[Epaphras]

Is the Constitution Party, and their candidate for President, Michael A. Peroutka, realistic in their platform, or idealistic? I know all political parties' platforms tend to be a little idealistic, but is the Constitution party even pushing the limits of reality?

Browse through the planks, and Mr. Peroutka's acceptance speech, and share some thoughts...

[+Donny]

I personally am beginning to think, again, that it's idealistic. Our nation would simply not approve of what Peroutka wants to do, so why try to place him over such a population?

Furthermore, I take huge issue with his position on free trade and tariffs. He has his problems, too, I think.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Furthermore, I take huge issue with his position on free trade and tariffs. He has his problems, too, I think.

As of this minute, my only beef with his platform is his disdain for the Federal Dept. of Education. He thinks all kids should be homeschooled or put in private, military, or parochial schools. The Constitution party calls for the abolishment of the Dept. of Education. I don't think that's a good idea at all. Other than that, he seems pretty good. He sure is a nice alternative to Bush, should he blow it in the debates.

I have to pray about it, though.

If I voted for Peroutka and Kerry won the election by one vote, I would never forgive myself...

[+Donny]

As of this minute, my only beef with his platform is his disdain for the Federal Dept. of Education. He thinks all kids should be homeschooled or put in private, military, or parochial schools. The Constitution party calls for the abolishment of the Dept. of Education. I don't think that's a good idea at all. Other than that, he seems pretty good. He sure is a nice alternative to Bush, should he blow it in the debates.

I agree. A complete abolishing of the Dept. of Education would be way too drastic.

I have to pray about it, though.

If I voted for Peroutka and Kerry won the election by one vote, I would never forgive myself...

Well, if you mean one vote influencing the electoral college to vote for Kerry, then sure, but it wouldn't have been only you that voted for Peroutka in that state, so you could blaim all the other Peroutka voters, too.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Well, if you mean one vote influencing the electoral college to vote for Kerry, then sure, but it wouldn't have been only you that voted for Peroutka in that state, so you could blaim all the other Peroutka voters, too.

Right. It's not like the American people actually pick the President. The election results are just a suggestion for the electoral college to go off of.

I think we all need to pray for God's peace regarding which candidate best suits His purpose for these once-great, once-united States.

All we can do is vote for who we sense God's peace about. He will take care of the rest.

In His will, in His timing, in His pleasure.

[+Donny]

Yes, but I think there are some generally wise principles. I am still on the fence, though, so I won't make comments until I am a bit more confident.

[anathema]

I have said it before, and say it here again.
If Peroutka is elected (highly unlikely, why i believe its idealistic), I will immediately denounce my american citizenship and move to canada.

I disagree with well over 75% of his issues.... something inside me vehemently dislikes EVERYTHING about this man.. he just feels wrong.

*anathema*

[+Donny]

What are your political leanings? For some reason I recall you making comments advocating some sort of socialism, but I forgot if that was you. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

[Epaphras]

Let's look at the platform for education:

Education

All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

Agreed. Even humanism is a religion. It "assumes" there is no God, and based of that religious principle.

The law of our Creator assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents.

I'd like to see Scripture, but I read a verse about that once, I forgot where.
But...

Education should be free from all federal government subsidies, including vouchers, tax incentives, and loans, except with respect to veterans.

Because the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction concerning the education of our children, the United States Department of Education should be abolished; all federal legislation related to education should be repealed. No federal laws subsidizing or regulating the education of children should be enacted. Under no circumstances should the federal government be involved in national teacher certification, educational curricula, textbook selection, learning standards, comprehensive sex education, psychological and psychiatric research testing programs, and personnel.

Because control over education is now being relegated to departments other than the Department of Education, we clarify that no federal agency, department, board, or other entity may exercise jurisdiction over any aspect of children's upbringing. Education, training, and discipline of children are properly placed in the domain of their parents.

This is where I disagree. I believe that instead abolishing the DoE, the CP should reform the DoE leadership and curriculum to be in line with the Constitution, and do away with the liberal, anti-American, anti-God humanist curriculum in place at present.

Although I do applaud the party's effort to place more responsibility in education the child on the parents, rather than place all responsibiblity on the state. If it weren't for my parent's moral compass, I'm sure I would have strayed from the faith in a public high school. I know I grew more at a public school, with my faith grounded, than I would have at a Christian school. It is really good to know the other worldviews out there, and debate them. I don't think the CP realizes this.

I feel for the single, agnostic mother who works two jobs and can't afford a private school, has no time to homeschool, and does not want her child(ren) going to a Christian school. What is she left with if there is no DoE?

We support the unimpeded right of parents to provide for the education of their children in the manner they deem best, including home, private or religious. We oppose all legislation from any level of government that would interfere with or restrict that liberty. We support equitable tax relief for families whose children do not attend government schools.

Agreed, until the final sentance. I believe parents should be able to choose which institution they want their child in, and which district. I, too, oppose legislation that impedes the rights of those parents to choose.

I disagree with the final sentance. That is biased partiality. The reward for not having your kids in government schools is that they grow up to be very strong in their faith, usually. It happens in public schools, too, so I don't know why they are saying that...

So that parents need not defy the law by refusing to send their children to schools of which they disapprove, compulsory attendance laws should be repealed.

This could backfire. Again, if there was legislation that allowed parents to choose any school they want, this problem would not exist. If they disapprove of one school, they can send them to another one in the district, or even out of the district.

The CP doesn't need to abolish; they need to downsize, reform, and simplify.

So, I agree with 75% of the Education platform, but the 25% of it that I disagree with is quite significant.

I think the CP's state of education in America is idealistic and quite unrealistic in the real-world: this isn't 18th century America anymore. Nobody has the time or resources to homeschool their kids. Public schools are not a bad thing in and of themselves. They are only as bad as the curriculum, which needs some reform.

Thoughts?

[Epaphras]

+Donny mentioned he didn't agree with some of the CP's ideas for Trade and Tariffs. Let's look at the plank:

Tariffs and Trade

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others these Constitutional powers. We oppose, therefore, the unconstitutional transfer of authority over U.S. trade policy from Congress to agencies, domestic or foreign, which improperly exercise policy-setting functions with respect to U.S. trade policy.

Agreed. America loses sovereignty when it participates in these globalist policies. No one should have authority over our trade but ourselves.

We favor the abolition of the Office of Special Trade Representative, and insist on the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and all other agreements wherein agencies other than the Congress of the United States improperly assume responsibility for establishing American trade policies.

I'll have to look into these organizations and see what is apparently so bad about them, as well as what the effect would be on the American and global economy, should we pull out of them.

Article I, Section 8 provides that duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. We support a tariff based revenue system, as did the Founding Fathers, which was the policy of the United States during most of the nation's history. In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item's cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States. The cost of production of a U.S. product shall include, but not be limited to, all compensation, including fringe benefits, paid to American workers, and environmental costs of doing business imposed on business by federal, state, and local governments.

No problem here.

Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.

I agree.

We oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America's economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which impoverishes American families, undermines American communities, and diminishes America's capacity for economic self-reliance, and the provision of national defense.

Yay!

We see our country and its workers as more than bargaining chips for multinational corporations and international banks in their ill-conceived and evil New World Order.

New World Order might be taking it a little too far, but I agree with the point made.

We reject the trade concept of normal trade relations (Most Favored Nation status), used to curry favor with regimes whose domestic and international policies are abhorrent to decent people everywhere, and which are in fundamental conflict with the vital interests of the United States of America.

read: China. I like this.

We strongly oppose unconstitutional "Trade Promotion Authority," which transfers the establishment of trade policy from Congress to the Executive branch of government.

This transfer from Congress to Executive is unConstitutional and dangerous - too much power in one branch.

In the name of free trade, multi-national corporations have been given tax breaks by the U.S. government which are not available to American businesses, and the money extracted from U.S. taxpayers has been used by the government to subsidize exports and encourage businesses to move abroad. Such improprieties must cease.

The United States government should establish the firm policy that U.S. or multinational businesses investing abroad do so at their own risk. There is no obligation by our Government to protect those businesses with the lives of our service personnel, or the taxes of our citizens.

In the area of national security, foreign interests have been abetted in gaining access to America's high-tech secrets under the guise of commercial enterprise. We propose that technology transfers which compromise national security be made illegal, and urge that all violators be prosecuted. We demand that all weapons systems, military uniforms and equipment purchased for the American military be domestically produced in their entirety along with all their component parts.

We oppose the practice of any officer of the United States government, or spouse thereof, who, subsequent to Federal government employment is employed to represent a foreign government or other foreign entity, public or private, for purposes of influencing public opinion or policy on matters affecting U.S. trade with such foreign government or entity.

A big "if", but sure.

My only potential disagreements are with are the CP's opposition to NAFTA, etc. If these organizations don't take away from our sovereignty and control of our economy, then I don't see anything wrong with them. I'll have to look into it.

I think foreign banks, etc. being part of an "evil New World Order" is taking it a bit too far, but I can see what they mean by that.

The statement about a Federal officer becoming an "economic traitor" is a bit unnecessary, at least in the basic outline of their platform. Like I said, it is a big "if".

In general, I agree with most of the Trade and Tariffs plank on the CP platform. It is more realistic than the Education plank.

I think it is perfectly feasible in today's world economy, but I'm no economics expert...

[+Donny]

This is where I disagree. I believe that instead abolishing the DoE, the CP should reform the DoE leadership and curriculum to be in line with the Constitution, and do away with the liberal, anti-American, anti-God humanist curriculum in place at present.

Although I do applaud the party's effort to place more responsibility in education the child on the parents, rather than place all responsibiblity on the state. If it weren't for my parent's moral compass, I'm sure I would have strayed from the faith in a public high school. I know I grew more at a public school, with my faith grounded, than I would have at a Christian school. It is really good to know the other worldviews out there, and debate them. I don't think the CP realizes this.

I feel for the single, agnostic mother who works two jobs and can't afford a private school, has no time to homeschool, and does not want her child(ren) going to a Christian school. What is she left with if there is no DoE?

That's not the point. Their argument is that there simply is no God-granted authority for the civil government to enter the realm of education. There are limits to the jurisdiction of the civil government, and this is one of them. In this point, I agree with Peroutka, though I don't agree the DoE should be done away with so rapidly.

I disagree with the final sentance. That is biased partiality. The reward for not having your kids in government schools is that they grow up to be very strong in their faith, usually. It happens in public schools, too, so I don't know why they are saying that...

No, the point would be that they should get their money back. They payed for the schools in taxes and didn't use them. The schools got a break because they didn't need to educate that family's children, but the family still is paying.

I think the CP's state of education in America is idealistic and quite unrealistic in the real-world: this isn't 18th century America anymore. Nobody has the time or resources to homeschool their kids. Public schools are not a bad thing in and of themselves. They are only as bad as the curriculum, which needs some reform.

That is simply false. Plenty of people homeschool their kids, and with the removal of the public schools, a huge market of private schools would emerge, some very cheap, some expensive.
One interesting fact I have heard, but can't cite right now is that private schools, on average, provide education cheaper than public schools (per child). So, if the DoE were removed over time, the tax break would be big enough for most families to cover the cost of private schooling and have some money left over.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by +Donny

No, the point would be that they should get their money back. They payed for the schools in taxes and didn't use them. The schools got a break because they didn't need to educate that family's children, but the family still is paying.

Ahh, okay. I get it. I wasn't sure why the government would give a subsidy.[quote]That is simply false. Plenty of people homeschool their kids, and with the removal of the public schools, a huge market of private schools would emerge, some very cheap, some expensive.[quote] Hmm...

One interesting fact I have heard, but can't cite right now is that private schools, on average, provide education cheaper than public schools (per child).

Then why do they cost so much (more) money than public schools? Because the private schools don't recieve any kind of government subsidy, and therefore private schools must increase their tuition to cover the cost of not having said subsidy. Got it. That explains why private school teacher are paid less than in public schools: most of the funds of a private school are spent covering the costs normally covered by a government subsidy. It's all making sense now...

So the solution is to give the families of privately-schooled children the same subsidy (per child of course) that the government would have given the public school (per child)? Interesting...

I wonder if it would work? Would it encourage families to pull out of public schools?

So, if the DoE were removed over time, the tax break would be big enough for most families to cover the cost of private schooling and have some money left over.

Oh, so you think the CP will remove the DoE over time? I think it might work, if Peroutka got the ball rolling as soon as he got in, and maybe the next President could finally do away with it. But by then, families would see the huge advantage of private schools, and public schools would be basically empty or on the verge of bankruptcy. Interesting...

The teacher's union would not be happy...

[+Donny]

Then why do they cost so much (more) money than public schools? Because the private schools don't recieve any kind of government subsidy, and therefore private schools must increase their tuition to cover the cost of not having said subsidy. Got it. That explains why private school teacher are paid less than in public schools: most of the funds of a private school are spent covering the costs normally covered by a government subsidy. It's all making sense now...

So the solution is to give the families of privately-schooled children the same subsidy (per child of course) that the government would have given the public school (per child)? Interesting...

I wonder if it would work? Would it encourage families to pull out of public schools?
So, if the DoE were removed over time, the tax break would be big enough for most families to cover the cost of private schooling and have some money left over.

Well, yes, it makes sense. Parents should only have to pay for public schools if they are using them, and if they realized how much they cost compared to the quality of education, public schools would be exposed to the free market and would be pretty much eliminated unless somehow they could compete. It's like any sort of government aid in a market, you get sloppiness and bad business practice. In the free market, the public schools, in their present condition, would get the crap beaten out of them by private schools and home schooling.

Oh, so you think the CP will remove the DoE over time? I think it might work, if Peroutka got the ball rolling as soon as he got in, and maybe the next President could finally do away with it. But by then, families would see the huge advantage of private schools, and public schools would be basically empty or on the verge of bankruptcy. Interesting...

The teacher's union would not be happy...

Well, it will not happen now or in the near future. The population of America needs to accept Christian values and ideas of government before their leaders start to. This is why I am increasingly being convinced that I will not be voting for Peroutka.