Starrett Named Communications Director

National chairman Jim Clymer has announced that Mary Starrett, the party’s 2006 candidate for Governor of Oregon, will now serve as the new Communications Director for the Constitution Party.

The press release follows…

On January 9, 2007, Jim Clymer, The National Chairman of the CONSTITUTION PARTY (www.constitutionparty.com) - the country’s fastest growing third party - announced the launch of a national media campaign with the naming of the party’s communications director.

Jim Clymer presented former TV and radio personality Mary Starrett, who ran as the Constitution Party of Oregon candidate for governor in November, to lead the national party’s effort to bring attention to the principal tenets of the its platform: ‘Life, Liberty, Limited Government’.

“Mary Starrett has the communication skills of Ronald Reagan, the wit of William F. Buckley, Jr. and the eloquence of John F. Kennedy,” said Clymer. “She is uniquely equipped to communicate the principles of the CONSTITUTION PARTY”.

Starrett said, “With the Democrats now free to push their socialist agenda, the country reeling from the effects of the erstwhile Republican Congress and the current administration, more Americans realize it is critical we return to the tried and true principles of constitutionally-based government; which both of the two “big box” parties refuse to do. The Constitution Party stands alone as our best hope for restoring constitutional government.”

“The Democrats and Republicans have held hands while skipping down a primrose path past the horrors of the war in Iraq, the perils of the illegal invasion at home and the devastation of America’s sovereignty. It’s long past time for Americans to say: “Enough is enough!”

National Chairman Clymer noted that, with the mounting disgust of both major parties, the climate is better now for a third party candidate than at any time in the last 35 years. “As the CONSTITUTION PARTY’S national communications director, Mary Starrett will focus our media campaign on the dangers of continuing to ignore what these two parties are doing to this country.”

Mary Starrett graduated with honors from Emerson College in Boston, MA, and spent over 25 years as a television news anchor, reporter and radio talk show host on both the east and west coasts. Starrett is married, has one daughter and two grandchildren.

89 Responses to “Starrett Named Communications Director”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    Mary Starrett is a huge celebrity as far as Oregon pro-life issues go. She will get alot of media attention in Oregon (and hopefully nationally too).

  2. matt Says:

    “big box” parties has a much nicer ring to it than “major parties”. If she turns phrases like this on a regular basis, then she’s an excellent choice!

  3. matt Says:

    It’d be cooler if they called her The Ministress of Information, though.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    HAHAAHA. I will take to calling her that, regardless of what National calls her.

  5. Tom Kovach Says:

    I’ve been using the phrase “Big Two” parties to describe the Dems and Reps, and the phrase “smaller parties” (instead of “minor” parties) to describe the rest of us, in my columns for more that two years.

  6. Cody Quirk Says:

    My congratulations to Mrs. Starrett, she will be a excellent addition to the Party!

  7. Meg Says:

    Hopefully she’ll work out better than that guy the LP chose as their Communications Director.

  8. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Contrary to what Mary Starrett implied, the Democratic Party is not a socialist party - it is a capitalist party (always has been and probably always will be).

    Just like the Libertarian Party, if the Constitution Party does not move beyond its support for capitalism, it will end up in the “dustbin of history.”

    Member: CUIP; GPUS; Unity08

  9. paulie cannoli Says:

    Phil,

    I would say that this would depend on what definition of capitalism you are using. See “anti-concepts and the package deal” here:

    http://mises.org/story/2099#6

    and

    “Against big business”

    http://mises.org/story/2099#4

    For a more complete understanding, see the whole article:

    Rothbard’s “Left and Right”: Forty Years Later
    By Roderick T. Long
    http://mises.org/story/2099

    You can also listen
    http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/asc2006/asc06-Long.mp3

  10. Cody Quirk Says:

    actually the CP leans towards National Capitalism then regular capitalism per see.

  11. paulie cannoli Says:

    How do you define National Capitalism? Is that where the nation collective controls or manages capital?

  12. paulie cannoli Says:

    Is this what you mean?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_nationalism

  13. Trent Hill Says:

    I believe National Capitalism is Protectionist in nature.

  14. paulie cannoli Says:

    Trent,

    Well, yeah, but there’s more to it than that. The articles I’ve found so far on wikipedia:

    Corporate nationalism

    Corporatism

    Collectivism

    Economic fascism

    National syndicalism

    Producerism

    Mercantilism

    Read these and tell me what you think. How much of this do you find in line with your paleolibertarian views?

  15. Jason Gatties Says:

    Unlike Meg, the LP Communications Director is doing a fine job in my opinion.

  16. Jason Gatties Says:

    ooops, should have read “Unlike Meg, I feel the LP….and so on”

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    Paulie,

    None of it. Why would i? Im not even a Protectionist,lol. Its one of the few points I disagree with National CP on.
    But,i dont think they espouse any of that either. I have heard Howard Philips speak of the evils of a Mercantalist state.

  18. paulie cannoli Says:

    OK then, we’ll just have to wait for Cody or other CPers to explain what they mean by “National Capitalism” - this was what I found through a little quick research into the subject.

    I look forward to find out more about how National Capitalism relates to paleolibertarianism.

  19. Angela Wittman Says:

    I am sure Mary is more than capable of being an excellent communications director for an alternative political party, but what about the BABIES? Have you all forgotten the mass exodus from CP by pro-lifers within the last 2 years due to their lack of fidelity to their very own sanctity of life plank in their platform?

    Mary may be able to get a “pro-life” message out for CP, but their lack of action to protect all life still speaks louder than words.

    Perhaps Jim Clymer should find someone to clean the CP house instead.

    Thank you,
    Angela Wittman, publisher and editor of ChristianLibertyParty.com

  20. matt Says:

    I do know Buchanan’s a hardcore protectionist. It’s mentioned in his book A Republic Not An Empire and in many other pieces by him. I gather that he’s something of an inspirational figure for the CP. Which, except for protectionism and the (unfounded) charges of racism, is cool.

  21. Trent Hill Says:

    Buchanan was pretty much the reason the party was founded in 1992,as a vehicle for his Presidential run. National CP still talks to him regularly,if i understand correctly.

    Im not saying the National CP isnt protectionist, I know they are. I just don’t share those views, (Or at least,not to the degree that they do).

  22. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] Says:

    RESPONSE TO Tom Kovach:
    FROM; January 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm

    “I’ve been using the phrase “Big Two” parties to describe the Dems and Reps, and the phrase “smaller parties” (instead of “minor” parties) to describe the rest of us, in my columns for more that two years.”
    —————We were founded nine years ago at the worst veterans home on the planet, near Barstow [California] and have never been in love with either the Democans or the Republcrats. We use the terms MINOR PARTIES and MICRO PARTIES and TRUE (Decline to State) INDEPENDENTS quit a bit. Also NON ESTABLISHMENT PARTIES…....

  23. Chris Campbell Says:

    Congradulations to Mary!!

    She will be great and hopefully, will be instruemental in bringing about a new Oregon affiliate.

    This will be interesting, especially in lieu of Peroutka’s TAV site, escewing women involved in politics (never mind Janine Hansen, Nancy Spirkoff, etc that helped him in ‘04). Their anti-women article:

    http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=759&PHPSESSID=7bfce0b95c6d9669b1ac08d0fb938c82

    See where the inner Kick Nevada Out movement is? Not all that voted to kick out Nevada, but this certain inner group.

  24. Joe Says:

    So Chris, are you saying that you have no problem with women in civil office, despite the Biblical doctrine of male headship featured in the TAV article, and centuries of teaching to that effect by orthodox Christian churches?

    I recall watching the PBS special on the Peroutka campaign in 2004, which I thought was generally positive, and scratching my head at the amount of air time given to Nancy Spirkoff - considering that Peroutka was a candidate who emphasized his intentions to conform civil law to Biblical Law. I know there are women like Janine Hansen in leadership positions in the Constitution Party, at least some of whom hold unorthodox religious views, but that is a trend I would like to see less of, not more of.

  25. Trent Hill Says:

    Well Joe, consider the Biblical leadership of Deborah, The Daughters of Philip? Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Virgin. These women were all instrumental in the founding/growing of Christianity. Consider Pontius Pilate’s wife, who tried to convince him Jesus was a good man,and should be spared?

    Women are perfectly suited to some leadership roles. Head of household is different.

  26. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    Rev. Einwechter addresses both the case of Deborah and the “women are perfectly suited to some leadership roles, head of household is different” argument in the TAV article Chris linked to and concluded that that the biblical doctrine of the headship of man disqualifies women for civil office, without exception.

  27. NewFederalist Says:

    Let’s see… Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meier… yup, there is no place for women to hold civil office!

  28. matt Says:

    My guess is that most conservative evangelicals today would agree that women are capable of filling nearly every role in society except fatherhood. Or maybe the pastorate. Although the CP didn’t run any women in my state, I don’t think. At least none for any race in my district. Neither did the LP. I wish they would. Being a woman is probably good for 2 or 3 percentage points.

  29. Andy Says:

    “Paulie,

    None of it. Why would i? Im not even a Protectionist,lol. Its one of the few points I disagree with National CP on.
    But,i dont think they espouse any of that either. I have heard Howard Philips speak of the evils of a Mercantalist state.”

    I distinctly remember Howard Philips supporting the idea of increasing tarriffs. In fact, I’ve still got a video tape of the two 3rd Party Presidential Debates that were held in 2000, one hosted by Jesse Ventura and the Independence Party of Minnesota and the other hosted by Judicial Watch, and Howard Philips talked about increasing tarriffs. Overall Howard Philips was for reducing government, but not on this issue.

  30. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Paul,

    One of my mottos in life is to try to keep things simple. I am opposed to capitalism as how it is described in the dictionary and I am in support of socialism in how it is described there.

    The Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party are not going to go anywhere but into “the dustbin of history” - unless they make dramatic changes in philosophy.

  31. paulie cannoli Says:

    Actually, Phil, I agree with you on your second paragraph.

    But as to the first, not everything is as it appears on the surface.

    Read the link I posted and tell me what you think.

    Otherwise, we can’t even agree to disagree, since we are not even using the same language.

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    “Trent,

    Rev. Einwechter addresses both the case of Deborah and the “women are perfectly suited to some leadership roles, head of household is different” argument in the TAV article Chris linked to and concluded that that the biblical doctrine of the headship of man disqualifies women for civil office, without exception.”

    Joe, wow. I didn’t realize you gulped down so easily,EVERYTHING,that the TAV fed you. Just because THEY concluded that headship included Civil Office, you believe them?
    As someone else already pointed out, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Mier, Indira Ghandi, were all VERY effective female leaders.

  33. Trent Hill Says:

    Andy, protectionist tarriffs and a Mercantilist State are not one and the same. I am aware that Howard Philips is a protectionist, but he does not advocate a Mercantilist state.

  34. Brad Winthrop Says:

    Trent, if you look at Rev Einwechter’s article it was written in 1994 long before it was posted on TAV. I knew of it and agreed with it long before they featured it. He simply reiterates and explains what Reformed Christian churches have taught for centuries. Of course Golda Meier and Indira Gandi were not even Christians, but Rev. Einwechter addresses that point in his article:

    “. . . we should recognize that the issue here is not the character or ability of the woman seeking the office; nor is it her spiritual condition, her views on the issues, or even if she is the “best” available candidate. The point in question is this: does the Word of God give us the liberty to place a woman into a political office where she will in some sense bear rule over us in the civil sphere? Or, to state it more precisely: is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus rule over men? Has God ordained women to be civil leaders, or has He reserved this authority for men only? I believe that the Bible gives a definitive answer to this question: women are not permitted by God to hold political office and rule over men in the political sphere.”

  35. Joe Says:

    I agree Brad. I thought women biblically unqualified to hold civil office long before TAV existed. I listen to their show because they generally share my worldview.

    Regarding the argument that the biblical doctrine of male headship applies only to families, in the article Chris referenced, Rev. Einwechter writes:

    “Could it be that the man has headship only in the family and the church but not in the state? No, this could not be, lest you make God the author of confusion, and have Him violate in the state the very order He established at creation and has revealed in Holy Scripture! If one is going to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the civil sphere, then to be consistent, he or she also needs to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the family and the church. Now it is true that some attempt to do just that; but their denial of male headship for the family, church, and state is really a rejection of the Word of God and is a repudiation of God’s created order. And it is not sufficient to contend that it is acceptable to support a woman for civil ruler when she is the best candidate, unless you are also prepared to argue that it is acceptable to advocate a woman for the office of elder because she is better suited than the available men in the church; and unless you are also prepared to say that the wife should rule over her husband if she is better equipped to lead than her husband is.”

  36. John Chance Says:

    Joe, I think you are mixing up heading the Church with civil office. In the time of David, etc-they were largely one. Civil society has now-whether we like it or not-evolved into a separate sphere.

    Campaign against women holding office-next voting?- and you will not achieve any of your goals. Lets pick the areas that people are wanting to hear about and hit those areas, not long dead Reconstructionists views.

    Yes, from what I see, Joe is a TAV kinda guy. He, like many there since purging the Peroutka 2004 of any devil worshipping papist, Mormo fetishers, etc-the language I used to see on TAV-is buying hook, line, sinker.

    Go to TAV folks, you will rarely ever get to ask the Great Man any questions, jsut attack dogs like Joe/Whiteman.

    ANgela, the CP has not abandoned Pro-life and I wish-really wish-TAV would not obsses over the CP. They have left, Lofton is now a “Recovering CPer”. They need to join your Protestant-only AHP, a Party based on-as the site says-Sola Scriptura.

    Please ANgela, convince them to leave, then the CP will be viewed as a viable political Party, not one for nuts and Calvinsits-only.

    IF men do not step up to lead, we either have poor men leading or we turn to women.

    Sorry, USA was founded by Christians, but as most were divided by competing faiths and Masonic syncretism, we were not a nation as viewed by Rushoodny, Lofton, etc.

    and we were not founded in 1620-only the Mass. Bay Colony was. Nothing against Rev. Einwechter, but he is not MY religious leader, nor do I see him qualified to speak for me.

    TAV is committed to a Calvinist nation-again, they really would be happy by going over to the AHP and stop trying to destroy the CP-as they have no intention of returning to it as long as those pesky non-Christians are there (Mormons, Catholics, Arminians, any one else).

    Brad, here is a hint-we are not now, nor have we ever, been a Reformed nation. Nor do the majority of us wish to be.

    The treaty of 1498-BTW-gave the New world to Spain and Portugal, so it could be argued that the land was stolen. IT is debateable. I do wish the Refomred folks would either work w/others in the CP or go their own way.

    ANgela, the Bible also states that women are to be silent and have no authority over man, yet you continue to spout off against men-on the TAV, in private emaisl, here….take you own theological advice. After all, you are one of the “predestined”-enjoy lording that over the rest of us created by God to be only thrown in Hell at the end of the world (Calvin theology)

  37. John Chance Says:

    Buchana has long outlived his usefulness. He sells his articles and books, but then goes against them to back Bush. He still gets a lot of play even among anti-Bush orthodox Catholics.

    Go figure.

    No, he has proven to be kennel fed, as Peroutka/Lofton did point out in past radio shows.

  38. Joe Says:

    John,

    I am not mixing up the church and civil office. However as a Christian I do believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of both. If he is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all. As Rev. Einwechter argues in the article Chris cited, if you say that the doctrine of male headship applies only to the family, but not the church and the state you are saying that God the author of confusion and that Jesus is Lord of the family but not the church or the state. Most feminists get around this by either denying the Lordship of Jesus Christ outright or at least denying any biblical doctrine of male headship. That is A view, but not one that I happen to share.

  39. Cody Quirk Says:

    Joe,

    If the CP ran a woman candidate in 08’ I would vote for her.
    Word of advice, the US Constitution was not meant to conform to your and the TAV’s Biblical views.
    Go ahead and press for such a issue as that and abolishing the 19th Amendment in the campaign field! If Rick Jore had that as a issue, he would in no way have been elected to the state house.

  40. Cody Quirk Says:

    I am sure Mary is more than capable of being an excellent communications director for an alternative political party, but what about the BABIES? Have you all forgotten the mass exodus from CP by pro-lifers within the last 2 years due to their lack of fidelity to their very own sanctity of life plank in their platform?

    =You mean the handful of nuts that couldn’t even get their state parties ballot-qualified, the same kind of nuts that can’t work with other christians?
    As in South Dakota, the no-exceptionists have given the pro-abortion industry another boost, all thanks to their irrationalism.

    Mary may be able to get a “pro-life” message out for CP, but their lack of action to protect all life still speaks louder than words.

    =The lack of actually doing something more then just protesting outside of the clinics, or their refusial to work with practical members of the CP shows just where their Pro-Choice convictions are!

    Perhaps Jim Clymer should find someone to clean the CP house instead.

    =Yes, the Hansens!

    Thank you,

    =Not welcome.

  41. Cody Quirk Says:

    National Capitalism is Free Enterprise for the benifit of one’s nation- only.

    Basically it is Protectionism.

    As Trent said.

  42. Joe Says:

    Cody, I never had any doubt that you would vote for women candidates fielded by the Constitution Party.

  43. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear John and Cody,

    How long will you shut your eyes to the truth that you have yoked yourselves to a political Trojan Horse? Actions speak louder than words, but you both seem to prefer the illusion that you are part of a political force in America…while political farce may be a more accurate term.

    If you are not welcome at TAV, then please know you are probably not welcome at ChristianLibertyParty.com either until you both repent of your misplaced loyalty with the exceptions for baby-killing politicos.

  44. jason Says:

    Hey TAV creeps…would you go away already. You creep in here like cock-roaches and spew the same disstored, idiotic statements time and time again. You left. Now get on with your pathetic lives. Ya’ll are like an estranged lover, get over it and move on. Feel free to pursue your wacky confused worldly views, but do it amoung yourselves. No one wants to hear it or even be associated with any of you. Oh and Angela, please say it ain’t so. You mean that I might not be welcomed at ChristianLibertyParty.com!!

  45. Phil Sawyer Says:

    With all due respect, Paul, I must tell you that I am not interested in jumping all over the internet to track down definitions that are not in the dictionary. I went through this same sort of debate with a couple of people on the Socialists Unmoderated List Serve last year who were trying to convince me that anarchism is something other than what the dictionary says that it is. The bottom line is that I do not care what shade of color the anarchy is - I am opposed to all of it! Same with capitalism!

  46. Joe Says:

    Jason,

    Please note that it was Chris Campbell who brought up TAV, rather out of the blue and aprapos of nothing. He criticized their views on women in civil government without any biblical exegis, as if merely describing the biblical doctrine of male headship is sufficient to dismiss it. Are you a feminist who has no problem with women in leadership positions in family, church, or state? You think Rev. Einwechter and Michael Peroutka are creeps?

  47. Cody Quirk Says:

    How long will you shut your eyes to the truth that you have yoked yourselves to a political Trojan Horse? Actions speak louder than words, but you both seem to prefer the illusion that you are part of a political force in America…while political farce may be a more accurate term.

    =I should ask the same about you. Have you done anything in the AHP? Or just bashed the CP on the TAV forums the whole time? And how come the AHP or the Christian Liberty Party has no office-holders while we do?
    Sounds like the Viper is in distress!

    If you are not welcome at TAV, then please know you are probably not welcome at ChristianLibertyParty.com either until you both repent of your misplaced loyalty with the exceptions for baby-killing politicos.

    =I don’t give a damn, you’re not welcome in my chatroom I run either. I spit on TAV and the CLP. People like you pervert Christianity and the Bible. You thank we’re in danger of Hellfire? Other way around Angela!
    You and your friends want to divide and destory anything that comes close to eliminating abortion in any manner. You’re the baby-killers, not us.
    Oh yes, we won at Tampa and Mary Starrett is with us now- GET OVER IT!

  48. Cody Quirk Says:

    You can debate with the Bible over and over again about women serving office, but it doesn’t matter because the Constitution gives women that right. And with America the way it is, there is no way you can take that right away.

    But keep it up because you’re shooting yourselves in the foot with your fanaticism; you’re only showing how idiotic you are to us.

  49. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    The nineteenth amendment gave women the right to vote. The sixteenth amendment (arguably) allowed for a federal income tax and the seventeenth amendment allowed for the direct election of senators, yet the Constitution Party advocates the repeal of the sixteenth and seventeeth amendments. Do you think that because the Constitution says that is the way it is, that is the way it should be, or do you agree with your party that those two amendments should be repealed.

    For the sake of argument, would you at least agree that if scripture says that women should not vote then the nineteenth amendment ought to be repealed? Or should scripture be ignored just because some feminists managed to get a constitutional amendment passed in the early twentieth century?

    I submit that few of America’s Founding Fathers would never even have considered the idea of women serving in positions of leadership in civil government. Do you think they were idiotic fanatics?

  50. Phil Sawyer Says:

    In Old Testament times, many people thought that it was okay to sacrifice poor little lambs. Just because they believed that does not make it right.

    This is 2007, by the way - in case that slipped by you, Joe!

  51. RWR Says:

    “Hey TAV creeps… No one wants to hear it”

    Actually, Jason, I appreciate Joe and Angela’s contributions, and hope they will continue. Please do not speak on my behalf.

    Thanks.

  52. Ken Says:

    Augghh Joe & Angela you poor Calvinists, how dare you claim that just because God created everything, instituted everything, upholds and sustains everything that He is sovereign over all of it too?

    Whats more you believe that we are not allowed to compromise His sovereign Word when it comes to abortion or exposing evil (politcs included)?

    What kind of judgement is in store for you when someday you have to admit to God Himself that you claimed and practiced that He as the Creator, was Lord over His creation? Yikes!!

    I can see I’m going to have some more time on TAV trying to convince you of your errors.

    Seriously concerning the CP? Personally I left it the convention 1996 in San Diego. Although in different areas, the soveriengty/compromise issue was already evident.

  53. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Ken,

    I came to the conclusion in 2004 at the NCCP meeting in Nashville, Tennessee that the Constitution Party (formerly the US Taxpayers Party) had been formed with an ungodly alliance between Mr. Phillips, Bill Shearer and Dan Hansen and that I was witnessing the fruit of Mr. Phillips yoking himself with unbelievers. I praise the LORD for the good people and faithful Christians I met through CP, but I am even more grateful to have been led out of that unholy alliance.

    Thank you for your words of encouragement and wisdom.

  54. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear RWR,

    Thank you for your kind words… They are much appreciated. : )

  55. Cody Quirk Says:

    The nineteenth amendment gave women the right to vote. The sixteenth amendment (arguably) allowed for a federal income tax and the seventeenth amendment allowed for the direct election of senators, yet the Constitution Party advocates the repeal of the sixteenth and seventeeth amendments. Do you think that because the Constitution says that is the way it is, that is the way it should be, or do you agree with your party that those two amendments should be repealed.

    =A lot of people in the Party think that abolishing the seventeenth amendment is one of the stupidest things ever put into the Party platform, I’m one of them. And by our next national convention it will get taken out of the Platform.

    For the sake of argument, would you at least agree that if scripture says that women should not vote then the nineteenth amendment ought to be repealed? Or should scripture be ignored just because some feminists managed to get a constitutional amendment passed in the early twentieth century?

    =Why does the Constitution forbid Religious Tests or even prohibit our government from putting one church over another or empose religious rule? Joe, the Constitution is not Biblical. Women are as capable rulers are are men. Sometimes they even do better then men in office. And I find that people like you have wild and illogical interpretations of the Bible. I support the 19th Amendment, that was passed by men, and if you don’t like women in office, well that’s too bad. And its not a sin.

    I submit that few of America’s Founding Fathers would never even have considered the idea of women serving in positions of leadership in civil government. Do you think they were idiotic fanatics?

    =I bet a few of them couldn’t fathom slaves as people, and few of them didn’t think that immigration would become a major problem in America. Even some thought that America was only going to remain as 13 states.
    Times were different back then, as was society.
    If you want to argue against women voting and holding office Joe, then you minus well argue that black people should go back to slavery, or have no human-rights. If if that’s too out there for you Joe, then just stick to arguing for segregation. Either way, your views will never become reality.

    Noe go back to TAV and whine some more on the forums.

  56. Cody Quirk Says:

    That’s because you uphold these views, RWR. While a lot of us do not.

  57. Cody Quirk Says:

    And I’m gratfull too, that you were lead out of our holy alliance, Angela.

    We don’t need people like you in the CP.

  58. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    Why do you think direct election of senators is such a great idea? I was on the platform committee in 2004 and I do not recall anyone even suggesting that plank be changed. Everyone I have ever talked to about it in and out of the party thinks that repeal of the seventeenth would be a great idea, even if they aren’t sure how to make it a reality.

    How about repealing the 16th amendment? Do you think that is a stupid idea too?

    I agree with you that society certainly has changed, but I submit that it has not always changed for the better. The Constitution Party states that their mission is to “restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.”

  59. Brian Says:

    Mr. Quirk;

    For more information concerning the repeal of the 17th Amendment, please check out my weblog, Repeal the 17th Amendment. Along the right side I have posted a number of scholarly articles detailing the consequences of the amendment and the movement to remove it.

  60. Brian Says:

    Sorry about that; here you go: http://repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/

  61. MIHOP Says:

    Repealing the 17th amendment would return the States their representation in the Federal Government. We the People were not supposed to have two direct votes for the “federal” government. We the People were supposed to have one vote, the US Representatives, and our State has the other, the Senate. Which in effect, we would still control both votes by electing our State Representatives. Returning this power back to the States would force everyone to become more involved in State politics. This may not fix everything that is wrong with our current government, but it is as good a place to start as any.

  62. Timmer Says:

    It seems to me that the CP is raising its profile by this move, which is good. I am for anyone in any party who stands for the principles and limits of the Constitution. It distresses me to see people trashing TAV. I’m not anti-CP as Angela is, but I’m concerned about the seeming drift of the party. Hopefully, a new focus and a new spokesperson can begin the process of straightening it out.

  63. Joe Says:

    Timmer, I doubt it. On a radio interview today she was asked straight up about the Constitution Party being for “anti-abortion extremists.” She
    answered that baby murder was no longer the issue, but it was all about restraining the tyranny of the Republicrat duopoly.

  64. Cody Quirk Says:

    Brian,

    Thank you for the link, I’ve read a few of the articles and its somewhat opened my mind about the 17th Amendment a little.

    I think it’s Principle may come to question, but if the chance to repeal it comes up in Congress, it will be a political bloodbath- the American people will be bitterly opposed to repealing it since it takes away their right to vote on US Senators. Jim Clymer lost some support and a bit of his percentage in his campaign for US Senate in 2004 when the GOP brought up the CP’s opposition to the 17th. That turned some people off to Jim.
    However even without the 17th and electing Senators was done through the state governments- either little would change, or the US Senate would have way more Democrats then it does now. The major parties would still be in control and third-parties would gain nothing with the 17th gone.

    The 16th, of course needs to be repealed, no question about that. However I think we should still have a income tax for big bussinesses and large corporations.

  65. Joe Says:

    Cody, thank you for reconsidering your opposition to repeal of the seventeenth amendment. Your current position is much improved over your earlier insistence that repeal of the 17th is the stupidest party of the Constitution Party’s platform. I still disagree with you about the affect of repealing the 17th. I agree with the Constitution Party’s platform, “n so doing, this would return the U.S. Senate to being a body that represents the legislatures of the several states on the federal level and, thus, a tremendously vital part of the designed checks and balances of power that our Constitution originally provided.” You may be right that some Americans oppose repeal of the seventeenth, but then again the same could be said of almost every plank in the platform.

    I am glad that we agree that the 16th should be repealed. My reason for bringing it up was to refute your claim that we “can debate with the Bible over and over again about women serving office, but it doesn’t matter because the Constitution gives women that right. And with America the way it is, there is no way you can take that right away.”

    One could make that exact same statement about the federal income tax, but that does not stop you and the rest of the Constitution Party from opposing THAT innovation.

  66. MIHOP Says:

    Cody,

    Thanks for your consideration. Here is a very brief history of the 17th Amendment that I prepared using the links at the very bottom of this posting.

    [Paraphrased]
    The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.” Also, it allows the governor or executive authority of each state, if authorized by that state’s legislature, to appoint a senator in the event of an opening, until an election occurs.

    The Seventeenth Amendment is one of the “Progressive Amendments”; they were passed during the Progressive Era, with the support of the political group known as the “Progressives”. The other Progressive amendments were: the 16th amendment, which created the income tax; the 18th amendment, which started Prohibition of alcoholic beverages; and the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

    The reason for the passage of the 17th Amendment is because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate.

    The 17th amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power.

    Few people today know that the Founding Fathers never intended for senators to be popularly elected. The Constitution originally provided that senators would be chosen by state legislatures. The purpose was to provide the states — as states — an institutional role in the federal government. In effect, senators were to function as ambassadors from the states, which were expected to retain a large degree of sovereignty even after ratification of the Constitution, thereby ensuring that their rights would be protected in a federal system.

    The role of senators as representatives of the states was assured by a procedure, now forgotten, whereby states would “instruct” their senators how to vote on particular issues. Such instructions were not conveyed to members of the House of Representatives because they have always been popularly elected and are not expected to speak for their states, but only for their constituents.

    The 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states’ linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate. It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify the power of the federal judiciary. This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change.
    [End]

    The story above is comprised from articles in the links below.

    http://www.timescommunity.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17279176&brd=2553&pag=461&dept_id=506071

    John MacMullin resolution to repeal the 17th Amendment.
    http://www.articlev.com/repeal_the_17th_amendment.htm

    Retiring Senator Zell Miller’s comments on repealing the 17th Amendment.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200405120748.asp

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e7eed3b8-6398-11db-bc82-0000779e2340.html

  67. Cody Quirk Says:

    Cody, thank you for reconsidering your opposition to repeal of the seventeenth amendment. Your current position is much improved over your earlier insistence that repeal of the 17th is the stupidest party of the Constitution Party’s platform.

    =Actually I think we still need to drop it from our platform, but I’m not so vehement about it dropping it now.

    I still disagree with you about the affect of repealing the 17th.

    =the 16th wouldn’t be a problem getting rid of, but the repealing the 17th would be treading on unstable ground. I would expect to see those that tried to repeal it get voted out of office.

    I agree with the Constitution Party’s platform, “n so doing, this would return the U.S. Senate to being a body that represents the legislatures of the several states on the federal level and, thus, a tremendously vital part of the designed checks and balances of power that our Constitution originally provided.” You may be right that some Americans oppose repeal of the seventeenth, but then again the same could be said of almost every plank in the platform.

    =I think a good majority want the 16th gone.

    I am glad that we agree that the 16th should be repealed. My reason for bringing it up was to refute your claim that we “can debate with the Bible over and over again about women serving office, but it doesn’t matter because the Constitution gives women that right. And with America the way it is, there is no way you can take that right away.”

    =Nice try! You forget that besides Constitutionalists, Libertarians, certain Republicans, and even some liberals want to repeal the 16th too.
    And guess what Joe, another reason why you cannot repeal the 19th Amendment is because the grounds you are doing it on are religious. Which means you would be in violation of the 1st Amendment in promoting your creed over other creeds that uphold a woman’s right to vote and hold office. Why is it that Theocrats like you are quick to play and water down religious liberty and equality in the Constitution?

    One could make that exact same statement about the federal income tax, but that does not stop you and the rest of the Constitution Party from opposing THAT innovation.

    =The CP does not oppose women voting or holding office, and again the federal income tax is unpopular all across the political spectrum, the repeal of such has popular support. The only people I hear that want to repeal the 19th are people like you and rabid fundamentalists that think women shouldn’t hold jobs or wear pants either.
    The CP always wanted to repeal the 16th, and that will not change anytime soon.

  68. Cody Quirk Says:

    Joe:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    -Do you understand these words?

  69. Joe Says:

    So Cody, in addition to thinking that it is ok for women to run for office you also think that it is ok for women to work outside of the home?

    You initially said that the debate over the biblical doctrine of male headship is irrelevant because the nineteenth amendment allows women to vote. Now that you realize that dog won’t hunt you have switched to a first amendment argument. It is absurd to claim that the first amendment would not prevent repeal of the nineteenth. Even if there was some relevance between the two, later amendments take precedence over earlier amendments and the original constitution. But more to the point, if the first amendment meant that women had to be permitted to vote, there would never have been any need for the nineteenth amendment! Women were not allowed to vote for roughly 130 years AFTER the ratification of the first amendment, until the ratification of the nineteenth.

    I understand and agree with the words of the first amendment, but in no way would a constitutional amendment that repealed the nineteenth and allowed states to limit suffrage to men be an establishment of religion by Congress. States prohibiting women from voting does not equal Congress passing a law prohibiting a Christian denomination from freely exercising their religion, any more than state laws against murder equal Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion. To take effect an amendment must be ratified by the people or the states. If an amendment repealing the nineteenth passed it would not be an act of Congress and therefore not limited by the first amendment.

  70. Cody Quirk Says:

    So Cody, in addition to thinking that it is ok for women to run for office you also think that it is ok for women to work outside of the home?

    =You bet! My wife does and it helps us pay the bills.

    You initially said that the debate over the biblical doctrine of male headship is irrelevant because the nineteenth amendment allows women to vote. Now that you realize that dog won’t hunt you have switched to a first amendment argument. It is absurd to claim that the first amendment would not prevent repeal of the nineteenth.

    =You base your argument on religious views and argue it should be done because the Bible ‘says’ so, so you are going against the 1st.
    The 19th Amendment is there, whether you like it or not.

    Even if there was some relevance between the two, later amendments take precedence over earlier amendments and the original constitution. But more to the point, if the first amendment meant that women had to be permitted to vote, there would never have been any need for the nineteenth amendment! Women were not allowed to vote for roughly 130 years AFTER the ratification of the first amendment, until the ratification of the nineteenth.

    =I believe women weren’t allowed to vote anywhere in the 1700’s. The world has changed then.

    =Again your assumption that women can’t vote or hold office is based on religious views, and it would be very unconstitutional to enforce.

    I understand and agree with the words of the first amendment,

    =The way you talk it sounds like you don’t give a damn about it.

    but in no way would a constitutional amendment that repealed the nineteenth and allowed states to limit suffrage to men be an establishment of religion by Congress.

    =Yes it is because you base it on ‘Biblical Law’ and even would have it based on Biblical law. there are some things about ‘Biblical Law’ that are anti-Constitutional that the Founding Fathers tried to avoid having in the Constitution.

    States prohibiting women from voting does not equal Congress passing a law prohibiting a Christian denomination from freely exercising their religion, any more than state laws against murder equal Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

    =I believe state governments would have the same mindset as Congress. They would never take those rights away. Again you’re basing your arguments on religious views. Just because one believes that those who make Adult movies or distribute pornography should get the death penalty, doesn’t mean that the state should pass a law doing so, or even be within constitutional bounds on passing such a law. Your view is based on religion, and again, one religious group cannot impose their law or belief on another, or even the general public.

    And so many religious groups have differing views on the deathpenalty that state-laws legalizing or prohibing the death-penalty are irrevelant to the first amendment.

    To take effect an amendment must be ratified by the people or the states. If an amendment repealing the nineteenth passed it would not be an act of Congress and therefore not limited by the first amendment.

    =But repealing the 19th won’t happen anytime soon that way. Don’t forget there’s plenty of women legislatures out there, and a good number of male legislatures wouldn’t vote in favor.

  71. Joe Says:

    You may think that state legislatures should have the same mindset as Congress. I certainly don’t. IMO, it is unfortunate that they all too often do.

    Cody, do you or do you not agree with your own party’s platform, “We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity . . . While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.” ?

  72. Sterling Saunders Says:

    There has been some talk about dropping repeal of the 17th Amendment from the party platform, because, among other things, voter backlash. Because of what I am doing I anticipated this and collected some data on voter turnout in elections with and without a Senatorial race in question. In summary.

    In the 2004 Presidentital election, in the 34 states also electing a Senator, 89,140,119 wrent to the polls.

    In the nearest mid term eletion where those same states were electing a Senator but not a President, only 54,115,271 went to the polls, a reduction of 35,024,848. Doesn’t look as if the Senator is a big drawing card.

    In the nearest mid term election in those same states without either a President or Senator on the ballot, 51,491,805 voted, a reduction of only 2,623,466 from when there was a Senatorial race on the ballot.

    In making the comparison between Senator and No Senator in all fifty states, we find 17 States that had a higher turnout with no Senator than they did with.

    I really don’t believe that people have that much interest in Senate elections. I attibute this to two factors. One, they are sick and tired of being assaulted with mudslinging TV and Radio commercials during the campaign, fully aware that they are seeing and hearing what “Image consultants” built for the candidate rather than genuine input from the candidate and, secondly, they know full well that once someone is elected to the Senate he or she goes off to never-ever land, meaning that the average citizein never-ever is able to make contact with him or her. Without contact (access) the average unconnected citizen has no clout at all with the State’s Senators. So, why bother?

    On the other hand, once the 17th amendment is repealed, instead of having the entire population of the state as constituents, a Senator has 90, 100, 120, 200, however many are in the Legislature. With an electing unit that small, they have enormous clout and the Senator will get his or her marching orders from the Legislature. If, after repeal, the Legislatures will set up a “hot line” for citizens who are concerned about something in Washington, they will, once again, empower the people who were effectively disenfranchised by the 17th amendment.

    Futhermore, I believe people have a belly full of the constant, unending political food fight that goes on in the Senate. This was supposed to be the body of Statesment, the States’ Ambassadors to the Central government, not a bunch of self-serving, partisan politicians playing Presidential wannabees As a wag once noted, “They campaign on the theme that Washington is a cesspool, but once they get there they turn it into a hot tub.”

    It all comes down to a simple fact. Unless someone gets a firm hand on the brake lever in the engine of the runaway political freight train thundering out of Washington, this nation as we know it will cease to exist. And the ONLY way to do that is to repeal the 17th amendment.

    Besides, how can one be true to the principle of Constitutional government and not advocate repeal of the 17th.

    Sterling Saunders

  73. Sterling Saunders Says:

    One other note on Repeal of the 17th Amendment. The elitist media will get their skivvies all bunched up at the thought, because they will see if for what it is, a severe diminuation of their power to influence what does or does not happen in Washington. And that is exactly one of the things that has to be done to get this nation back on track.

    There will be a few shrill voices in opposition, but they have to be ignored, because once you give in to them they will have you on the run forever.

  74. Cody Quirk Says:

    “We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity . . . While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.” ?

    =Yes, it simply calls for enforcing the current laws against obscenity, while still believing in indvidual responsiblity. And of course government must uphold decency by community standards, who else is going to enforce the law, the Ice Cream man? The Janitor? Or the Gardener?

    I like it the way it is and it shouldn’t be changed or sound like Scott Whiteman rewrote it.

  75. Cody Quirk Says:

    Sterling, you sound way better then Joe in your arguments.

  76. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    I agree with it the way that it is written to. I voted for it when I was on the platform committee in ‘04 when Barry Kroeker proposed it and I voted for it again in convention. You sounded like you disagreed with it when you wrote “your view is based on religion, and again, one religious group cannot impose their law or belief on another, or even the general public.” The pornography plank of the Constitution Party’s platform states, “pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. That plank, that you say you agree with as written, is clearly based on religion and one religious group using the political process to get civil law conformed to their religious views. It is not a matter of whether civil law is going to conform to religious views. That is inevitable. It is just a matter of what religion it is going to conform to.

  77. Sterling Saunders Says:

    Cody, in one of your posts, you wrote: “However even without the 17th and electing Senators was done through the state governments- either little would change, or the US Senate would have way more Democrats then it does now. The major parties would still be in control and third-parties would gain nothing with the 17th gone.”

    Again, I must disagree, but in this instance it is more a question of goals, strategy and methods. It’s a given, that any third party candidate is going to get butchered and served up in pieces by the media. One way to walk around that is to do what Ron Paul did, run in a Republican primary and beat the socialist, progressive opposition.

    The other question that keeps nagging at me is to watch the third parties go for the top spots—President, Senator, House. It’s like baseball, you’re not welcome in the majors until you have shown your worth in the minors.

    If the third parties will start looking at the long term rather thain maintaining a microwave mentality demanding instant gratification, fifty years down the pike they will be in control However, from what I have seen so far from the Libertarians, CP etc they would rather be martryrs than winners.

    If the front door is locked and barred, go in the back door. Infiltrate the Republican Party and if it’s done properly, in a few election cycles, the third party people in fact rather than their image will control the State Legislatures.

  78. Cody Quirk Says:

    I agree with it the way that it is written to. I voted for it when I was on the platform committee in ‘04 when Barry Kroeker proposed it and I voted for it again in convention.

    =I thought you voted against it. A lot of the New York delegation did.

    You sounded like you disagreed with it when you wrote “your view is based on religion, and again, one religious group cannot impose their law or belief on another, or even the general public.”

    =The 2004 Platform was the lesser of two evils in my opinion, it looked better then the 1999 platform. I wasn’t on the platform committee and on the convention floor either you voted for it or against it. I sent my proxy vote, but the proxies were not used then I heard, I could be wrong.
    But again you’re interpreting the preamble like it’s a passage from the bible. You forgot the preamble statements on religious tests- not prohibiting religious tests goes against Biblical law in your belief, does it not?

    The pornography plank of the Constitution Party’s platform states, “pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. That plank, that you say you agree with as written, is clearly based on religion and one religious group using the political process to get civil law conformed to their religious views.

    Now that is a load of crap. It’s not because pornography is ‘the devil’s temptation tool’, but the psychological effect of it, and even without seeing this from a religious perspective societies that dwell on it become warped and twisted over time. Even a conservative athiest can see that.
    People mainly oppose it because it offends them personally, not just because “it’s against their religious beliefs”. They also oppose it because their children, even if they aren’t raising them in a religious enviorment, have minds like a sponge and if viewing it can warp their minds. It could screw up their kids thinking and ruin how they raise them. Whether they’re dedicated Christians or not.

    And there are plenty of other religions that are opposed to pornography including Islam.

    It is not a matter of whether civil law is going to conform to religious views. That is inevitable.

    =Only when the Savior returns to the Earth- not when people like you take over a state and impose a ‘Biblical Christian’-style Sharia law.

    It is just a matter of what religion it is going to conform to.

    =Even the majority of American Christians won’t conform to your type of ‘Biblical Law’.

  79. Cody Quirk Says:

    Again, I must disagree, but in this instance it is more a question of goals, strategy and methods. It’s a given, that any third party candidate is going to get butchered and served up in pieces by the media. One way to walk around that is to do what Ron Paul did, run in a Republican primary and beat the socialist, progressive opposition.

    =Maybe, but the voters won’t be happy that there is a attempt to remove their right to vote on their Senators.

    The other question that keeps nagging at me is to watch the third parties go for the top spots—President, Senator, House. It’s like baseball, you’re not welcome in the majors until you have shown your worth in the minors.

    If the third parties will start looking at the long term rather thain maintaining a microwave mentality demanding instant gratification, fifty years down the pike they will be in control However, from what I have seen so far from the Libertarians, CP etc they would rather be martryrs than winners.

    =Depends on which individual candidates.

    If the front door is locked and barred, go in the back door.

    =I’d prefer if we pick the door lock, or knock the front door down.

    Infiltrate the Republican Party and if it’s done properly, in a few election cycles, the third party people in fact rather than their image will control the State Legislatures.

    =Then perhaps we should advocate and try repealing the 17th AFTER we gain control of the state legislatures, or a majority of them- that wouldn’t be a bad idea!

  80. Joe Says:

    Cody, how do you know that many from New York voted against the pornography plank if you weren’t even there? I sat with two other members of our state party on the platform committee and even I don’t remember how the other two voted. I do remember that we did not discuss it much, if at all and I do remember my vote which was for it. I was quite impressed with the amount of work Barry did on the platform committee.

    I also sat with the six delegates of our state party in convention. Four of us voted to adopt the current platform and two voted against. I can also tell you that for the two who voted against the current platform, the pornography plank had nothing to do with it. The only was the preamble. The two who voted against it thought that it watered down our party’s Christian witness too much.

    The fact that some atheists do not like pornography does not change the fact that the Constitution Party explicitly bases their objection on the fact that it is “a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony.” That is as theocratic as it gets. When you say that is “a load of crap,” it sounds like you are talking about your own party’s platform?

  81. Cody Quirk Says:

    Cody, how do you know that many from New York voted against the pornography plank if you weren’t even there?

    =I was informed by people that were there. And I’m talking about the convention floor vote.

    I sat with two other members of our state party on the platform committee and even I don’t remember how the other two voted. I do remember that we did not discuss it much, if at all and I do remember my vote which was for it.

    =From what I heard the NYCP members (on the convention floor) were against it because it included the paragraphs forbiding a religious test in the Party.

    I was quite impressed with the amount of work Barry did on the platform committee.

    I also sat with the six delegates of our state party in convention. Four of us voted to adopt the current platform and two voted against. I can also tell you that for the two who voted against the current platform, the pornography plank had nothing to do with it.

    =Duh!

    The only was the preamble. The two who voted against it thought that it watered down our party’s Christian witness too much.

    =Really? That’s very weired.

    The fact that some atheists do not like pornography does not change the fact that the Constitution Party explicitly bases their objection on the fact that it is “a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony.” That is as theocratic as it gets.

    =No it is not, even a neocon GOP’er that’s more agnostic then christian would agree with such wording. And the rest of the plank doesn’t even bring religion up.

    When you say that is “a load of crap,” it sounds like you are talking about your own party’s platform?

    =The ‘Load of crap’ is your view that it imposes ‘Biblical-Law’ which is hogwash. Stop viewing things in absolutes. And word of advice, the President of the U.S. is NOT a Prophet of the Leader of all American Christians.
    It seems the only perspective you know is your own. Too bad the leaders of the CP don’t agree with your view of the platform.

  82. Cody Quirk Says:

    And if it was Theocratic, then it would establish a death penalty for distrubuters of porn, or seek to impose a complete ban of all pornography and criminal penalties for all who possess it in the name of God.

    But it doesn’t go that far.

    And have have the 1st Amendment.

  83. Joe Says:

    On the convention floor four of the six delegates from New York voted for the current platform- including myself. The two who voted against it did so because they objected to the “no religious test” language. Your informant is incorrect. I was there and I remember it very well.

    I just took a look at the GOP platform. They have a plank called “Protecting Children from Obscenity and Exploitation” but it does not include language similar to the Constitution Party’s pornography plank. You very well might like their plank better. I don’t. Nor can I find Jesus Christ mentioned anywhere in their platform.

    Other than the death penalty plank, you will find little mention of criminal penalties in the Constitution Party platform. I do not think that they should be included in a party platform but should be left up to individual candidates if elected, and in most cases up to jurors.

    In Miller v. California the Supreme Court said that obscene material is “unprotected by the firstamendment” and that “to equate the free and robust exchange of ideasand political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.” The Constitution Party’s platform plank on pornography echoes that sentiment: “We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.”

    Thank you for the compliment. I try hard to always view things in absolutes and consider that a virtue.

  84. Cody Quirk Says:

    On the convention floor four of the six delegates from New York voted for the current platform- including myself. The two who voted against it did so because they objected to the “no religious test” language. Your informant is incorrect. I was there and I remember it very well.

    =”I sat with two other members of our state party on the platform committee and even I don’t remember how the other two voted.”
    =You’re contredicing yourself Joe.
    =Why did they object to the no-relgious test part when our Constitution prohibits it?

    I just took a look at the GOP platform. They have a plank called “Protecting Children from Obscenity and Exploitation” but it does not include language similar to the Constitution Party’s pornography plank. You very well might like their plank better. I don’t. Nor can I find Jesus Christ mentioned anywhere in their platform.

    =Whatever, and Jesus Christ isn’t mentioned in the pornography plank.

    Other than the death penalty plank, you will find little mention of criminal penalties in the Constitution Party platform.

    =What about the planks on Crime? Family? The Judiciary? Terrorism and Personal Liberty?

    In Miller v. California the Supreme Court said that obscene material is “unprotected by the firstamendment” and that “to equate the free and robust exchange of ideasand political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.”

    =And I agree with such a descision.
    However sadly, another case - Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition -said otherwise of certain pornographic material.

    The Constitution Party’s platform plank on pornography echoes that sentiment: “We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.”

    =That’s not Theocratic at all, and I agree with it.

    Thank you for the compliment. I try hard to always view things in absolutes and consider that a virtue.

    =It’s your funeral.

  85. Joe Says:

    I remember how our delegation voted on approving the platform on the convention floor. I do not remember how the other two members from our state voted on the pornography plank, which was just one of dozens of planks debated over a two day period. All I remember is Barry proposing the pornography plank and my voting for it, along with a majority of the committee.

    The two members who voted against the current platform did so because they think there should be a religious test for civil magistrates.

  86. Cody Quirk Says:

    I remember how our delegation voted on approving the platform on the convention floor. I do not remember how the other two members from our state voted on the pornography plank, which was just one of dozens of planks debated over a two day period. All I remember is Barry proposing the pornography plank and my voting for it, along with a majority of the committee.

    =I like the pornography plank fine.

    The two members who voted against the current platform did so because they think there should be a religious test for civil magistrates.

    =Then they are wrong. It is unconstitutional, it (the Constitution) specifies no religious test for ANY kind of office or public trust. If you want a Party to advocate for such, then you cannot base that Party on the US Constitution. Otherwise it is hypocracy.

  87. Joe Says:

    But if your faith teaches that a religious test is required for civil magistrates, surely that must take precedence over any constitutional prohibition - you know, religious freedom and all that? The Constitution has an amendment process so there is nothing hypocritical about a member who thinks that Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution should be repealed - especially when the party states that their goal is to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations.”

  88. Cody Quirk Says:

    But if your faith teaches that a religious test is required for civil magistrates, surely that must take precedence over any constitutional prohibition

    =Nope, 1st Amendment prohibits that.

    you know, religious freedom and all that?

    =The freedom to empose one’s view over another, that is NOT freedom, that is Tyranny!

    The Constitution has an amendment process so there is nothing hypocritical about a member who thinks that Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution should be repealed - especially when the party states that their goal is to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations.”

    =That’s not the CP.
    And that member does not believe in the Constitution then. And if you think a amendment can be passed to override article VI Clause 3- forget it pal! Even pigs won’t fly in your mind.

  89. Free Says:

    Come chat with sexy cam girls

Leave a Reply