Charles Baldwin and the Constitution Party

He has something similar somewhere probably on page 2 by now. You guys should get together and get something organized. GunnyG would probably be a great person to get involved in this as well.

I think that Crawfish is actually promoting a new third party, isn't he? That's what I understood from a post he made over here a while back.

That's fine, of course, and I love big crawdaddy, but we're doing something a bit different, I think.

We're trying to find an existing candidate to support and then try to get conservatives to back whoever the consensus "nominee" ends up being.

That said, I absolutely agree about the need for us to join forces. Definitely something I want to look into.

Thanks for the post!

That platform is predicated on some pretty extremist and, frankly, unachievable goals.

Income tax is constitutional per amendment, so how does he plan to "abolish" it? The IRS is simply the agency tasked with collecting the taxes. All perfectly constitutional. Which poses a dilemma, then for the "Constitution" party, doesn't it?

How does he plan to "overturn" Roe? Presidential edict or fiat? Under what authority?

No, these guys strike me as a bunch of fringies. Not ready for Prime Time.

The Constitution Party suffers from the same problem that plagues all of the third parties, which is a reality disconnect. Our nation is too far from the founding principles to be willing to embrace a overnight return to 19th century federalism. Our public is too poorly educated to even understand that they would be returning to the founding principles.

The President is a powerful individual but he doesn't rule. Third parties seem to think that they can avoid the grunt work of electing city councils, state legislators, and federal representatives and go straight to the top. A president without support in congress is DOA. A successful third party will have to be a bottom up movement with broad appeal.

As it stands, my vote in November will go to whatever third party makes it on to the Virginia ballot but will be cast merely as a protest without any expectation that the candidate will win the election.

IMO, my conservative principles are less threatened by Obama than by McCain who seems intent on crushing the conservative movement for all time. Obama is the enemy I understand and know how to fight.

Here endth the sermon. Sorry about the log post. HaHaHa!

Well-said, and not too long at all!

:-)

You make a good point about the Constitution Party in re Americans' overall lack of knowledge of the principles upon which their nation was founded. I'm personally leaning very strongly toward the Libertarian Party, now that Bob Barr is their nomineee.

I understand your pessimism, but I would urge you to keep an open mind. A Third Party win is be definition a long shot, but I have never seen both major parties in such disarray at the same time. I believe that Barr actually has a reasonable shot to win. I'd have to get odds to take the bet, but not particularly long odds.

The more likely scenario is that the LP will have a good showing in November, which will motivate disaffected conservatives nationwide to start putting in place the grass roots support and infrastructure needed to elect local candidates.

A strong showing in November will also effectively drive a stake in the undead shell of conservatism, the GOP. We need them out of the way, before the LP or any other Third Party can get the traction and support needed for future electoral success.

Thanks for making your voice heard. Countryman has been doing great work and posting some really informative pieces. Please keep checking in, and letting us know what you think.

Thanks again!

posted by BrianR:

" How does he plan to "overturn" Roe? Presidential edict or fiat? Under what authority?"

Supreme Court HAS NO policing powers to enforce their rulings...it is the EXECUTIVE branch that enforces these types of interpretations. (Congress, THE LEGISLATURE, legislates law, not the SUPREME COURT)

Any POTUS can simply refuse to enforce "ROE", thereby overturning it by fiat, just like many judges currently LEGISLATE from the bench......lmao..(it really is that simple if the WILL was there)

...the President takes an oath to enforce the law. The law includes the decision of the U.S Supreme Court, no matter how distasteful nor how wrong - in a moral sense or as a matter of reasoned decision-making - those decisions may be.

If you would argue that a President ought to do that because it is the "right" "correct" or "moral" thing to do, as such things supercede the law, I refer you to Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons" about Sir Thomas Moore. In a famous passage, More explains to his prospective son-in-law, Roper, that until someone has broken the law, he must not be arrested -- not even:

"...if he was the Devil himself.

ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws . . . and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

Not to say that what you wrote isn't true; a President might do such a thing and past Presidents have in fact done such things. But it would be an ill-advised thing for a President to do in these modern times when law is all that holds off the tyrants we've grown for ourselves. I agree with the sentiment you express and the frustration, but disagree with the means for voiding the unjust, wrong, law.

Chuck Baldwin proposes this to overturn Roe, though it's not overturning it in the technical sense.

"If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion."

The above solution to Roe Vs Wade is not a solution in my book.

For one, the proposed Federal legislation usurps state's rights under the 10th Amendment. No where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the freedom to make statutory law except in the cases of Federal purview: treason, smuggling, insurrection, counterfeiting, and illegal immigration.

Matters concerning other criminal activities, such as murder of the unborn, and legislating what is or isn't a person, are not under Federal jurisdiction.

Yeah, I know, there's a thousand criminal statutes in the Federal Register, but that doesn't mean they're constitutional. Either the SCOTUS has decided the 10th Amendment means little, or no one has challenged the constitutionality of those criminal statutes.

Overmore, if the SCOTUS is barred from ruling on abortion by congressional statute, that doesn't bar individual states from legalizing abortion.

Were abortion to be removed from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, then any of the states wanting to legalize it for themselves would have to fight for it much closer to home. Those who oppose it would thus have a much better chance of keeping it from becoming a state as opposed to federal law. I think Dr. Paul has a great idea. Lets do it.

And that doesn't count the ones like The Crawfish Party or my personal imaginings of The Individualist Party at http://www.theip.us. As thrilled as I am to be once again able to register and vote Libertarian this fall here in North Carolina for the first time in several elections, I have to see the party's nominee of Bob Barr as a much better choice than those put forward by the Democraps and Repulsicans. But I also see him as just another personal power seeking, professional politician. I'm still looking to write-in Colin Powell for President, Herman Cain for Vice-President, myself for US Senate, and trusted friends, neighbors and associates for every other contest in which the only choices are Democraps and Repulsicans.

I actually found Barr to be reasonably well-grounded and principled when he represented the GOP as a congress-critter. Every politician is going to seek the limelight, and I doubt that any of us could succeed in politics without bending rather farther than we would like to.

You're right about the profusion of third parties, of course, and I'm only interested in supporting a party that can make itself noticed in November. I see no point at all in writing anyone in, as I see it as a literal "throw-away" vote, but that's just a personal opinion.

I'm leaning strongly LP--if only because I like Barr and the LP is already big enough to get noticed in November.

Thanks for the comment. Let's keep the conservative dialogue going!