrat liberal it is a bad thing. It is "bad" to conservatives, and it is "good" (or fine) with liberals to be called such. If I point out someones opinions and they are bothered by it, then it isn't truly his/her opinions. Should I use the political compass chart rather than the Nolan Chart (since Nolan himself is a Libertarian)? Dustin Asby 01:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dustin Asby.  It's useful.  13:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nolan Chart

message: 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)
replies: text: Theocratic! That's a good description. Rad Racer | Talk 19:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  The CP does not try to impose rule by any one church or even by "Christians" in general.  It has the position that biblical principles should be applied to prudent governance - that's distinctly different. — ChristTrekker 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "christian democratic" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Somehow "Christian Right / Libertarian" still doesn't seem to describe them correctly, since that could mean they are either Christian Right, except they economic self-governors (correct) or Christian Right, except they are personal self-governors (incorrect). Actually, I think the main problem is that "the right," which according to the World's Smallest Political Quiz supports economic freedom, has become associated with such hypocrisy on economic issues, that at first glance it doesn't seem like the right word to describe the Constitutionalists. Rad Racer 20:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that the right supports "economic freedom" is a rather recent one, and is certainly not an integral part of what defines "the right".  Liberalism is about economic freedom, but liberalism is neither of the left nor the right (or of both, I guess).  Traditional conservatism certainly had little interest in economic freedom. john k 22:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was using the labels from World's Smallest Political Quiz. These terms have constantly-shifting meanings and therefore are somewhat arbitrary. Rad Racer 23:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, I see the CP supporting a largely libertarian agenda.  It's merely that they derive their platform from biblical first principles rather than secular/humanist principles, and therefore differ on a few points.  But in a general sense, the CP is indeed libertarian. — ChristTrekker 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thought I would add this, since I saw the term recently.  Another way to describe the difference between the LP and CP is to look at where each believes the source of authority lies.  One could say the LP view is autonomy, and the CP's is theonomy.  Theonomy is distinct from theocracy in that whereas theocracy says that God rules, theonomy simply acknowledges there is a higher law than man's and hence man's law must be in accordance with God's.  That may be too fine a distinction for some to grasp, but an important point is that lawmakers who ascribe to this view ought to govern with a sense of humility, as they realize they are subject to higher law, and not let their positions make them self-important.  Of course, there are differing views as to what exactly God's law says or how it applies to a changing society, and since freedom of conscience/religion is so important (in the Judeo-Christian tradition), theonomy seems to dictate that the government that governs least, governs best, lest anyone's sincerely held beliefs be impinged.  This is indeed very similar to the libertarian view, though it will naturally differ in some details. — ChristTrekker 13:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarian vs. Constitutionalist

message: *Is Paleoconservative the self-descriptive term for the Constitution Party's ideology?  If not, the ideology field in the summary box should be brought into alignment with the other U.S. Parties (Green Party (United States), Libertarian Party (United States), etc.) that use self-descriptives.  Actually, beyond that issue, I think paleoconservative is somwhat inaccurate.  Daniel Quinlan 22:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
:*Beyond which issue?  Overall, paleoconservativism (at least as defined in its wikipedia article) seems to match up with the Constitution Party.  The Constitution Party is also libertarian economically (though more authoritarian with regards to social issues.) --Tim4christ17 09:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. If no-one in the political mainstream (defining that very loosely) ever says "I am not x", it's utterly useless as a descriptive political term. No-one ever says "I am not a patriot" who hopes to win an election, therefore it's useless to describe someone as 'patriotic' in an encyclopaedia. --Malthusian (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideology

message: 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)
thread_title: Membership

message: 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)
replies: text: Confirm that there is no "Constitution Party" in another country?  Then go ahead. — ChristTrekker 16:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought, probably better to leave as is. You never know when another country might create a "Constitution Party" and then you need to move this back and create a disamb. page.  Leave it where it is, and you only have to change the redirect to be a disamb. page.  Current naming is consistent with other major US parties, too. — ChristTrekker 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not direct any Constitution Party searches directly to the Constitution Party page,and list a "Click here to see Disambiguation" link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.198.99 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: The whole part should go into much more detail and be fixed. Also where they supported by the NRA?
:I'm adding a link to their platform.  --Tim4christ17 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm not finding an endorsement by the NRA, though the Constitution party's platform does state that "We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.  We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms."--Tim4christ17 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put part platform in overhaul.  

message: 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)
replies: text: Rick Jore was the only "victory" in a state legislature or higher that I'm aware of. --Tim4christ17 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wins?

message: 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)
replies: text: Do Not Merge - To my knowledge, these two Constitution parties have no relation to eachother.  A more appropriate thing to do would be to create a Historical Third Parties article to put things like that into. --Tim4christ17 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do not merge -- two different parties, two different articles. Ground Zero | t 18:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was that editor.  Thanks for the feedback.  I guess that does make more sense - if merged and then the 1952 party were fleshed out, we'd just want to split it off again.  I'll remove my suggestion from that other page. — ChristTrekker 17:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: What's the issue with the user category?  That's there only one member or what? Wjhonson 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User categories don't belong on articles (and vice versa). See Wikipedia:categorization#User namespace. -Will Beback 23:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a category for right-wing persons?  I see the one for right-wing organizations, but I need one to tag people's bios with as well. Wjhonson 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:American conservatives and related? ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedians

message: :Yes, Pat Buchanan flirted with the idea of running on the CP ticket, and Bob Smith ran for President as a CP candidate for a few months-before rejoining the Republican Party-but describing them as "members" of the Constitution Party is inaccurate, to say the least. 
:The most notable member of the Constitution Party-to the best of my recollection-is Howard Phillips, a former bureaucrat in the Nixon administration, conservative activist, and presidential nominee. 
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: High-profile members

message: 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)
thread_title:  platform section 

message: 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) 
:The Constitution party does not seek to "rule by Biblical law", but rather to govern the nation by the Biblical principles that were advocated by the Framers and which are part of the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  This position does have a good deal of scholarly research and opinion supporting it.  --Tim4christ17 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationism has scholarly research and opinion supporting it, too. The Bible was not the basis for our Constitution, no matter how much the Constitution Party pretends that it is. 66.57.225.77 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just passing through, but by outright saying "Biblical principles" it implys religion based rule. But then again, it can depend on how the person viewing takes it. --72.152.101.103 09:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  For example, you could base some laws on the biblical mandates to not murder and not steal.  This does not mean that any religion is governing the state, or that the state is mandating a particular religious worship.  Yet the principles of respecting the right to life and private property do make for sound civil government.  It makes a lot of sense to use them. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Intent 

message: 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)
thread_title: Past Office-holders

message: 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 put in the request, and it was denied.  "Declined not enough activity. Please watchlist and revert any vandalism you come across. Cowman109 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  is not vandalism. That's called a content dispute. Please read WP:VAND. Moving forward I'll undo any reversions of content changes like that as "vandalism" because it simply is not. You'll need to work out why it's not an acceptable content change in talk, not simple revert it under a blanket term like vandalism. FeloniousMonk 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From someone anonymous that can't be responded to, with no supporting comments, when the issue has already been beaten to death (and managed to arrive at a decently unbiased POV) in the past?  Yeah, that's vandalism, pure and simple - it may not be obscene/joking/blanking, but it's not "good faith" and the repetitious nature makes it "inarguably explicit" in my view. There are better ways to handle POV disputes, and tactics like these inhibit the use of them - you can't discuss anything with someone who refuses to talk or even leave a name. You just happen to agree with this vandal - but at least you'll sign your name. Hey, maybe the CP is theocratic - come forth and make your argument for that view!  As far as I'm concerned, this thread is working out why those have not been acceptable content changes.  If you can't support your statements (or are unwilling to) then you lose. — ChristTrekker 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protect this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Wikipedians against anonymous editing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roy Moore is not a theocrat 

message: Why is there no section for Criticism? Dlong 21:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing stops you from adding one. — ChristTrekker 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One first needs to understand what true freedom is.  I submit this for your perusal.  Perhaps you will find it of use. — ChristTrekker 17:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is an important distinction between liberty and license. --Tim4christ17 talk
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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: There are some here...haven't checked if all the victories are in the article - seems like there weren't all that many victories, though.   --Tim4christ17 talk 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, the LP didn't have any candidates on my ballot, though there were several CP.  Also, a big issue with the selection of offices is the major CP tenet that it's the top levels of gov't (state, fed) that are most in need of reform.  CP people simply aren't as likely to run for small offices, because by-and-large those offices are doing their job OK.  Also, CP people tend not to be career politicians, and thus not interested in building up a political résumé before running for high office.  That's how I see it.  In a practical sense this does hurt their chances - the very nature of government works against efforts to keep it under control. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Election 

message: 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)
thread_title:  name templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: Check the Foreign Policy plank of the platform.  It calls for strict noninterference and an end to foreign aid.  I don't recall that I've ever seen this point addressed specifically, however.  My "feel" is that many CP folks are likely personally sympathetic to Israel's position, but as a matter of principle would refrain from making that public policy as it is a bad precedent. ⇔ ChristTrekker 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel

message: 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)
thread_title:  moving transient/historical sections 

message: The page doesn't mention the party's policies on drugs.  Anyone?  Ppe42 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected this oversight.  Thanks. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drugs?

message: This party is listed as Far Right on that page. Is it?
Nssdfdsfds 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ChristTrekker...lulz. So you care to explain why the "pejorative" term far-right is considered appropriate for other Wikipedia articles on political parties with similar social/political orientation, but not this one?
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)

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

text:  In response to Cameron Nedland, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have supported abortion, they just couldn't have foreseen what an issue it would be. BenW (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor would they have supported this country being based on Christian Ideology, which this party clearly supports. Dumaka (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Thanks for your conjecture and opinion, but please stop inserting it into the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You just don't give up do you? Typical conservative. Dumaka (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. You have a good point.  I'll let it out then. Dumaka (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your understanding. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Far-right

message: 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)
thread_title: American Patriot Party

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Category

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Directly from the referenced page: "We acknowledge that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary." ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Amendents 

message: 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.
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
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)
thread_title:  Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CfM nomination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-abortion violence movement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Split in AIP in California 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Far as I know, Pat Buchanan is a cultural conservative who believes that states should implement very restrictive social policies, but I don't think he's ever quite called for the federal government to do so. Paleoconservatives, owing to their distributist influence, are typically highly decentralist (while still conservative) on social matters. The Constitution Party, by contrast, is an intrinsically Hamiltonian centralist party, owing more to the Whigs of old than to the decentralist Old Right. I don't believe they can thus be properly classified as paleoconservatives - they are Christian nationalists and American nationalists, not localists and federalists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.139.177 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Right. You're not with the party, are you? --24.21.148.212 (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Glaring omission

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe we should take out the paleoconservative as they don't share much of the same views as paleoconservatives. In example, Paleoconservatives are very anti ferderalist which counterdicts the political party's stance. --TEX tc 01:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution Party and Paleoconservatism 

message: 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)
replies: text: They basically want to bring back slavery and segregation. Dumaka (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said they wanted to bring back slavery and segregation in article.  It may be true but I left it out. Dumaka (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The Constitution Party wants to restore the nation to it's roots of the late 1700's.  So it's safe to say that they want to bring back slavery and/or segregation. Dumaka (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: They don't want to get rid of all our technological advances.  They simple want to restore the country to it's original form. And the fact that a black man is actively seeking the parties nomination is due to the fact that he doesn't know the parties true intent.  This is why he is now apart of the America's Independent Party.  Not to mention that Alan Keyes is a Birther who hates his own race. Dumaka (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: *Again, this is your inference that they want to return slavery. Thus far, you've shown no evidence beyond "I said so". I would submit to you that Keyes knows more about the party than either you or I do and then point out that he didn't go to the AIP until after failing to get the nomination from the CP. I'd caution you that BLP applies to talk pages as well as article space. True, Keyes is a "birther", but stating he hates his race could be seen as a libelous statement. Nonetheless, Keyes is black and was more than happy to not only associate with the party, but seek to be their standard bearer. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: Find a source and give a citation.  In the meantime, it might be wise to keep in mind that even the article on Dominionism states "The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy."  That article also lists several contradictory definitions of Dominionism, some of which probably would include this party, but most would not. ~ MD Otley (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Dominionism is quite inappropriate.  Soft Dominionism is a term that is used by critics, and is certainly not a self description.  I would suggest starting an article on Christian Nationalism.  I've already redone the redirect so that it points to the soft Dominionsim section.  JASpencer (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominionist organization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Listing candidates