[slap_j]

Check 'em out.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/ustp-99p1.html

[Than]

I completely agree with their platform. As soon as I get the money, I'm going to become a member of the New York State chapter of the CP.

[Mike Graham]

Technically, you do not have to c ontribute to be a member, per se. You just decide to be and voila, you are.

[Than]

Sorry, I should have clarified. The NY chapter is requesting it:

Currently we are asking those who wish to claim membership pay annual dues of $50.00 per year or $25.00
semi-annual. We really need to build the treasury in order to advertise - not many NY'ers know about us,
and this is objective number one. Should you wish to join, you can send a check or money order
to The Constitution Party of NY [ P.O. Box 8537 Albany, NY 12208]
We'll send you your membership card, brochures for distribution, and a T-Shirt.

That was in the email they sent me.

[Mike Graham]

Wow, how odd... and greedy.

[slap_j]

Yeah, I can be a Satanist - I mean Democrat, for free.

[+Donny]

I wouldn't vote for 'em simply because they wouldn't win and even if they did, the rest of the government is hardly based on these beliefs. Until I start seeing CP legislators and judges I won't be supporting a CP president.

[ThePlaidRanger]

Originally Posted by +Donny

I wouldn't vote for 'em simply because they wouldn't win and even if they did, the rest of the government is hardly based on these beliefs. Until I start seeing CP legislators and judges I won't be supporting a CP president.

I went to the Pennsylvania CP state committee meeting a few days ago, and Howard Phillips was speaking. (I'm actually about to start the second chapter of the Young Constitutionalists.) Anyway, Mr. Phillips said that there is an outside possibility that Justice Roy Moore may run for President on the CP ticket next fall.

[JerryLove]

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic under God, rather than a democracy.

Not true. The word "God" never appears in the constitution.

Our Republic is a nation governed by a Constitution that is rooted in Biblical law

Actually it's rooted in English common-law.

In a Republic governed by Constitutional law rooted in Biblical law, all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

Biblical law certainly makes no protections for liberty.

That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of the individual’s personal interest

From the Decleration of Independance. Biblical law would, however, make me excercising my freedome to worship how I choose a capital offence... hardly liberty.

That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of Property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual’s unalienable rights

And OT laws views wives and children as property... so the anti-abortion stance is counter-Biblical.

That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people’s rights

Considering the basic stance of this conservative party is to enforce Biblical morality on others; they would be the people wanting to do the userping in question. The biggest two I can think of in recent history (the Patriot act and the DMCA) were both passed by the right-wing.

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood.

Also unbiblical (as all are guilty and deserve death)... but let's remember this quote... The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood

Skipping forward...

We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes

Apparently, since we've watched people convicted and on death row be proven not guilty when technology changed; they no longer feel that preventing the shedding of innocent blood is their No1 priority.

Skipping back

As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

Wow, that's an entirely unBiblical position...

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. In a republic, the taking of innocent life, including the life of the pre-born, may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government

Except that they promote capital punishment from a judicial system that we know with certainty makes mistakes.

Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation

This is just nieve. The point of judicial review is to determine matters of law. Does, for example, the right to privacy mean that police cannot search you without cause? To re-interprete the law in every instance is absurd.

Roe v Wade is illegitimate, contrary to the law of the nation’s Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government — legislative, executive, and judicial.

It's perfectly legal. If the legislative branch thinks the court was in error, they can change the law.

In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child.

And discrimination rears it's ugly head. Doesn't matter if they have committed themselves to upholding the law; they must avow a certain philisophical belief (beyond that) or they will be descriminated against. Hey, maybe we can put into Ghettos any Jews who won't convert to the "real" Christian religion?

In addition, we condemn the misuse of anti-racketeering and other federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the RICO and FACE Acts as unconstitutional expansions of federal power into areas reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

As for me, I oppose that the patriot act is used to call drug-dealers terrorists and declare extacy a "weapon of mass destruction".

Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.

Arrest people who attempt suicide... good plan.

etc.etc.etc.

[+Donny]

Ill let others handle most of your post, but I just wanted to slip in a few comments.

Actually it's rooted in English common-law.

And it also has influence from the Enlightenment political theorists like Mr. Locke and Greek political theory. Including all this, it also does have links to Biblical government, whether that is through English common law or not. For all I know, it could be accidental, but there are definitely links.
Is the Constitution totally Biblical? No, there are issues that are not according to Biblical government structure, so I tend to think that any connections were not made purposely, but I don't have the knowledge to prove that.

Biblical law certainly makes no protections for liberty.

That's obviously false, as we find many rights in Biblical Law (property rights, right to life, etc.).

And OT laws views wives and children as property... so the anti-abortion stance is counter-Biblical.

Not this again...

Considering the basic stance of this conservative party is to enforce Biblical morality on others; they would be the people wanting to do the userping in question.

This is completely false, at least with Reconstructionists. Time and time again they assert in their writings that Biblical Law should be not enforced through some top-down revolution. It is only through revival of the masses that Biblical Law would be put in place.

[JerryLove]

And it also has influence from the Enlightenment political theorists like Mr. Locke and Greek political theory. Including all this, it also does have links to Biblical government, whether that is through English common law or not. For all I know, it could be accidental, but there are definitely links.

There are also direct links to Athenian democracy and Spartian socialism, but I don't see you arguing that America is founded on Zeus.

Is the Constitution totally Biblical? No, there are issues that are not according to Biblical government structure, so I tend to think that any connections were not made purposely, but I don't have the knowledge to prove that.

I think that England was a Christian nation. I think a great deal of America was Christian. I'm sure that much of the constitution was written with the prevaling senseabilities, which include Christianity.

That's obviously false, as we find many rights in Biblical Law (property rights, right to life, etc.).

I did not say there were no rights in the Biblie, I said there were no protections for liberty (unless you want to argue the "Jewesh slaves must be offered release after 7 years law).

Not this again...

This from the guy who treatened to turn discussions over pizza recipies into presuppositional apologetics?

This is completely false, at least with Reconstructionists. Time and time again they assert in their writings that Biblical Law should be not enforced through some top-down revolution. It is only through revival of the masses that Biblical Law would be put in place.

The modern conservative party is the one well known for passing everything from blue laws to rallying against porn.

[+Donny]

There are also direct links to Athenian democracy and Spartian socialism, but I don't see you arguing that America is founded on Zeus.

Thats because Americans didn't believe in Zeus. It is much more legitimate to claim it is founded on Christian principles because of its link to Biblical civil structure and the prevalence of Christianity among Americans.

I think that England was a Christian nation. I think a great deal of America was Christian. I'm sure that much of the constitution was written with the prevaling senseabilities, which include Christianity.

Agrees.

I did not say there were no rights in the Biblie, I said there were no protections for liberty (unless you want to argue the "Jewesh slaves must be offered release after 7 years law).

Well, can you define "liberty"?

This from the guy who treatened to turn discussions over pizza recipies into presuppositional apologetics?

When did we discuss pizza recipes? I'm not much of a cook.

The modern conservative party is the one well known for passing everything from blue laws to rallying against porn.

Some conservatives do take a wrong approach and try to forcibly legislative things that aren't supported by the populace. I don't see the majority of conservatives guilty of it and in their present situation, with their majority in the legislature, making right-wing laws shouldn't be enforcing their views anymore than liberals made left-wing laws when they had the majority.

[JerryLove]

Thats because Americans didn't believe in Zeus. It is much more legitimate to claim it is founded on Christian principles because of its link to Biblical civil structure and the prevalence of Christianity among Americans.

I must strongly diagree... the links between Athenian ad Spartian government and the foudations of the US governement are expressly discussed by more than one founding father. Weather one believe Zeus to be real is irrellevent.

Further, the beliefs of the Americans are irrellevent, as you have already conceded that the basic foundation was English commonlaw, and asserted that *that* was biblically related.

Well, can you define "liberty"?

Freedom, especially freedom of action.

When did we discuss pizza recipes? I'm not much of a cook.

You threatened to turn *all* discussions into presuppositional argments.

Some conservatives do take a wrong approach and try to forcibly legislative things that aren't supported by the populace. I don't see the majority of conservatives guilty of it and in their present situation, with their majority in the legislature, making right-wing laws shouldn't be enforcing their views anymore than liberals made left-wing laws when they had the majority.

Surprisingly, and despite some "patriot-act"-type exceptions; the conservative control of national government has gotten through some very liberal laws and rulings.

[+Donny]

I must strongly diagree... the links between Athenian ad Spartian government and the foudations of the US governement are expressly discussed by more than one founding father. Weather one believe Zeus to be real is irrellevent.

I agreed that it was founded on Athenian and Spartan political ideas. I also see it founded, whether directly or indirectly, on the Bible. To argue from the latter and say that the founded it on Christianity and God can be legitimate. To argue from the former and say that it was founded on Zeus-type religion is nonsense because the founders didn't believe in Zeus, while they did believe in Christianity.

Further, the beliefs of the Americans are irrellevent, as you have already conceded that the basic foundation was English commonlaw, and asserted that *that* was biblically related.

I think we misunderstood each other.

Freedom, especially freedom of action.

What kind of action?

You threatened to turn *all* discussions into presuppositional argments.

There are obviously exceptions. Furthermore, I can't turn a conversation into PA if it doesn't exist.

Surprisingly, and despite some "patriot-act"-type exceptions; the conservative control of national government has gotten through some very liberal laws and rulings.

I'm not sure what you mean by "has gotten through some very liberal laws and rulings".

[JerryLove]

I agreed that it was founded on Athenian and Spartan political ideas. I also see it founded, whether directly or indirectly, on the Bible.

If we accept that there were religious ideals in the creation ot Athenian and Spartan law, then we are founded at least indirectly on that religion as well. I see little support that we were founded *directly* on any religion's laws or beliefs (except, perhaps, deism).

What kind of action?

What kind of action is "liberated"? Hypthetically any action can be, with the possable exception of taking away the liberty of others.

I'm not sure what you mean by "has gotten through some very liberal laws and rulings".

Finally dumping the anti-sodomy laws comes screaming to mind.