Should CP Candidates Run As Libertarians?

The Libertarian Party is the only minor party with ballot access in Texas, leaving voters with just three choices - and possibly more with special elections (which are rare) - so here’s a successful option: why can’t Constitution Party of Texas candidates run as Libertarians in a quasi-fusion ticket?

Libertarian Mike Treis of Ellis County is waging a campaign for sheriff despite being solidly pro-life and a friend of the Constitution Party platform.

This should be repeated statewide and at all levels. This ensures at least one Constitution-supporting candidate in individual races, and it might make Libertarian conventions more popular. If you’ve got a pro-choice LP candidate vying for governor (for example) against a CP-turned-LPer, then not only will this be a good press-friendly race, but it might actually regain some of those lost votes that people cast when there’s nobody else on the ballot other than the incumbent.

Why not, CPers of Texas? Why not run “fusion” candidacies?

46 Responses to “Should CP Candidates Run As Libertarians?”

  1. Glenn Brown Says:

    Because the Constitution Party is for closed border’s.
    .

    The Libertarian are for OPEN border’s, with no welfare what a joke.
    .

    That’s why….

  2. Sean Scallon Says:

    Why not, it’s a way around the powers that be and system that they’ve constructed to perpetuate that power.

  3. Jay Matthews Says:

    Glenn, are you a pro-welfare guy. Please clarify.

  4. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Because Libertarians oppose theocracy.

    Take religion out of the CP platform entirely, and three-quarters of the differences between CP and LP would evaporate.

    Fat chance of that ever happening, though.

  5. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Glenn, not all Libertarians are for total open borders…that is a total misconception.

  6. Glenn Brown Says:

    Dear Jeff,
    I have been to three (3) NATIONAL CONVENTIONS OF THE LP AND GOT THE FEELING BETWEEN 80-90% WERE BIGGER NUTS THAN THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTION PARTY AND SUPPORT THE LP PLATEFORM OF OPEN BORDERS.
    iT’S TOO BAD WE ALL CAN’T WORK TOGETHER, BUT THAT’S THE WAY ITS IS ON OPEN BRODERS. GLENN

  7. Joey Dauben Says:

    I’d love to see - at least from a Republican, observational standpoint - the closed-borders/social conservatives and the open-borders/pro-choice-on-everything Libertarians duke it out in contested conventions.

    But at least if you had the CP candidates run as Libertarians, people would be assured of the Constitution getting a fair hearing.

    Just don’t run anyone against Constitutional Republicans like Jerry Patterson and a few state House members. That’s all I ask.

  8. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Glenn—
    Then your “feeling” is wrong. To say that 90% of Libertarians support open borders is just plain wrong.

    Look at the support for George Phillies, for example. He’s a Libertarian who does NOT support open borders, and there are many more like him.

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

    Having tried to work AND FAILED with the Libs on smaller government via the horrible, horrible results of local, state, and national programs on veterans housing and health care for a decade, our concenses is similar to Glenn Brown, in all regards.

    Jeff, just who, beside Phillies, is for boundaries?

    Such Libs are mightly quiet, if they exist in numbers at all.

    And such is political suicide in a post 911 environment!

    And the anti gay, anti abortion, bible thumping of the CP is just a slower, more torturous, ultimately more pain full demise! I say that as a straight, former Sourthern Baptist, Eagle Scout, former military officer whom has pretty much given up on the Boy Scouts of America.

  10. George Phillies Says:

    I support the Libertarian Party national platform, which is available on line.

    Allegations—I’ll let readers find that one for themselves—that my position statements make racist references to foreigners from one part of the world or another are fabrications of one of the opposing campaigns.

    Suggestions that the Libertarian Party should welcome people who agree that when the Bible and the Constitution differ the Bible trumps the Constitution, or who agree that abortion is murder but aren’t sure which criminal penalty is most appropriate for the woman, are in my opinion in error.

  11. go go gadget farts! Says:

    The “Constitution Party” is not even remotely libertarian, they oppose womens rights to control their own bodies (half of them don’t believe women should have any rights at all, except to stay with abusive husbands whether they like it or not and not even be allowed to vote), hate immigrants and other minorities, love border enforcement thugs (AKA INS/ICE NAZIs), oppose human rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, believe in theocracy, and oppose free trade, so right there goes the argument that they should be considered libertarian in any way.

    You might as well have Greens run as libertarians.

  12. [email protected] Says:

    George,

    You write:

    “I support the Libertarian Party national platform, which is available on line.

    “Allegations—I’ll let readers find that one for themselves—that my position statements make racist references to foreigners from one part of the world or another are fabrications of one of the opposing campaigns.”

    First of all, they’re not fabrications.

    If you didn’t want your position paper to clearly imply that the admonition inscribed on the statue of liberty was intended for the white huddled masses of Europe and is no longer applicable now that we’re talking about the brown huddled masses of Latin America, you’d change it to remove that clear implication.

    Apparently you’re laboring under the misimpression that you can pander to the Know-Nothings overtly enough that they’ll catch your meaning, yet subtly enough that Libertarians won’t. No comment as to what that implies regarding your estimate of the intelligence of your fellow partisans.

    Secondly, no, you do not support the Libertarian Party’s platform, at least on immigration. That platform reads: “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”

    To the extent that your campaign platform on immigration rises above pure-D incoherent, pandering gobbledygook—which is not much—it iclearly lays out the position that unrestricted, or even less heavily restricted, movement of human capital is “corporate welfare” and in so doing implies that you support manipulating the labor market in order to ensure that American workers get what you think they “ought” to get for particular jobs rather than what they’d get in a genuine free market exchange..

    Your position on immigration is not just at variance with fact, reality, history, sound economics, and the LP’s platform, it’s a position that any Libertarian—any American—should hang his head in shame for promoting.

    It’s also strategically dubious insofar as the Know-Nothings are already waited upon hand-and-foot by the major parties—they don’t need a third party candidate to give them what they’re already getting from the Hillary Clintons and Ron Pauls. Sure, they’ll piss and moan when the pheasant under glass is a little on the tough side, but they aren’t going to leave a full-service restaurant that gives them an unlimited tab in order to patronize your hot dog stand. Better to go after the large minority/plurality of Americans who support the American way—immigration freedom—and who are at this time completely unrepresented in government.

    Thirdly, no, the allegations are not from “an opposing campaign.” They’re from me. To the best of my knowledge, Steve Kubby has been exceedingly gentle and friendly in pointing out the error of your immigration position when it has come up in debate. My tough love has nothing to do with your campaign versus Kubby’s campaign. It has to do with the fact that I respect you and am appalled to see you prostituting yourself for the Frosty Wooldridge/William Pierce vote.

  13. david Says:

    At least in Texas the Constitution party platform and the republican party state platform are closer together than either party platform is to the libetarian platform. Not that any elected republicans pay any attention to to the republican platform.

  14. TL Says:

    It’s clear that Kris O and go go gadget have not a clue what the Constitution Party is really about.

  15. [email protected] Says:

    TL,

    I’m pretty sure that Kris O and go go gadget have a number of clues as to what the Constitution Party is about (i.e. smuggling ahistorical “Christian nation” claptrap and reactionary/theocratic/anti-Enlightenment policies into American politics with a false “constitutionalist” label glued on the jar).

    Tom Knapp

  16. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, IMO the LP immigration platform is contradictory. You quoted from The Principle which of course would be more general & idealistic. But Solutions & Transitional Actions are more the candidates’s discretion based on what is there.

  17. George Phillies Says:

    If any of you are curious, here is the actual Libertarian Party platform statement on immigration. Note that its opening paragraph includes a denunciation of open borders:

    ” A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.”

    This denunciation should be unsurprising, because as those of you who attended the 2006 National Convention platform committee hearings noticed, a primary intention of the platform committee chair with the support of most but definitely not all of his committee was to get rid of the open borders stand, which he succeeded in doing.

    Open-border advocates were present at the platform committee. Several of them were quite emphatic and negative about the change represented by the current platform. I would urge you to read the full statement, which follows, which I support and which clearly rejects the demands of the open-borders advocates.

    Mind you, of I were trying to represent a candidate who recently took the position that we should pull the troops out of Iraq and leave all their equipment behind, I too would be feeling a bit challenged.

    “IV.1 Immigration

    The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

    The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

    Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

    Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.”

  18. G.E. Smith Says:

    George Phillies may be a Libertarian, but he’s not a libertarian. He is a statist. If not for his socially Marxist views, he would fit in nicely with the CP.

    The LP’s position should be that abortion is not the domain of the federal government. Whether it should be prohibited at the state level should be a matter of individual opinion. But it should not be subsidized at any level, nor protected/prohibited at the federal level.

    The CP has purged most of its most adament theocrats and theonomists. But it is still a 17th century relic, with a pre-capitalist understanding of markets and economics. The platform is clearly mercantilist and thus entirely incompatible with a pro-capitalism platform like that of the LP. Mercantilism is the opposite of capitalism. This difference is far more important than any of the social issues.

  19. Jake Porter Says:

    George Phillies may be a Libertarian, but he’s not a libertarian. He is a statist. If not for his socially Marxist views, he would fit in nicely with the CP.

    Are you on drugs or something? If so, George Phillies will support your decision.

    George Phillies:
    Pro Second Amendment
    Pro Gay Rights
    Pro Choice
    Supports Ending Foreign Aid
    Supports Tax Credits for Education
    Against Eminent Domain
    Against Hospital Cost Transfers
    Supports Ending the National Debt
    Against Corporate Welfare

  20. Jake Porter Says:

    Pulling the troops out of Iraq and leaving all their equipment behind is a position that any Libertarian—any American—should hang his/her head in shame for promoting.

  21. George Phillies Says:

    G.E.:

    Marxist? Groucho, Harpo, or Zeppo?

    On the other hand, the notion that states should be free to ban abortions is down there with the notion—which I am old enough to remember—that states should be free to keep blacks from voting, or attending white universities, or marrying whites, and the Federal government should stay out of the issue. It’s entirely unAmerican.

  22. [email protected] Says:

    Quoth George Phillies:

    “Mind you, of I were trying to represent a candidate who recently took the position that we should pull the troops out of Iraq and leave all their equipment behind, I too would be feeling a bit challenged.”

    I know this isn’t addressed to me, since I’m not trying to represent a candidate in this discussion, period. But I am curious as to what candidate you are saying takes such a position and what your reason for saying that is.

    As for my criticisms of your anti-libertarian, racist, contra-platform immigration position, if you don’t like those criticisms, feel free to change your position.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  23. Susan Hogarth Says:

    GES wrote “Whether [abortion] should be prohibited at the state level should be a matter of individual opinion.”

    Is that deliberate irony?

  24. Ben Powers Says:

    I have been recommending that any non-GOP or non-DFL candidate (CP, LP, GP, etc.) running for the state legislature or Congress that is unsuccessful in meeting Minnesota’s signature requirements file as the Independence Party’s candidate in the open primary. The IP usually doesn’t have candidates for these races. While this candidate may not get the support of the IP, they will meet ballot access through this avenue. Minnesota does not have party registration so a life-long LPer can file as an IP candidate without any legal problems.

  25. G.E. Smith Says:

    Hmm, that was the old g_e / u_a talking there for a second. Inflammatory. I apologize, George. Last night’s wine, perhaps.

    I have long been a proponent of the federalization of issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc., under the notion that states should not be allowed to prohibit them—i.e. the big, strong federal government should stop the states from barring abortion or discriminating against gays.

    Then I realized, with the help of paulicannoli, that in order for the feds to prevent states from discriminating, the federal government has to be too big. It isn’t worth it.

    When it comes to abortion, I think it’s clear that it isn’t a federal issue. Even in light of Roe vs. Wade, abortion is only protected through the first trimester (maybe less). States should deal with it from then on. But I would prefer to see Roe overruled and allow each state to regulate abortion its own way. If you don’t like the way your state handles it, move. You have 49 other options. That was the way the country was intended to be run.

    Gay marriage is trickier since there is the pesky full faith and credit clause in the Constitution, and the 14th amendment’s equal protection under the law. I’m 100% pro gay and I think the Constitution is clear. But I wish each state could handle it differently. Let the homophobic states drive out the wealth and productivity of homosexuals. We’ll be happy to take them in “blue” country.

    As far as racial discrimination, it is prohibited on the part of the states by the Constitution. Abortion is not dealt with in the Constitution. There’s no comparison.

    And Jake, even though I apologized, I did say “culturally Marxist,” which I meant to imply culturally leftist. i.e. centralizing authority and imposing leftist cultural views on abortion, gay rights, etc. That is not compatible with the CP, but George’s mercantilist trade and immigration policies are.

  26. [email protected] Says:

    This whole idea of jumping onto other parties’ ballot lines is bad for a number of reasons, but from an LP perspective, it is simply and clearly codified in our bylaws:

    Article 3:

    “The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements …”

    Article 6:

    “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election.”

    I’m sure it’s possible to find loopholes. I’m also sure that the intent of these party bylaws is to maintain the LP as a specific political party, not a diving board for LP candidates to jump off of onto other parties’ ballot lines, or a pool for other parties’ candidates to dive into when they find that their own pool has no water in it.

    Tom Knapp

  27. Ben Powers Says:

    The CPMN is considering amending its by-laws specifically to support Ron Paul if he decides to run as an independent. This will open the door for CPMN members that want to run for the legislature or Congress to get on the ballot and be eligible for support from the CPMN. The real question that remains in the CPMN is whether they will endorse GOP and DFL candidates in addition to LP, IP, independents, and others. I have always advocated for drawing the line at supporting the majour national parties’ candidates (GOP & DFL). In 2006, they supported the LP candidate for Governor even when she decided to run in the GOP primary against the incumbent GOP Governor, Tim Pawlenty. They distributed Ron Paul for President literature from their fairbooth this year. John Robillard, CPMN PR Director, has been known to sport a Ron Paul for President shirt.

  28. go go gadget vomit! Says:

    George Phillies position is NOT the same as the LP platform.

    LP platform says now that there should be border checkpoints to screen for diseases, criminals and terrorists but NO restrictions on the number of truly peaceful immigrants allowed to enter the country to seek jobs.

    (In my opinion this change in the platform is wrong. There should not be such checkpoints between countries, nor between states, nor between counties or neighborhoods, although you should be free to set one up for your personally owned property. But let’s take the platform as a given).

    Phillies on the other hand says that “yearning to breathe free” is only meant for the people of Europe, who he (falsely) claims are no longer oppressed, and not for the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. He also says that quota-free immigration is tantamount to corporate welfare, and that the government should use immigration policy to prop up wages that native born Americans would not get in a truly free market. In addition, he says that tariffs should be used to punish countries which do not have the same environmental and labor laws as the US (I did not see a call for getting rid of those laws in the US, but maybe I just missed it).

    Recently, Phillies expanded on his defense of the federal reserve system.

    He side steps this position by saying that he pays for some things with gold coins, but the fact is that he has clearly stated support for the Fed on more than one occasion.

    If any of this is not true please explain why.

  29. George Phillies Says:

    Most of go go’s statements are false.

    When it was written in 1883, ‘yearning to breathe free’ clearly and unambiguously referred to Europe, some parts of which enjoyed the rights of Englishman, and some of which was subject to the autocracies swept away in World War 1. The people of Asia and Africa were in 1883 largely not on the radar screen, though a thoughtful period American would have noted in positive ways the Meiji Restoration and the bringing of parliamentary government to Japan, and somewhat later the creation of the Republic of China. The notion that I think the desire for freedom is limited to the people of Europe is bizarre.

    My position on unlimited immigration is that you cannot have open borders and a large entitlement system at the same time: You will go broke.

    Go go’s claim that the people of Europe are now oppressed, as they were in 1883, does not appear to refer to the planet the rest of us live on. Perhaps GoGO is auditioning for Secretary of State for several of the other third-party candidates. Assuredly, Belarus is a dictatorship, Slovakia had difficulties making a transition to civilized democratic norms, and several parts of former Yugoslavia are under NATO occupation, an occupation that has markedly failed to support freedom of the press. For much of the other 98+% of Europe, there has been an enormous change for the better.

    Assuredly, I have never paid for anything with gold coins. Nor have I called for tariffs to punish other countries.

  30. G.E. Smith Says:

    George Phillies =/ capitalist

  31. go go gadget vomit! Says:

    “When it was written in 1883, ‘yearning to breathe free’ clearly and unambiguously referred to Europe, some parts of which enjoyed the rights of Englishman, and some of which was subject to the autocracies swept away in World War 1.”

    Much as, when it was written, “all men are created equal” did not refer to women, and probably not even black men or “injuns”. Does that mean that is the way we should interpret it today? What about the statement indicates that it should be restricted to Europe?

    “The notion that I think the desire for freedom is limited to the people of Europe is bizarre.”

    Then what is the meaning of this statement on your website?

    “Borders - Americans who quote the Statue of Liberty’s message ‘Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ should remember that it was written when most of Europe was run by autocratic monarchies. The huddled masses of Europe now breathe free. George Bush has created many enemies for America. Keeping them from coming here to injure our children and grandchildren must remain a top priority for the foreseeable future. ”

    So, you seem to want to have it two ways at once. Is the statement applicable to non-Europeans or not; if it is applicable, what is the point of pointing out that it once referred to (just) Europeans, and if it isn’t applicable, why not?

    “Go go’s claim that the people of Europe are now oppressed, as they were in 1883, does not appear to refer to the planet the rest of us live on.”

    There are all sorts of oppression going on throughout Europe, primarily economic. In fact, there are a substantial number of “illegal” immigrants fleeing the disastrous economic results of European socialism, from countries such as Ireland and France.

    There are also forms of social oppression throughout Europe. From holocaust denial to Scientology, any number of religious and political beliefs have been criminalized by various European governments.

    Homosexuality is still illegal in parts of Eastern Europe. Muslim headwear is forbidden in French schools.

    ETC.

    “Assuredly, I have never paid for anything with gold coins.”

    My mistake. Silver.

    “Nor have I called for tariffs to punish other countries.”

    Again from your website

    “Free Trade - When a country is a dictatorship that suppresses labor unions and shoots labor organizers, the goods it exports are stolen property, stolen from the workers coerced to make them. Stolen goods cannot be traded freely. We should not engage in ‘free trade’ in stolen property. Furthermore, it is only fair that all manufacturers pay the same taxes. We may differ as to what those taxes should be. However, there should not be one tax rate for Ford Motors, and another much higher tax rate for General Motors. When we place a financial burden however labeled on American manufacturers, fairness dictates that foreign imports be subject to the same burden, a tax equivalent to whatever minimum wage and environmental restrictions foreign manufacturers are avoiding.”

  32. citizen1 Says:

    If a Constitution Party can get on the ballot as a Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, or any thing else without compromising his principles it is better than not being on the ballot.

  33. Kris Overstreet Says:

    G. E. Smith: So, you advocate allowing the states to strip any person of any freedom the state government chooses, without any remedy for the person in question?

    It’s been proven time and again that BOTH state and federal governments are required to correct one another where they violate the rights of the individual. If the federal government does not have power to protect the rights of its citizens, it might as well not exist- which, in turn, would lead to unlimited state power.

  34. G.E Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    Yes. I advocate the power of the people to leave the state if they don’t like the way it is governed. That was the original intent. Are you going to argue that it was the intent of the founders that the federal government would serve as a check on the states’ abuses against the people? It wasn’t.

    The federal government’s purpose is clearly outlined in the Constitution. You are alleging that the founders established a federal government “with no purpose.” It’s absurd.

    If the federal government were returned to its proper constitutional role, I have full confidence that there would be at least one state among fifty for liberty lovers to choose. That’s better than the 0/50 right now.

  35. [email protected] Says:

    Quoth GE Smith:

    “Are you going to argue that it was the intent of the founders that the federal government would serve as a check on the states’ abuses against the people? It wasn’t.”

    Then please explain the meanings of the following clauses:

    Article IV, Section 2: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
    and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

    Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

    Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
    Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    Bonus questions: Do the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments apply only to the federal government and not to the state governments? And if they do apply, who is to enforce them against states which ignore them?

    The idea that the federal government would NEVER serve as a check on abuses by state governments, i.e. that state law always trumps federal law, even the Constitutions specific restrictions on the states, is as absurd as the idea that federal law ALWAYS trumps state law, even when there’s no applicable constitutional provision.

  36. Trent Hill Says:

    Knapp,

    Then explain Nullification.

  37. George Phillies Says:

    Last night in a nationwide phone call organized by Progressive Democrats of America, Dennis Kucinich reportedly announced:

    he will go before the U.S. House of Representatives on a point of personal privilege to move the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Mr. Kucinich stated he will bring the impeachment forward before Thanksgiving.

  38. George Phillies Says:

    As for the Party in Congress with a member who is actually willing to stand up for the Constitution, as opposed to talk but fail to act, the Democrats appear to have made a new, serious run for first prize. Courtesy of Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com :

    Last night in a nationwide phone call organized by Progressive Democrats of America, Dennis Kucinich reportedly announced:

    he will go before the U.S. House of Representatives on a point of personal privilege to move the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Mr. Kucinich stated he will bring the impeachment forward before Thanksgiving.

    And with respect to the question of whether I have ever bought things with silver coins, well, there were these comic books. And they cost a dime each, which was a lot of money at the time. And when I paid a dime, the dime was made of silver. In fact, all dimes were made of silver. (In other words, some of you should look up my age before being surprised that I have spent silver coins.)

  39. [email protected] Says:

    Trent,

    Why should I “explain” a doctrine that has never been successfully practiced, that was born with a president who was not party to the constitutional convention (Jefferson), and that died with the last president who actually fought in the Revolution (Jackson)?

  40. go go gadget vomit! Says:

    I see George Phillies didn’t have much to answer from the last round?

  41. G.E. Smith Says:

    Knapp - Your quotes are troubling. They are not clearly in favor of the federal government intervening in the internal affiars of states, but they do suggest it, perhaps. I would have to know the original intent, or see evidence thereof. One thing that is clear, though, is that the first amendment does not apply to state governments. “Congress shall make no law…”

    Knapp/Trent - Nullification has nothing to do with this. Nullification is the refusal to accept a law on the basis of its dubious constitutionality—not the ignoring of entire amendments, clauses, etc. John C. Calhoun wrote some interesting stuff on nullification. A state could nullify a law, in his mind, but other states (3/4 or so) could compel that state to accept the law if they chose. This would give the nullifying state the opportunity to accept the law or secede from the union. I like that idea.

  42. Kris Overstreet Says:

    G. E. : If states may secede from the union at will, then the federal government becomes utterly without power to enforce any law whatever- making it utterly useless.

    [email protected]: You forgot the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War and Andrew Johnson’s version of Reconstruction established that a curb was needed on the power of states to strip their citizens of their rights.

  43. G.E. Smith Says:

    Oh, you mean the 14th amendment that was ratified in the absence of the southern governments—the same exact governments that were party to the ratification of the 13th?

    According to Mr. Overstreet, any association that you are voluntarily free to leave is utterly worthless. Are you against divorce? If a state wants to leave the union, it should be allowed to. Why not? Why should states be hostage to the union? That is the most profoundly unlibertarian sentiment I’ve ever heard.

    You clearly think government is some sort of solution. It isn’t.

  44. Ferenc Says:

    You guys are a joke. Arguing about nothing. Beside Mr.R.Perot you know anybody who ever do any good in the political arena from a third party?That is the reoson why the dem. and rep. do what ever they want,becouse they know,it is NO third party who stand up against their dictatorial regima.
    Why all of the leaders of those so called third and independent parties can sit down and make a national platform that acceptable for most of them,
    and focus only one person who is runing against the dictators. Third and independent parties must focusing on the state level. We have tens of millions of stuped people who vote dem. or rep. no matter what.
    God Bless You All

  45. david Says:

    the only reason for a Constitution Party member in Texas to run on the Libertarian party ticket is simply the fact that is the only way they can get on the ballot. The Constitution Party needs to get ballot access or give up without it its just a club not a political party. That is why I left the Constitution party in the late 90’s, I decided that it was not good stewardship of my time to waste it on a political party that can’t even get on the ballot.

  46. [email protected] Says:

    Kris,

    You write:

    [email protected]: You forgot the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War and Andrew Johnson’s version of Reconstruction established that a curb was needed on the power of states to strip their citizens of their rights.”

    I didn’t forget the 14th Amendment. GE referred to “the founding fathers,” so I limited myself to the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which was ratified near-contemporaneously with the Constitution itself.

    The 14th certainly bolsters the case for federal intervention versus state abuses, but I wanted to engage GE on his own chosen ground, not try to move the discussion elsewhere.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

Leave a Reply