Talk:Constitution Party (United States)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

This article is such a demonstration of lack of NPOV I don't even know where to start. Example: "We [bias] are the only party in our country [bias] that believes in the Constitution [bias]." (paraphrased) -- ShadowDragon 09:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

copied from http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_history.htm, now removed. --Jiang 09:20, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The description here of the Constitution Party's principles is extremely incomplete, seeing as it makes no reference to the CP's explicit Christianity. Without this clarification, the CP sounds like another variety of libertarianism or liberal republicanism.

If you check the Constitution Party's webpages, state by state, there is ONLY ONE state affiliate named AIP (CA) and ONLY ONE (MI) which is still named Taxpayers. (That is only because the party's petition to have the name changed to CP was rejected by the secretary of state.) The information in the article is plainly wrong in its current wording.

Fixed. Mcarling 16:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Christian?

Reading through the platform I see no emphasis on Christianity? Reference? Dominick 18:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See the preamble to the Constitution Party's platform, at http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php
Is this the example? This is similar to other preambles in Federalist documents of the 18th century. That is the aim, I think. It has a bent towards that I agree, but it certainly doesn't read like a theocratic organization. Dominick 16:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The preamble does reference God and Jesus Christ, and the party means it. The Federalist founding fathers indeed "meant it" when they included references to God in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. (It is interesting to note, that perhaps due to Thomas Jefferson's odd faith, neither document references Jesus Christ. Jefferson was also a Democrat, not a Federalist.) The Constitution party seems to me to be the biggest U.S. political party which is true to the principles of the Federalists, who died out as a party early in the 19th century. From a neutral POV, even a cursory browsing of the Constitution Party's web site reveals an emphasis on Christian principles and the Bible. I would agree that the CP is not a theocratic organization, but it certainly is a Judeo-Christian one, if not simply Christian. --Locarno 18:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quick fact check; "God" is referenced in the Declaration and the Constitution as the God of Nature or Natures God. This is a deistic worldview (Deist big D the Enlightenment movement) not a Christian one. The only positive statement (by a Founding Father) about Christianity I found was one by Patrick Henry. Of course he was an anti-Federalist and opposed the Constitution.

This phrasing is most likely derived from William Blackstone's "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," i.e., "natural law" and revealed law (the Bible). Cf. http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-002.htm where Blackstone says, "But every man now finds...his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.
"This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, has been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures." --Travisseitler 20:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who keeps on editing the beginning parts and saying that Roy Moore is a theocrat, but it seems like someone's trying to make the CP look like some sort of theocratic party. A quick glance at some points. Roy Moore is not advocating a state religion and nor is he wanting to force people to worship God. All he is wanting to do is ackowledge that a lot of our laws came from the Bible. While I'm on the subject, for those of you who might be interested, I'd encourage you to read the 1892 Supreme Court decision of Holy Trinity v. the United States. August 5, 2006.

Nolan Chart

The Nolan Chart is not a Libertarian thing. It might be considered a libertarian thing (or classic liberal thing), but I doubt even that. Plenty of people use it because it is useful. When two entities are the same on the left-right spectrum knowing their ideas on freedom-security can help to differentiate. see also [1] and [2]. At http://uselectionatlas.org (link 2) many many people (in the forums) show their political compass rating despite identifying as Republican, independant, Democrat, and other (including Constitution Party members). Accoriding to [3] Peroutka is right between Conservate and Authoritarian. According to [4] he is again between Conservative and Authoritarian, but not as extremely so. I'd appreciate you not changing my additions again because they are in fact useful to some people. Dustin Asby 20:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's a libertarian thing, to show how great libertarians are as compared to all those other people who are authoritarian about various things. It also only makes any sense at all in a US context. john k 22:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Plenty of things in Wikipedia only apply to the USA, that doesn't matter a bit. And I should think that people would believe that freedom is good, however whether they do or not doesn't change the fact that people can be placed on a liberty-security scale. In other words, it only "shows how great libertarians are" to those who have a libertarian point of view. Those who prefer security over freedom shouldn't have a problem with a chart that shows that opinion, nor should they mind seeing others, that think along their lines, on that chart. Your argument is like saying that when a Republican calls a Democrat liberal it is a bad thing. It is "bad" to conservatives, and it is "good" (or fine) with liberals to be called such. If I point out someones opinions and they are bothered by it, then it isn't truly his/her opinions. Should I use the political compass chart rather than the Nolan Chart (since Nolan himself is a Libertarian)? Dustin Asby 01:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Dustin Asby. It's useful. 13:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Winger opinion

It should not be the purpose of any page that summarizes a particular political party to insist upon deriding it. Let the vote totals and registration figures be what they are.

First, it is entirely speculative to say that AIP registrants in CA didn't want to register that way. Second, the suggested language only guesses at how the State of California classifies voters who indicate a preference for "Independent," and if they do this, how many are involved. And third, any minor party IS, in point of fact, "independent" in one sense of the word, being an adjunct in a predominantly two-party system such as ours. This further casts doubt upon the article's ability to determine what all the registered voters of the party, or any party, intended when registering.

Sorry, it's sourced and verified. You may not agree with Winger but that's no reason to delete his opinion from this article. Rhobite 15:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I googled for it, using +"Richard Winger" +"Independent American Party" and couldn't find any statement by him to that effect. Where is it? Rad Racer 15:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's one man's opinion, NOT FACT.

Fortunately, opinions also have a place in Wikipedia if they're properly attributed. You're free to add the Constitution Party's take on the matter of registrant confusion. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is not synonymous with "no point of view." Around here, we don't delete debates - we describe them fairly. I'm re-adding Winger's opinion. If you think I summarized it incorrectly, please modify it. Rhobite 19:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Not "christian democratic"

I read the article on Christian democratic parties, and the CP certainly does not match, so I've removed that. Also, please hesitate identifying the CP too closely with Christians; they have been making efforts to be a party for those who have similar principles regarding government, regardless of religion; there are significant amounts Jews and secular people in the party. However, we can't deny that the CP is heavily influenced by the Bible and Christian thought. --Locarno 15:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Theocratic! That's a good description. Rad Racer | Talk 19:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The CP does not try to impose rule by any one church or even by "Christians" in general. It has the position that biblical principles should be applied to prudent governance - that's distinctly different. — ChristTrekker 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian vs. Constitutionalist

See Why not the Libertarian Party to see why, although the two parties share some positions on economic issues, they ultimately are rooted in entirely different beliefs. Rad Racer 12:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Somehow "Christian Right / Libertarian" still doesn't seem to describe them correctly, since that could mean they are either Christian Right, except they economic self-governors (correct) or Christian Right, except they are personal self-governors (incorrect). Actually, I think the main problem is that "the right," which according to the World's Smallest Political Quiz supports economic freedom, has become associated with such hypocrisy on economic issues, that at first glance it doesn't seem like the right word to describe the Constitutionalists. Rad Racer 20:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The idea that the right supports "economic freedom" is a rather recent one, and is certainly not an integral part of what defines "the right". Liberalism is about economic freedom, but liberalism is neither of the left nor the right (or of both, I guess). Traditional conservatism certainly had little interest in economic freedom. john k 22:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I was using the labels from World's Smallest Political Quiz. These terms have constantly-shifting meanings and therefore are somewhat arbitrary. Rad Racer 23:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, I see the CP supporting a largely libertarian agenda. It's merely that they derive their platform from biblical first principles rather than secular/humanist principles, and therefore differ on a few points. But in a general sense, the CP is indeed libertarian. — ChristTrekker 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thought I would add this, since I saw the term recently. Another way to describe the difference between the LP and CP is to look at where each believes the source of authority lies. One could say the LP view is autonomy, and the CP's is theonomy. Theonomy is distinct from theocracy in that whereas theocracy says that God rules, theonomy simply acknowledges there is a higher law than man's and hence man's law must be in accordance with God's. That may be too fine a distinction for some to grasp, but an important point is that lawmakers who ascribe to this view ought to govern with a sense of humility, as they realize they are subject to higher law, and not let their positions make them self-important. Of course, there are differing views as to what exactly God's law says or how it applies to a changing society, and since freedom of conscience/religion is so important (in the Judeo-Christian tradition), theonomy seems to dictate that the government that governs least, governs best, lest anyone's sincerely held beliefs be impinged. This is indeed very similar to the libertarian view, though it will naturally differ in some details. — ChristTrekker 13:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideology

  • Beyond which issue? Overall, paleoconservativism (at least as defined in its wikipedia article) seems to match up with the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party is also libertarian economically (though more authoritarian with regards to social issues.) --Tim4christ17 09:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Strict" is more accurate than "traditional" when describing the moral positions of the party. "Traditional" is somewhat pejorative for "out of date", when the members of the party certainly believe that their morals are correct for today. Also, I'm sure that there are some "traditional" positions which the party members are against. I've reverted the article to "strict". Any other thoughts? --Locarno 20:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Their ideology should be "nationalism" not "patriotism". Patriotism has the connotation of being a "positive" thing while nationalism is a more neutral word. --TwelveStones 23:30, 21 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If no-one in the political mainstream (defining that very loosely) ever says "I am not x", it's utterly useless as a descriptive political term. No-one ever says "I am not a patriot" who hopes to win an election, therefore it's useless to describe someone as 'patriotic' in an encyclopaedia. --Malthusian (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Membership

There is considerable overlap between the membership of the Constitution Party and the Alliance for the Separation of School & State. Remember me 22:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move?

Should this be moved to Constitution Party which now redirects here? Its the only one around and so I don't see the purpose having United States at the end. Any objections? Falphin 22:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Confirm that there is no "Constitution Party" in another country? Then go ahead. — ChristTrekker 16:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, probably better to leave as is. You never know when another country might create a "Constitution Party" and then you need to move this back and create a disamb. page. Leave it where it is, and you only have to change the redirect to be a disamb. page. Current naming is consistent with other major US parties, too. — ChristTrekker 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not direct any Constitution Party searches directly to the Constitution Party page,and list a "Click here to see Disambiguation" link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.198.99 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Please put part platform in overhaul.

The whole part should go into much more detail and be fixed. Also where they supported by the NRA?

I'm adding a link to their platform. --Tim4christ17 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm not finding an endorsement by the NRA, though the Constitution party's platform does state that "We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968. We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms."--Tim4christ17 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian party?

If User:71.131.252.60 is going to insist upon Wikipedia:Citing sources, he/she ought to insist on Wikipedia:Reliable sources; that is why I moved {{fact}} to the end. Stephen Compall 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the whole sentence needs a citation because it says they oppose government recognized homosexual marriage and are against abortion. This is in their platform and for encouraging morality and decency in public life is stated in pornography. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble

Someone keeps adding Judeo back to Christian values and it is very sticky for a variety of reasons:

1- Not all Christian denominations look over the old testament 2- You have many different types of Jews and many follow Talmudic law. 3- Christian values means biblical values in general so it doesn't need to be mentioned.

There are many more points to go over. Would I go and add Judeo-Christian to everything? Would I go and say Judeo-Christian values were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition? Jews would be pissed off and they would demand that it would be removed. Its innaccurate to say Judeo Christian to the article and I have never once seen the Constitution Party advocate "Judeo" Christian values. They only emphasize Christian values and that is what I put. If the CP specifically put "Judeo-Christian" anywhere it needs a citation from a reliable source. It was not mentioned on their platform which is a good indication that they didnt mention it anywhere. If it was important as you say it is I assure you they would have mentioned it in their platform but they didnt write the word Judeo infront of Christian values. Someone keeps adding Judeo and I merely asked for a citation to resolve the problem because I am nearly postive that they never said it.

From the Wikipedia article on Judeo-Christian: "Judeo-Christian is ... typically considered (along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values." This is a set "fundamental basis," that is commonly understood with reference to history, politics, and law. The dispute over whether certain sects of Jews and Christians agree with eachother is irrelevant - the term itself has a set meaning. Back on topic - I did a Google search of the Constitution Party website, and turned up "Judeo-Christian" only once: in a press release by the party chairman [5] which indicates that he agrees with General Boykin's statement that "we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian" --Tim4christ17 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If there are Christian groups that don't look to the Old Testament, how come they look at the Ten Commandments? The term Judeo-Christian fits the Roy Moore, et al agenda quite well.

Wins?

Has the CP ever won an election on any level of government? If so or not, that should be put in the first paragraphs. Tim Long 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick Jore was the only "victory" in a state legislature or higher that I'm aware of. --Tim4christ17 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In April of 2002 three party members won non-partisan elections in Wisconsin: John DuPont to the Waukesha city council; Paul Trelo to the Appleton city council; and Mark Gabriel to the Calumet County Board. [6]. John R G 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I just found this site about State Senator Sheila M. Kiscaden here is the link. [7]

I just found another site with people who are in office from the Constitution party website. [8]. John R G 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Another editor has suggested merging Constitution Party (United States 1952) into this article. I have no problem with that, just didn't want to step on anyone's toes by doing it. I'd prefer someone else do it, if y'all want it to merge. Wjhonson 17:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Merge - To my knowledge, these two Constitution parties have no relation to eachother. A more appropriate thing to do would be to create a Historical Third Parties article to put things like that into. --Tim4christ17 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Do not merge -- two different parties, two different articles. Ground Zero | t 18:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I was that editor. Thanks for the feedback. I guess that does make more sense - if merged and then the 1952 party were fleshed out, we'd just want to split it off again. I'll remove my suggestion from that other page. — ChristTrekker 17:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians

What's the issue with the user category? That's there only one member or what? Wjhonson 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User categories don't belong on articles (and vice versa). See Wikipedia:categorization#User namespace. -Will Beback 23:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The user category is new I started it yesterday. I thought it would help out the Constitution Party. If you want to join you can see the link on my page. John R G 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a category for right-wing persons? I see the one for right-wing organizations, but I need one to tag people's bios with as well. Wjhonson 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:American conservatives and related? ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

High-profile members

Yes, Pat Buchanan flirted with the idea of running on the CP ticket, and Bob Smith ran for President as a CP candidate for a few months-before rejoining the Republican Party-but describing them as "members" of the Constitution Party is inaccurate, to say the least.
The most notable member of the Constitution Party-to the best of my recollection-is Howard Phillips, a former bureaucrat in the Nixon administration, conservative activist, and presidential nominee.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and "Fair Tax"

Changed the language in: "Constitutionalists support reducing the role of the United States federal government through cutting bureaucratic regulation, reducing spending, and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in favor of a fair tax system" Saying they are in favor of a fair tax system isn't NPOV so its changed to "a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes" from their website.

Is there a less cumbersome way of phrasing that?

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonably succinct to me. -Will Beback 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough.
I would have gone with a hyptertext link to the "Fair Tax" article, but defining the premise behind the Fair Tax is a good alternative.

Ruthfulbarbarity 06:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

platform section

I've broken this out to be a little more manageable. I would like to see the views in each "area" summarized (something akin to what the party infobox does) so that readers can skim and quickly get a thumbnail view of the party ideology. The very first line should give a high-level view of the CP position, like how Foreign Policy currently does: "Additionally, they favor a noninterventionist foreign policy.". "Noninterventionist" is a good general summary. This whole section probably needs a going-over now that I've rearranged it...maybe when I have some more time. — ChristTrekker 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Intent

The platform section states that the party seeks to run government by an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but then advocates rule by Biblical law, which is historically considered to be very clearly not the original intent of the Framers. I suggest changing this to statement to "claim to" seeks to run government in that fashion since it's clearly in contrast with how the majority of Constitutional scholars would frame their actual beliefs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.56.10 (talk • contribs)

The Constitution party does not seek to "rule by Biblical law", but rather to govern the nation by the Biblical principles that were advocated by the Framers and which are part of the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This position does have a good deal of scholarly research and opinion supporting it. --Tim4christ17 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Creationism has scholarly research and opinion supporting it, too. The Bible was not the basis for our Constitution, no matter how much the Constitution Party pretends that it is. 66.57.225.77 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Just passing through, but by outright saying "Biblical principles" it implys religion based rule. But then again, it can depend on how the person viewing takes it. --72.152.101.103 09:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. For example, you could base some laws on the biblical mandates to not murder and not steal. This does not mean that any religion is governing the state, or that the state is mandating a particular religious worship. Yet the principles of respecting the right to life and private property do make for sound civil government. It makes a lot of sense to use them. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Past Office-holders

If anyone could find all of the past public office-holders, that would make for a useful list next to the current office-holder list. I can't imagine it would be very long. Tim Long 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

semi-protect this article

This article sees a lot of vandalism from non-logged IP addresses. Removing anonymous edits would save most of the effort of reverting those.

I put in the request, and it was denied. "Declined not enough activity. Please watchlist and revert any vandalism you come across. Cowman109 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)" Sometimes I really don't understand WP's policy of allowing anonymous edits. Watching for vandalism to revert is a waste of time, when you could simply deny anonymous edits and be rid of 90% of these problems. If you've got something worth saying, be willing to stand behind it. Oh well, enough venting... — ChristTrekker 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[9] is not vandalism. That's called a content dispute. Please read WP:VAND. Moving forward I'll undo any reversions of content changes like that as "vandalism" because it simply is not. You'll need to work out why it's not an acceptable content change in talk, not simple revert it under a blanket term like vandalism. FeloniousMonk 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
From someone anonymous that can't be responded to, with no supporting comments, when the issue has already been beaten to death (and managed to arrive at a decently unbiased POV) in the past? Yeah, that's vandalism, pure and simple - it may not be obscene/joking/blanking, but it's not "good faith" and the repetitious nature makes it "inarguably explicit" in my view. There are better ways to handle POV disputes, and tactics like these inhibit the use of them - you can't discuss anything with someone who refuses to talk or even leave a name. You just happen to agree with this vandal - but at least you'll sign your name. Hey, maybe the CP is theocratic - come forth and make your argument for that view! As far as I'm concerned, this thread is working out why those have not been acceptable content changes. If you can't support your statements (or are unwilling to) then you lose. — ChristTrekker 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians against anonymous editing

I know this is not related to the Constitution Party but if we get enough people to join it maybe it can make a difference. John R G 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy Moore is not a theocrat

He merely upholds the Biblical tradition of our nation's founders.

Your nation, perhaps. But the US's founders did not have a "Biblical tradition". {Bubbha 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}

Criticism

Why is there no section for Criticism? Dlong 21:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from adding one. — ChristTrekker 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How can they claim to be so strongly in favor of freedom yet at the same time oppose abortion and gay marriage? {Bubbha 17:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)}

One first needs to understand what true freedom is. I submit this for your perusal. Perhaps you will find it of use. — ChristTrekker 17:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an important distinction between liberty and license. --Tim4christ17 talk

Is there any source for the statement that Moore and Rushdoony support the CP, or is someone reaching this dominionism conclusion a priori? If not, this should be stricken from the article. People may still think the CP to be a "dominionist" organization, but not for any association with them. Beyond the bit about Moore being courted for nomination by CP members, I'm not aware of any association whatsoever. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Election

I think the Constitution Party did pretty good in the election. I feel they would have done alot better if they would run in contests that are easier to win like the Libertarian Party does. Maybe they should just go for winnable elections that are really small and build from there.

Does anyone know of anymore election victories by the Constitution Party? John R G 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some here...haven't checked if all the victories are in the article - seems like there weren't all that many victories, though. [10] --Tim4christ17 talk 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, the LP didn't have any candidates on my ballot, though there were several CP. Also, a big issue with the selection of offices is the major CP tenet that it's the top levels of gov't (state, fed) that are most in need of reform. CP people simply aren't as likely to run for small offices, because by-and-large those offices are doing their job OK. Also, CP people tend not to be career politicians, and thus not interested in building up a political résumé before running for high office. That's how I see it. In a practical sense this does hurt their chances - the very nature of government works against efforts to keep it under control. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

name templates

I cleaned up and expanded Category:Party shortnames templates (United States), which should be of use to some of you that frequent this corner of WP. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Constitution Party In California?

Isn't the Constitution Party on the ballot in California known as the American Independent Party? According to this Link: http://www.constitutionparty.com/view_states.php?state=CA I had added California and this link in the Ballot access section and somebody has deleted it. Also a quote from the link used to show the number of states the Constitution Party has on ballot is 13 and NOT 12 including California. "Constitution: California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah. The party will almost certainly have North Dakota in a few weeks, since it has finished its petition and the state is likely to approve it. It is possible New Mexico also recognizes the party; the law is very unclear." http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/11/14/ballot-status-tally-for-president-in-2008/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf78 (talk • contribs)

The CA CP is indeed the AIP. However, the ballot access section is specifically referring to the 2008 presidential race. That's probably why you were reverted. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually ChristTrekker, if you take a another look at the second link I provided it shows 13 states on the 2008 state ballot including California. I am a California resident somebody I know who is more involved with the party says that California is on the 2008 ballot as the American Independent Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf78 (talk • contribs)
I reread that, and the revert is probably due to the last paragraph. Technically ballot access won't be secured until February. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel

Does anyone know the CP position on Israel? If so, that would fit well in the foreign policy section. Seeing as how the party is religiously motivated, it would be significant to know if they support Israel, the typical evangelical position, or are neutral, the typical paleocon position. Their reason would also be notable.Tim Long 00:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the Foreign Policy plank of the platform. It calls for strict noninterference and an end to foreign aid. I don't recall that I've ever seen this point addressed specifically, however. My "feel" is that many CP folks are likely personally sympathetic to Israel's position, but as a matter of principle would refrain from making that public policy as it is a bad precedent. ⇔ ChristTrekker 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)