All Things Constitution Party [Archive]

Joe_Liberty

21st August 2005, 01:21

~~~~ GILCHRIST FOR CONGRESS * Email Victory Plan! ~~~~
__________________________________________________ ___

Hey, Constitutionalists!

We need your help!

As the Special Election for the 48th Congressional District is fast
approaching, Californians have a golden opportunity to make history,
but they need your help!

With the POWER OF THE INTERNET, we can send American Independent
(Constitution Party) candidate, Jim Gilchrist, to Washington, D.C.

Jim Gilchrist, endorsed by former Congressman B-1 Bob Dornan, is the
only candidate in the race willing to do something to secure our
borders from illegal immigration!

ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS SPREAD THE WORD!

While Democrats and Republicans control the mass media, We the
People can control the internet!

With just a bit of effort and dedication from you between now and
October 4, we can send JIM GILCHRIST to Congress.

Here's what you do:

TODAY: Copy this entire email, and send it to at least five (5) new
contacts.

TOMORROW: Copy this entire email, and send it to at least five (5)
new contacts.

THE NEXT DAY: Copy this entire email, and send it to at least five
(5) new contacts.

(((( Keep repeating this until October 4! ))))

Here's how the Power of Duplication can send JIM GILCHRIST to
Congress by making people aware of his campaign to secure our
borders:

DAY 1: 1 x 5 = 5 people aware.
DAY 2: 5 x 5 = 25 people aware.
DAY 3: 25 x 5 = 125 people aware.
DAY 4: 125 x 5 = 625 people aware.
DAY 5: 625 x 5 = 3125 people aware.
DAY 6: 3125 x 5 = 15,625 people aware.
DAY 7: 15,625 x 5 = 78,125 people aware.
DAY 8: 78,125 x 5 = 390,625 people aware.
DAY 9: 390,625 x 5 = 1,953,125 people aware.
DAY 10: 1,953,125 x 5 = 9,765,625 people aware.
DAY 11: 9,765,625 x 5 = WASHINGTON, D.C.!!!

* * * LET'S MAKE HISTORY! * * *

To find out more about Jim Gilchrist, visit
http://www.jimgilchrist.com .

The American Independent Party is the California affiliate to the
national Constitution Party (www.constitutionparty.com).

This Email Plan is created by:

Reed R. Heustis, Jr. <><
~ The Heustis Update: http://www.reedheustis.com ~
Politics from a Christian Constitutionalist Perspective
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
Los Angeles County Central Committee
California State Central Committee
American Independent Party (Calif. Constitution Party)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

To eliminate all unwanted email from all sources:
use SpamArrest: http://spamarrest.com/affl?1881206
__________________________________________________ ___________________
____________
This email is not an official Gilchrist for Congress communication.

Triton

21st August 2005, 02:13

~~~~ GILCHRIST FOR CONGRESS * Email Victory Plan!

Repeat 500 times in 50 states...

Eaglet

23rd August 2005, 08:03

Gilchrist Announces Congressional Bid! (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/08/20/gilchrist-announces-congressional-bid/)

Founder of the Minuteman Project, Jim Gilchrist, has entered the race to fill the Congressional seat vacated by the recent appointment of Rep. Chris Cox to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
He will be the candidate of the American Independent Party, the California affiliate of the Constitution Party. However, in the “About Jim” section of his campaign website, Gilchrist gives his political affiliation as:

Hybrid—supports Constitution (Independent) Party and Republican Party candidates; occasionally even supports a principled rogue Democrat—who put love of country and fidelity to duty above mere partisan advantage.
The Campaign Website (http://www.jimgilchrist.com)

Joe_Liberty

11th September 2005, 08:30

Justice goes missing in Lake County
http://missoulian.com/articles/2005/09/09/opinion/opinion6.prt

Eaglet

7th October 2005, 02:27

In "Victory Over Fat?," Constitution Party Chairman James N. Clymer refutes Congressman Tom Delay's claims to Republican spending cuts and reminds us of record-level liberalism coming from the Republican-controlled Congress and White House.

This article is located at http://constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=225 .

Joe_Liberty

18th October 2005, 03:48

Many thanks to Troy for initiating this article. We have already
received an inquiry from a prospective member/candidate because of
it.

http://www.uticaod.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051014/NEWS/510140307/1009/NEWS02

Constitution Party starts local branch

A local branch of the nationally recognized Constitution Party has
begun, with Troy Reynolds of New Hartford heading local operations.

The party is a conservative political party that has had
presidential candidates in the last three national elections. The
party is endorsing eight candidates in local elections across the
state for Nov. 8. No one is from the Mohawk Valley.

The local party will be actively seeking candidates for endorsement.

"Third parties have not fared well in the last few general
elections, so some people may be leery of joining us," Reynolds
said. "But if you look at the strength of our party now in a non-
presidential election year, you can see we are growing and staying.
It is a great time for the party."

Anyone interested in knowing more about the party or becoming a
volunteer, or a candidate seeking endorsements can visit the state
Web site at www.nyconstitutionparty.com or call 272-6870

Joe_Liberty

20th October 2005, 01:00

I posted the folling response:

I am a member of the Constitution Party. I am a grassroots activist engaged daily in growing our party. I joined the Constitution Party instead of the Republican Party because the Constitution Party is closest to my political beliefs.

My response does not appear as of this writing. If you look at the numbered responses, it appears as if many have been deleted.

TA Holmes wrote:
Read this: http://gopwing.com/modules.php?sid=1006 and see if
it doesn't make you "Fightin' Mad" like it did me!!!

Members of the Constitution Party are being called Constitutional
Cowards by the National Chairman of the Republican Assembly (they
call themselves the "Conservative Wing of the GOP"). He needs to
hear from us, all of us, and I believe Jim Clymer, CP Nat'l Chairman,
as well as our Founder, Howard Phillips, need to post/send an
official response as well.

How does that saying go about knowing you're getting to your
adversary when all he can do is start calling you names? Perhaps
we're pulling away so many of their supporters (or they're simply
running them off) and causing the Republican Assembly to shrivel up
and die so now their leader is starting to squeal. Next he'll be
whimpering, "I'm their leader, which way did they go?" By his own
admission in his first full paragraph, not a day goes by that his own
troops aren't dwindling while ours are growing!!!

If we were as insignificant as he wants his shrinking number of
followers to believe, then why would he even be wasting his precious
time worrying about us? On top of that, his article slamming the CP
is now providing us free "advertising" space on his website as long
as it is posted there. In fact, some of his follower's comments
posted in response to the article indicate that they've never even
heard of us before now. So he's planting OUR seeds, in HIS field
that before now we didn't even have access to! Get ready for the
harvest because a "bumper crop" of new CP supporters will soon be
ready for the pickin'.

Thom Holmes

Camp Director

20th October 2005, 10:42

I also responded to this Republican episode of whistling through the graveyard.

My reply is below

Having lived in a farm area for the better part of my life I've heard it said many times-"The pig that squeals is the one that got stuck!" Well, there's a lot of squealing going on in this article. For instance Mr. Engle writes "On first blush one would think that the Constitution Party is successfully recruiting the Republican Party’s best activists. Over time I have realized that instead they are gathering for themselves the weakest and the worst of the GOP." Really? Then why bother with this rant? After all, you're simply sluffing off all of the dead weight, right? It seems that Mr Engle realizes that thinking constitutionalists (Notice I didn't say "conservatives." This name has been so abused as to leave it with no coherently decipherable meaning.) within the Republican party are beginning to see that they are being thumped like a kettle drum by the "big tenters." The smart rats are abandoning the sinking liner in favor of the seaworthy freighter alongside.

This statement of Mr. Engle's made me chuckle and shake my head "When faced with the betrayal of conservative principles on the part of Republican Party officials and by its elected officials any knowledgeable conservative activist would fight before they take flight." An examination of the record reveals that constitutionalists have been unsuccessfully fighting for control of the GOP since 1854. One hundred fifty one years seems like it should be long enough for the rank and file to get the idea. Mr. Engle seems to have gained a fleeting grasp of this when he says "I can’t say that the Republican Party will always be the proper home for political conservatives. It is possible that over the next several decades the Republican Party base would follow the liberal/moderate leadership of the Republican National Committee to a slow and painful suicide."

"What I can say is that a slow departure of handfuls of Republican activists to another party will not create a new majority party. The reality is that if every conservative Republican activist were to leave the Republican Party and join the Constitution Party that most conservative voters would still identify themselves as Republicans. Most conservatives are far more concerned with their families, jobs, and churches, than they are in being active in politics. Most voters are not activists and activist conservatives do no service when they abandon the majority of their kind." Plug in the word "Whig" in place of "Republican" and this could be a quote fron the 1852 Whig Party handbook.The Whigs folded by 1854 due to trying to be all things to all voters, in short the "big tent" party.

Mr. Engle should do a little election mathematics before belittling the efforts of the Constitution Party. If his numbers are correct then we can do some rough estimating. Let's say that currently 52% of Americans prefer Republican candidates to Democratic ones (based roughly on Congressional makeup). If we take Mr. Engle's figure of 80% of Republican's being "true conservatives" then assume that the Constitution Party can attract those "true conservatives" based on our commitment to "principle over politics," (a phrase that no Republican with an IQ over 75 could possibly claim for their own party) then the Constitution Party could expect to pull roughly 40% of the electorate in any given race in a relatively conservative state. That leaves 60% to be split by the rump Republicans and Democrats. Many disaffected Democrats, seeing that those nasty old constitutionalists have bolted the Republican Party, will bolt the ultra-left Democrats as being "too radically liberal" for the now openly "moderate" (as opposed to its current stealth moderate position) Republicans. Result? Constitution Party 40%, Democrats 30%, Republicans 30%. Winner? Constitution Party in a walk. Think this scenario is unlikely? Examine the presidential election of 1860. Lincoln pulled 39% of the popular vote. He didn't even appear on 11 southern state ballots (out of 34). Don't kid yourselves, the Constitution Party is a VERY viable option for those who care about constitutional principle.

Joe_Liberty

21st October 2005, 08:54

Good response. Engle also overlooks the fact that many of us labored in the Republican vineyards for decades before joining the Constitution Party.

bluebird

30th November 2005, 01:59

I would like to take the opportunity to speak for, what I believe to be, a multitude of people who are not here on this forum.

The United States is at a point in time and history where it is in deep trouble. The so-called two-party system is really just one party dicatating to the rest of us how we will live, what we will believe, what we must buy and who we will buy from. They dictate when, where and how we can celebrate our religious holidays, AND they have made it abundantly clear that christian religious symbols such as crosses, Christmas trees, christian words and all things God related are not welcome in our public schools nor in the public square. This is completely repulsive and unacceptable. Believe it or not it is even unacceptable to fair-minded agnostics and atheists. What we are witnessing, for those that have eyes to see and ears to hear, is the complete unraveling of all things American. So many take these things for granted but have no idea the price that was paid to secure these freedoms.

Many, many Americans are coming to their senses about the freedoms they have enjoyed and the possibility that those freedoms may not always be there. There is a brand new interest in the founding fathers and just why they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. With this, many have surveyed their surroundings in search of a political party in line with what they believe the Constitution is truly about. There is no mystery as to what the Constitution delineates - the words are plain and easy to understand. If there is any difficulty with the Constitution, it is because lawyers have made it so, with their convoluted way of interpreting it over the years - to their own benefit.

I say all of that to say this: The Constitution Party, if it is to be taken seriously as a viable alternative to the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum parties needs to have a serious descriptive of itself, express not only dismay for what other parties are doing or not doing, but also have a prevailing Vision as to how to return this country to the simple meaning behind the simple words of the Constitution.

Though many of us can appreciate different christian denominations, and in particular their absolute right in America to exercise their religious beliefs, we think that the Constitution does not allow one sect to declare itself -the one true denomination, whereby all laws will eminate from. In fact, that would be the opposite of what our founding fathers intended to do.

There are many, many Constitutional issues that need to be debated on an open forum, in a civil and polite way, but nonetheless debated in full.

People are going to say things that irritate and downright offend others in an open forum. We are not all going to agree. In a Free country debate can take place and others can take issue with opinions that are stated.

If this is not the Forum for that open debate to take place, the Constitution Party -- if it is serious about growing and reaching a national level with credibility -- needs to establish that forum and it needs to be well advertised.

There should be very little rules for an open debate except for the obvious: all comments should be made with civility and anticipation that others may agree or disagree without reproach. Without that, we only appear to be fighting to conserve the First Amendment all the while breaking it ourselves.

Joe_Liberty

30th November 2005, 07:11

Brenda,

Scott has made it clear that this is not the forum as described you desire, although Constitutionalists are welcome to post here and this thread has been made available here to discuss all things Constitution Party.

It should be noted that the Constitution Party National Committee does not want such a forum as the one you describe. By national party resolution we voted to prohibit the name Constitution Party from being used on any internet forum. I did not and do not agree with that decision.

The closest thing that you are looking for is
http://www.constitutionalists.us/ although it is not officially affiliated in any way with the Constitution Party due to the aforementioned resolution.

Paul

30th November 2005, 09:24

bluebird

30th November 2005, 02:50

I'm not sure if an "official" forum would be a good "get the word out" tool. As Christians, we bring everything back to the Word to see if it lines up or not. As Constitutionalist's, we bring everything back to the Constitution; hence the need for Institute on the Constitution, and radio shows like TAV. The more educated we become, the more we can then teach it to others. In my humble opinion, while a Forum can be a great place to discuss/debate and learn, I don't think it would be a useful tool for recruiting members.
I now see clearly what this forum is supposed to be for, but I think it has been misnamed. It probably should be called Christian Reformers Debate Law and Society. And, that might be a very useful tool to Christian Reformers or those wondering about the Christian Reformers perspective on a variety of issues. If that was the purpose, you're all on target and God Bless your endeavor.

I do think it strange that the Constitution Party forbade their name be used in another forum on the Internet. If it had not been for the Internet I would possibly have never found out enough information to make me want to register with the CP.

And, I will have to respectfully disagree about a Forum set up specifically to discuss CP issues, concerns and vision for the future. Right now the Internet has been proven to be more influential politically than satelite or cable t.v. I don't know how it measures up to Radio, but people have to have a "way" of discussing important issues via properly vetted information so they can make an informed decision when Election Day rolls around.

Now, the CP can certainly choose Not to participate in that venue but it won't help them to "get the word out" in a timely fashion, and to newcomers it will seem as though they're just not ready for prime time yet. The CP can move at the pace they so choose, but I fear they may be passing up a golden opportunity to be used by God to rein in the harvest of souls who have thrown in the towel when it comes to the two-party system.

Anyway, I will be in search of a Forum to express political views and basic Constitutional issues as they relate to all Americans. When I debate religious issues, I usually go to the Catholic Answers forum, but for political issues specifically, I am still wandering homeless until a designated forum can be established.

God Bless All, I've enjoyed my time here,
Brenda

Joe_Liberty

30th November 2005, 03:23

Brenda,

I encourage you to contact Lancaster with your suggestion. Perhaps if there is enough of a demand for it they will change their mind.

You also might want to check with and work through your state party. I know some state parties have an internet presence with varying degrees of interactivity.

Camp Director

30th November 2005, 05:41

You also might want to check with and work through your state party. I know some state parties have an internet presence with varying degrees of interactivity.

Very true.

The Ohio CP has a discussion forum connected to our website (www.ohiocp.org (http://www.ohiocp.org)). I'm pretty sure other states do as well.

Chuck

Joe_Liberty

8th December 2005, 06:06

There is a poll at http://thenextprez.blogspot.com/ asking who the Constitution Party should nominate for president in 2008. You might want to go and vote for Michael Peroutka. Current results:

Chuck Baldwin 0%
Joe Bannister 0%
Jim Clymer 0%
Bob Dornan 0%
Jim Gilchrist 27%
Rick Jore 7%
Alan Keyes 20%
Roy Moore 20%
Michael Peroutka 20%
Someone else 7%

LDSpatriot

12th December 2005, 06:22

Hey guys,
Jim Gilchrist did very well in Orange County, so good for him. I have some issues though with the party platform, because it seems more concerned with the concerns of evangelical Christians and Fundamentalist beliefs rather than the Constitution as it relates to all Christians in this Christian nation. Most Christians believe in the authority of the Bible as the words of God and the prophets, as well as the admonition to keep his commandments. My question is: Why is the party trying to shout down and remove people who agree with the party, but disagree with the leadership over certain trivial religous matters like who should lead the party, be it Baptist, Reformed, or LDS. Who cares who leads the CP, as long as he obeys God's commandments?
Well, I love the party as long as they do not trample on people's rights to speak out in defense of their faith and the Constitution. I respect all men of principle whether they like my faith or not. So, go ahead and laugh at me because I do not care anymore. I hope to be with any party that has God's truth, though they may hate me because I am LDS.

With God, all things are possible,

LDSpatriot

Joe_Liberty

12th December 2005, 06:50

Jim Gilchrist did very well in Orange County, so good for him. I have some issues though with the party platform, because it seems more concerned with the concerns of evangelical Christians and Fundamentalist beliefs rather than the Constitution as it relates to all Christians in this Christian nation.

What specific issues do you have with the platform? The current platform was ratified by members of our party at the national convention in 2004.

Why is the party trying to shout down and remove people who agree with the party, but disagree with the leadership over certain trivial religous matters like who should lead the party, be it Baptist, Reformed, or LDS.

It isn't. Do you have evidence to support this accusation?

Camp Director

12th December 2005, 08:28

Why is the party trying to shout down and remove people who agree with the party, but disagree with the leadership over certain trivial religous matters like who should lead the party, be it Baptist, Reformed, or LDS. Who cares who leads the CP, as long as he obeys God's commandments? ...So, go ahead and laugh at me because I do not care anymore. I hope to be with any party that has God's truth, though they may hate me because I am LDS.

No one in the party is trying to remove anyone who adheres to the platform. No one hates you because you're LDS. This rant's getting old. If you agree with and adhere to the major tenets of the platform then you'll be welcome in the CP. If you try to deny or change certain pivotal issues you will be welcome to join some other party which doesn't care so much about those issues.

SWhiteman

12th December 2005, 09:33

LDSPatriot:
You've been asked several times now to detail a specific charge of LDS bashing by Party leadership. You're next post about the apparent religious bigotry of the Party better be an example of indefensible Mormon bashing or you can go else where. TAV doesn't have to answer your question, since we are not the Party, and thus our answer will not necessarily agree with how they would respond, but you keep bringing it up ... so prove it.

At this juncture, it seems that you are the problem, and I won't countenance to it.

exmarine

12th December 2005, 11:59

No one in the party is trying to remove anyone who adheres to the platform.

Do you mean that those who do not adhere legalistically to the party platform should be removed?

Camp Director

12th December 2005, 12:25

Not necessarily. For instance, I personally could vet a candidate for office who is 100% on with the platform but has a slightly different view on trade policy. I could not personally vet a candidate who thinks abortion is OK under any circumstances. I could not personally vet a candidate who doesn't have his head on straight about borders and immigration matters. Certain matters carry significantly more weight than others.

exmarine

12th December 2005, 02:33

Joe_Liberty

12th December 2005, 03:45

I think it is important to distinguish between membership and leadership in the party. When I recruit people I ask them if they are in general agreement with the platform. While our platform states that we "gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States," we don't require members to belong to any particular Christian denomination.

However, I think a somewhat higher standard is in order for party leaders, including candidates. But even then, 100% agreement with every plank of the platform is a little much to expect. There is an important litmus test for party leadership however. In addition to making sure that leaders and candidates are in agreement with our platform generally, we are prohibited by national party resolution (http://www.constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=119) from endorsing, distributing, allocating, contributing to or soliciing funds for, or supporting in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life of innocent human beings, from the moment of conception to natural death -- without exception. However, even that requirement is a paper tiger. Unless it is enforced it is not worth the cyberspace it is written on.

This accusation of removing party members because they are LDS is unfounded as far as I can tell. I know that there plenty of LDS members and leaders in our party. So where is this discrimination? I agree with the rest of you that the complaint is tiresome when, from where I sit, LDS appear to be more or less running the show.

Will

12th December 2005, 04:36

we don't require members to belong to any particular Christian denomination.

It seems that, although it isn't required that "members belong to any particular Christian denomination", it seems it is required that members belong to some "Christian denomination." I don't belong to any Christian denomination. I, according to most Christians, am not even a Christian. I believe that the CP's insistence on fundamentalist Christian doctrine turns many people off. I believe that the CP would be better to promote the Constitution as the Supreme Law, instead of the Bible. The CP should include anyone who holds the Constitution to be the Supreme Law, no matter what religion, Christian, Jewish, Bhuddist, Muslim, etc., and even aetheist. Our battle should not be against non-Christians, our battle should be against those who have and are perverting our Constitution. There is a conflict between Christians and SOME atheists over the "separation of church and state." I do believe that a town should not be able to put religious symbols on public property. Roy Moore was wrong!!! If he had gone to the Christian Churches of Alabama and asked them if they would like to place a monument with the Ten Commandments on it in the state SC, and, most importantly, not have the state pay for it, then it would be constitutional. The SC building is public property, and the Public (Christian Churches) should be able to use it, as long as it does NOT interfere with government business. As the Chief Justice of Alabama, Judge Moore was wrong to place it there. If the Churches had placed it there, it would have been constitutional. If the aetheists, like the ACLU, want to place a monument to what they believe in there, it should be ther right to do so. Come to think of it they already have what they believe in there, NOTHING.

SWhiteman

12th December 2005, 04:56

Just as a matter of fact, CP does not require any religion of anyone. CP has never held an inquiry into the religious beliefs of any member. That is just a bogus statement.

CP does acknowledge, at least formally, a fact that is irrefutable -- that Jesus Christ is the Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. Since He is the creator, preserver and ruler, if we slight Him, we won't be blessed. Again, that is a fact (certainly, it's a fact rooted in faith). Many, I realise, won't embrace that fact.

If CP tried to advance its quest without regard to Him, it would be building on sand, putting up walls He will destroy. Read Psalm 2. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry.

Now, CP welcomes anyone willing to work with it who will advance the same mission, the advancement of the Crown Rights of King Jesus. Usually, only Christians are so willing, and most of the time, not even then.

SWhiteman

12th December 2005, 04:59

I do believe that a town should not be able to put religious symbols on public property. Roy Moore was wrong!!! If he had gone to the Christian Churches of Alabama and asked them if they would like to place a monument with the Ten Commandments on it in the state SC, and, most importantly, not have the state pay for it, then it would be constitutional. The SC building is public property, and the Public (Christian Churches) should be able to use it, as long as it does NOT interfere with government business. As the Chief Justice of Alabama, Judge Moore was wrong to place it there. If the Churches had placed it there, it would have been constitutional.
Then you don't believe what we believe, that the State MUST acknowledge God or it will be destroyed.

Point of note, not one dime of the public treasury was expended to put up the 10 Commandments in Alabama. It was privately funded and the monument was rolled in at night, after hours, by volunteers (one of whom was Roy Moore) so as to not use any of the public trust.

Will

12th December 2005, 05:41

Then you don't believe what we believe, that the State MUST acknowledge God or it will be destroyed.

Point of note, not one dime of the public treasury was expended to put up the 10 Commandments in Alabama. It was privately funded and the monument was rolled in at night, after hours, by volunteers (one of whom was Roy Moore) so as to not use any of the public trust.

I don't believe that "the State MUST acknowledge God". However, it is wrong for the State to try to remove all references to God from the public sphere as the ACLU wants to do. As I understand it, over eighty percent of the people of this country are Christian. If Christianity or a belief in God offends a few people, I would suggest that they move to Europe where their belief system is more numerous.

The problem here is that if a few people who want to post something on public property and are allowed to do it, then every off the wall group of a few people will demand their right to do it. I asserted that it would be OK for the Churches of Alabama to do it because, (I assume), that there are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of members in Alabama, not just a handful. There are probably only a few atheists in Alabama, and like the Nazis or KKK, they shouldn't have the right to post their monuments unless they can show a reputable membership. If placing the Ten Commandments had been placed on a statewide referendum in Alabama, I am sure that it would have passed by an overwhelming majority. It is a shame that a few, maybe even only one, atheist was able to thwart the will of so many people. I believe that an atheist who objects to religious symbols has a real problem with his/her faith.

Camp Director

12th December 2005, 06:28

Okay, but I had the party member in mind (not a candiate for office) who may disagree on some minor planks of the platform.
Same criteria holds for me personally. Major in the majors and minor in the minors.

Camp Director

12th December 2005, 06:36

I don't believe that "the State MUST acknowledge God".All law is based on a system of morality and acknowledges an authority from which the moral code eminates. Since this authority must be transcendent to possess the authority, it follows that this entity would be considered a god or deity. Who do you acknowledge as your god as regards this question?

exmarine

12th December 2005, 06:39

Same criteria holds for me personally. Major in the majors and minor in the minors.

If you mean that THE MAIN THING IS THAT WE KEEP THE MAIN THING THE MAIN THING, then okay!

Camp Director

12th December 2005, 06:44

If you mean that THE MAIN THING IS THAT WE KEEP THE MAIN THING THE MAIN THING, then okay!

OK. But I guess the question boils down to what each of us think is the main thing.

exmarine

12th December 2005, 06:53

OK. But I guess the question boils down to what each of us think is the main thing.

Well, in reality, the true MAIN THING is that Jesus Christ is Lord over all of Life, and whosoever trusts in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Secondarily, for me, the main party things (plural) are no compromise on the God-given right to life (especially as related to abortion), and a return to constitutional government.:)

Camp Director

12th December 2005, 06:57

Well, in reality, the true MAIN THING is that Jesus Christ is Lord over all of Life, and whosoever trusts in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Secondarily, for me, the main party things (plural) are no compromise on the God-given right to life (especially as related to abortion), and a return to constitutional government.:)Amen, ex-marine!

SWhiteman

12th December 2005, 07:05

I don't believe that "the State MUST acknowledge God."
Okay. But God says it MUST. Every state is a tri-parte covenant between God and men. 1) Each party must recognise that God institutes civil governments as a terror to evil doers; 2.) between the People and the King to obey him howeversolong as he obeys God, and 3.) between the King and God to do nothing but God's will for the good of the People. Every state MUST acknowledge God or it is doomed. There is no such thing as a good, but godless, nation.

In past posts you admit that believe in individuals, not corporate capacities of man. But God is the God of the one and the many. He views individuals and companies of men, and holds each accountable for their sins.

Will

12th December 2005, 07:44

exmarine

12th December 2005, 07:54

Scott:

There is a small difference between acknowledging God and promoting God, but the difference is gigantic. I have no problem with the State acknowledging God, but I would have a great problem with the State promoting God.

Will

Evidently, Will would prefer a god with a small g - a finite god who is not all powerful and transcendant, from whom do not flow moral absolutes, and who is not offended if the State ignores or rejects him. A god who no one really takes seriously. Perhaps one of the ancient Greek gods would work for Will - Zeus or Apollo - after all, they are finite gods made in man's image who can't be offended because they aren't real.

bluebird

12th December 2005, 09:53

There is a small difference between acknowledging God and promoting God, but the difference is gigantic. I have no problem with the State acknowledging God, but I would have a great problem with the State promoting God.

Good evening everyone!

I hope no one minds the "little woman" expressing her opinion in this arena, but I do have to say, I think Will has a very good point.

There is no need to belittle his God.

If I understand him correctly what he is trying to say is that even well-meaning and faithful Christians will disagree on the exact attributes of God.

In that case, whose intrepretation will we go with? Presently we have over 30,000 different christian sects -- all thinking they each have the correct interpretation of Scripture and its role in government.

The worse part about all of this is -- the founding fathers did not want a state religion. They only wanted the freedom to freely exercise their religion without fear of imprisonment from the King or any other governmental authority.

All of us should be greatly concerned about anyone who obtains a high governmental position and proceeds to implement laws based on their sects personal beliefs about controversial scripture passages.

Joe_Liberty

12th December 2005, 10:09

All of us should be greatly concerned about anyone who obtains a high governmental position and proceeds to implement laws based on their sects personal beliefs about controversial scripture passages.

I believe this is where our party platform can be useful. Hundreds of Christian Constitutionalists from across America have crafted a political platform that declares what we believe scripture has to say about contemporary political issues.

Since this platform was built by flawed men it would not be surprising to me if we got it wrong in some particulars. But it would not concern me in the least if a Constitutionalist were elected to office and began implementing, enforcing, and repealing laws based on that platform. After all, that is presumably why we are involved in our party in the first place. And presumably where we have not been able to come to agreement concerning what scripture has to say about controversial issues, our platform is silent and our candidates are free to make their case to the voters concerning their view of the proper biblical view on those issues.

RRHeustisJr

13th December 2005, 12:14

I don't believe that "the State MUST acknowledge God".

If the state is prohibited from acknowledging God, then it cannot possibly conform with the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration sets forth the premise that man's rights are inalienable, endowed by our Creator. If the state cannot acknowledge God, then it cannot acknowledge the proper source from which our rights derive. Thus, the state would be based upon the same premises that communist governments are based, namely that rights are man-made and therefore alienable.

If you disagree with the notion that our rights come from God, then you disagree with the foundation of the united States of America.

Reed R. Heustis, Jr. <><
{ http://www.constitutionalists.us }
{ http://www.reedheustis.com }
Los Angeles County Central Committee
California State Central Committee
American Independent Party (California's Constitution Party)
* = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * =

bluebird

13th December 2005, 01:40

I believe this is where our party platform can be useful. Hundreds of Christian Constitutionalists from across America have crafted a political platform that declares what we believe scripture has to say about contemporary political issues.

Thank you for the link provided at the bottom of your post, I just spent about an hour going over the national platform. It is great to see each issue expounded upon and it renews my faith in the Constitution Party. I see no other political parties on the horizon that even come close to CP's platform.

While I'm on the "All Things Constitution Party" thread, I thought I would mention that I've started a thread on the Catholic Forum at catholic.com called -- "Voting for the lesser of two evils" Everyone feel free to log on and support the TAV or CP's view with biblical quotes and theological presumptions. The sight is Catholic but they are very tolerant of all christian religions voicing their opinion. As long as you are prepared to be challenged with the catholic perspective, you'll do fine. People are christ-like in their attitudes and forthright. I've tried to give this group more exposure to the CP and many seem interested, and were genuinely unaware! Anyway, my moniker is Seabird3579 there and the thread is located in the Moral Theology section of the Forum.

Areopagus

13th December 2005, 02:05

Scott:

There is a small difference between acknowledging God and promoting God, but the difference is gigantic. I have no problem with the State acknowledging God, but I would have a great problem with the State promoting God.

Will

Does God need promotion? To what office does He aspire, other than to rightfully reign in men’s hearts by virtue of His only begotten Son’s sacrifice. That is the vocation of the church.

The acknowledgement of God entails much more than the phrase admits at first glance. At a minimum it must mean that we are accountable to God for our actions toward our fellow man regarding his God given rights that citizens must respect, and government must protect. Jefferson said that certain truths were self-evident in contradistinction to the present statist notion that there aren’t any absolute truths.

The state is also ordained by God to restrain the evil acts of men. In Federalist 51, Madison stated we must “oblige [the state] to control itself.” “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” according to Lord Acton. Auxiliary precautions are simply horizontal, and vertical dispersions of power vested in numerous officials with different functions in federal, and state government. In the exercise of this power, officials have a formidable weapon to check others in government by reminding them that all are accountable to God’s absolute truths. This serves to limit crimes committed by government when provisions exist, and are implemented, to remove the offenders from office for violating the rights of the people granted by that same God.

God is the necessary external standard to which imperfect men must look to, for guidance in determining what evil acts the state should punish. Otherwise, you end up beating someone for the color of their skin, or their peculiar exposition of the Bible.

It is foolish, and dangerous for society to ignore God. (Psalms 14:1, Psalm 9:17) What you are left with is a government of sinful men arbitrarily issuing edicts based on relativistic political winds of the moment where might takes rights. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM

What is the modern genesis of this inimical view of government:

While neither the words nor the concept of "separation of church and state" appears in our Constitution, those words and ideas do appear in the Constitutions of the former communist Soviet regimes. See U.S.S.R. Const. adopted July 10, 1918, art. Two, ch. 5, § 13 "For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church , and the right of religious and antireligious propaganda is accorded to every citizen.") (emphasis added); and U.S.S.R. Const. adopted Dec. 5, 1936, ch. 10, art. 124 ("In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church . Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda are recognized for all citizens." (emphasis added)). Eleven years after the U.S.S.R. Constitution of 1936 wrote the "separation of church and state" into the text of the Soviet Constitution, the United States Supreme Court held that our Constitution command ed the same philosophy and then wrote that phrase on the minds of the American people. See Everson , 330 U.S. at 18.] It is surprising how many citizens, including lawyers, believe that the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" is in the text of our Constitution. http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/grayone.htm

Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP compiled a list of “Acknowledgment of God Provisions” in state constitutions. http://www.churchstatelaw.com/stateconstitutions/index.asp

Arkansas is pretty typical:

We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government, for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to our selves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution. http://www.churchstatelaw.com/stateconstitutions/AR.asp
We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for NOT abandoning us to our own destructive nature, and devices, whereby we would either revolt in anarchy, or submit to satanic tyranny.

Will

13th December 2005, 10:33

bluebird

13th December 2005, 10:54

The state is also ordained by God to restrain the evil acts of men. In Federalist 51, Madison stated we must “oblige [the state] to control itself.” “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” according to Lord Acton. Auxiliary precautions are simply horizontal, and vertical dispersions of power vested in numerous officials with different functions in federal, and state government. In the exercise of this power, officials have a formidable weapon to check others in government by reminding them that all are accountable to God’s absolute truths. This serves to limit crimes committed by government when provisions exist, and are implemented, to remove the offenders from office for violating the rights of the people granted by that same God.

Hi Aeropagus,

Have to agree with most of what you've posted, but the above quote more or less makes my previous point. While one would assume that this quote would be used to "constrain evil" and therefore, good would prosper....it seems to me that the abuse of this clause could be dangerous -- only in this sense: Suppose a religious zealot were in power AND were to assume that those that did not agree with his religious view of life, should be prosecuted to "constrain evil." (You know, much like the pharasees and saduccees felt about Jesus..) Now, we have a problem.

Today, the abusers are more along the lines of the ACLU. But when their type start calling what christians do evil, they may well want to "constrain evil" by prosecuting us.

Be sure though, I have not missed the bigger picture that government is meant to constrain criminal acts such as murder, theft, and the limiting of rights to free speech and religious worship. The bigger issues are clearer, lesser issues need to be voted on locally so that the laws befit the society that they serve.

Camp Director

13th December 2005, 11:57

There is one place that stretches the fine line between acknowleding and promoting. That is allowing churches to be tax exempt and allowing people to deduct the amount they donate to a church from their income. There was a time when it was fully justified, because churches did tons of charitable work. Today, however, they do very little in the way of charitable work. Granted, the government has taken over most of the charitable work with welfare, food stamps, etc. Many churches are hoarding the wealth that they acquire instead of using it for charity. Don't get me wrong, There are some churches that truly do God's work and a big part of God's work is to help those less fortunate. Incidentally, the company that I work for just passed out forms for the United Way. I declined to donate. Instead, I donate to the Salvation Army. They are a magnificent (religious) organization that truly does charitable work. Most (well over half) of the money donated to them goes directly to people they help. Less than half of the money donated to the United Way goes to help people.
Your logic doesn't hold here. Government has usurped the church's authority and dominion over the work of Christ in caring for the sick and needy so tax deductions on donations to the church shouldn't be allowed. Huh?

I can only assume that your church does no charity work and your pastors are only part-timers who spend the rest of their week at regular jobs with decent salaries. Do you have any idea what it costs to run a church? Do you serve in a leadership capacity and hear the debates about how to handle budget shortfalls and surplusses and what missions to support or not? Until you do you probably shouldn't make arguments that are based on false assumptions like churches "hoarding" wealth. Most churches are not like the wealth and health flock-fleecers on TBN, despite the secular media's ranting to the contrary.

I am glad you have the discernment to avoid the UW. No Christian should give to them IMHO. They are nothing more or less than leftist social-engineering extortionists who run a form of protection racket within many large corporations. Yes, I know Christians work for UW. They shouldn't IMO. UW lovs to fund "non-profits" like Planned Parenthood who also raise funds by getting underage girls to butcher the unborn children they carry without parental consent. They give piddly, token amounts to pro-life abortion alternative providers then don't allow them to continue in their own fund raising efforts in order to have access to UW funding. Yes, I have had my arm twisted with veiled threats as an employee, by a manager who wanted his award for 100% "participation." I gave $5 and designated it, knowing full well that it would cost them more than this to process my donation. My church gets my tithe and other ministries and charities of my choosing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit gets the rest of my giving.

Will

13th December 2005, 02:44

Camp:

I didn't say that all of the churches are neglecting their responsibility to do charitable works, but many certainly are. As for the government taking that over, it is plainly unconstitutional. What the (federal) government can do is clearly prescribed by the Constitution and I don't see charity as one of those things. I would say that state governments could do it, but not the federal government.

I don't belong to any church. Should I join the one that has the most expensive buildings??? Maybe Schuler's Crystal Cathedral or Falwell's church or Robertson's??? Many churches and church leaders are doing works that I find abominable. Not all though, some are supporting missions that feed the homeless and poor. Those have my respect.

Will

Camp Director

13th December 2005, 08:59

I didn't say that all of the churches are neglecting their reponsibility to do charitable works, but many certainly are.I'm sorry, Will but that's exactly what you implied, i.e., that most churches are not doing Christ's work. And yet you cite exactly no references to anchor your point. I think you need to be more careful in constructing your arguments.

As for the government taking that over, it is plainly unconstitutional. What the (federal) government can do is clearly prescribed by the Constitution and I don't see charity as one of those things. I would say that state governments could do it, but not the federal government.Depends entirely on the state constitution. All states are guaranteed republican governments and that means rule by law with protection of the life, liberty and property of the individual. It's hard to claim you're protecting property while you're busy confiscating it.

I don't belong to any church. Should I join the one that has the most expensive buildings??? Maybe Schuler's Crystal Cathedral or Falwell's church or Robertson's??? Many churches and church leaders are doing works that I find abominable. Not all though, some are supporting missions that feed the homeless and poor. Those have my respect.I think you should join a good bible preaching, Christ-like, God-fearing church of your choice ASAP. The rest is a straw man argument. It assumes that the churches of the pastors named aren't doing a great deal of charity and missions work AND building large, beautiful buildings. I know that in at least two of the examples you give that both are being done. Again, you shouldn't make bad assumptions and proceed in your argument from those presuppositions. It makes for bad argumentation.

MAC

14th December 2005, 12:32

Scott:

There is a small difference between acknowledging God and promoting God, but the difference is gigantic. I have no problem with the State acknowledging God, but I would have a great problem with the State promoting God.

Will

Will,

Is not the individual states the people's State? Is not the constitution of that State the people's Constitution?

You have stated very strongly that Judge Moore was wrong. With all due respect, the people's 1901 Alabama Constitution of the State of Alabama clearly acknowledged the Sovereign, God Almighty in its 'law of the State'. If you read its Preamble it reads: We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:" [Emphasis added] If one reads further along into the Declaration of Rights in Section 1: Equality and rights of men. That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator witah certain inalienabale rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Section 2: People source of power. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and institutied for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable an indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient. Section 3 Religious Freedom: That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be complelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qulification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privilieges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Now, I think this states things quite clearly. Judge Moore had every right to do what he did. The People declared this in the Preamble and if you look up the word 'invoking' --my dictionary reads: 1. to call on [God, the Muses, etc.] for blessing, help, etc. 2. to resort to [a law, ruling, etc.] as pertinent 3. conjure 4. to beg for; implore-- I think this clarifies that Judge Moore was carrying out his campaign promise when he took the Ten Commandments monument to the Judicial Building, of which he was steward and responsible over the building. His campaign for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was that he would take the Ten Commandments to Montgomery and restore moral law to Alabama. That is exactly what he was doing [did] by putting the monument where he did. That, my friend, was [and still is] the most fitting place for it to be in the State of Alabama!

Judge Moore was not establishing a religion, nor was he forcing his religion on any one! He was simply symbolising by the monument what We, the people declared in the Preamble: God Amighty's rightful place: the Sovereign. Simply put, acknowledging God and the foundation of our State law. "Invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God" --how planner could it be?

Actually, promoting God would not have violated the 1901, as the people had already been 'promoting' Him! :)

Will

14th December 2005, 10:46

Mac:

OK, It has been ascerted that Judge Moore (helped) place the monument in a private capacity, not as an official act of his office. The one who is really wrong and should be impeached under the Tenth Amendment is the judge who ordered it removed. Where in the Constitution is a federal judge given the power to interfere in the matter??? I can hardly see where the Ten Commandments are "an establishment of religion"! An establishment of religion is a church, a synagogue, a mosque, or similar establishment.

Will

MAC

14th December 2005, 10:06

Mac:

The one who is really wrong and should be impeached under the Tenth Amendment is the judge who ordered it removed. Where in the Constitution is a federal judge given the power to interfere in the matter??? I can hardly see where the Ten Commandments are "an establishment of religion"! An establishment of religion is a church, a synagogue, a mosque, or similar establishment.

Will

Will,

I totally agree with you! Myron Thompson should have been removed from the bench but aside from a few CP's trying to get it to 'roll' no one heard a peep from our wimpy congress critters. They should have been on Thompson like a chicken on a June bug! Hummph! Bunch of yellow-livered turn-coats to their oath!

Obviously, the bottom line is those in the GOP can be held to blame for the most part, if not all! President Bush, Governor Riley, Attorney General Bill "Judas" Pryor, Alabama Supreme Court --Jean Brown and 5-6 other (R) justices. And, if I am not mistaken, the U.S. Attorney General could have done something. Also, I suspect a closer look would show that the Alabama Legislature could have done something. There were steps most could have taken that would have stopped Myron Thompson or could have stopped him after his ruling. But, folks, y'all have to stop thinking 'inside the box' --that is typical status quo, business as usual, nothing is gonna change, thinking. Think outside the box and realise: These people know exactly what they are doing! and they are doing it deliberately! Remove Christ and destroy the Constitution.... or whatever they think will advance their own self! Can anyone deny that Bill "Judas" Pryor sure made his advancement? :mad:

Joe_Liberty

15th December 2005, 03:16

Several Constitutionalists, including Scott and myself, had letters published at Eco-Logic in response to Henry's Lamb's hitpiece concerning alternative parties. Having had several other recent LTE's rejected in recent days this was a real encouragement to me:

http://eco.freedom.org/el/20051202/letters.shtml

Camp Director

15th December 2005, 06:06

Here's the part that makes you wince a little. Henry Lamb has said to folks close to my circle that he agrees with everything the CP stands for and is with the party all the way to election day. Then he votes for a party "he knows can win" but that insists in plunging the dagger into his and the members of the Freedom21 group's backs. The same goes for other fine people like Gary DeMar who is a dominionist that believes the Republican party will be reformed someday and that the CP is going nowhere. He forgets that Christians have been busy trying to reform the Republican party since 1854 with no success.

To be fair to Gary, he is always helpful to CP efforts from my limited perspective on the Georgia political scene. Ditto for Henry.

Joe_Liberty

15th December 2005, 06:11

I was disappointed in Gary also when he told me he was voting for President Bush. Frankly, I don't expect much from Henry Lamb. He is still deluded enough to talk about victory in Iraq (http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20051202/lamb-2.shtml)in the current issue of Eco-logic.

Camp Director

15th December 2005, 06:48

A small commentary on Henry Lamb's Third Party Fever. It is wrong Almost from the outset.

Theodore Roosevelt, the most successful "third party" candidate ever, marshaled 27.4% of the vote in 1912, but still lost to Woodrow Wilson.Wrong! The most successful third party candidate in the history of political parties is Abraham Lincoln who won in 1860 with about 39% of the vote. His platform was the most radical, i.e. "out of the mainstream." The remainder of the candidates were more like each other than like Lincoln in their view of the Constitution and the festering regional crisis. They accounted for about 61% of the vote.

Conservatives who have dropped out altogether, or who refuse to vote for a Republican candidate, in favor of their favorite "third party" candidate, are actually helping the liberal cause. The same is true for the socialists who voted for "third party" candidate Ralph Nader. Had those folks voted for John Kerry in 2004, conservatives would likely be living under a Kerry-Edwards administration now.Bad math based on poor understanding of the electoral college. Presidents are not elected by weight of numbers but by weight of electoral college votes. A few thousand less votes for Nader spread around states that were already blue ones would change exactly nothing in the big picture.

Were the conservatives who now populate the various "third parties" to get actively involved in the Republican party at the precinct, state and national levels, and work as hard to convince their neighbors about conservative issues, as they now work to recruit "third party" members, the Republican party would become more conservative.See previous post.

The two-party system is cursed by many, if not most, of the third parties, because the system is heavily weighted in favor of the major parties. There is a perpetual cry for proportional voting to give "third parties" some say in the political process. As reasonable as this argument may sound, the multi-party, proportional voting system is a detriment to stability, and a deterrent to economic progress. Italy, and many other countries, have such a system. Governments come and go like the seasons, and between seasons, they are often mired in gridlock.Who here has ever called for proportional voting? This is a red herring and a straw man. The US Congress is not the British Parliament with "no confidence" votes and governments falling, etc. Would it mean more frequent leadership changes and a consequent slowing of the progress of lawmaking. Yes, probably. And this is a bad thing because....? The argument about "economic progress" being slowed implies that the federal government aids in the growth of the economy. Marxist twaddle.

Much of Lamb's argument exposes an ignorance of how presidents have been chosen historically. The Constitution originally called for the president to be chosen by the electoral college from a slate of 5 (art. 2, sec. 1, later changed to a slate of 3 by amendment 12) not 2, as Lamb implies as being set in stone, chosen and agreed on presumably by caucuses of states not political parties. The changes to election laws in most of the states to allow popular election of presidents by 1828 changed this for the worse and put parties in charge of slates.

Areopagus

16th December 2005, 11:20

the above quote more or less makes my previous point. Suppose a religious zealot were in power AND were to assume that those that did not agree with his religious view of life, should be prosecuted to "constrain evil." (You know, much like the pharasees and saduccees felt about Jesus..) Now, we have a problem.

Brenda95610,

Your point must not be overlooked, weather you are a man, “little woman,” or Darwinian beast. Your concerns in post # 44 & post #50 should be addressed. I just happened to click on this thread, once again, and read both of your posts which will be replied to in a manner that…may make anyone who happens to read this very, very angry.

All men, by nature, are religious. Recorded human history indicates that man is a creature of faith, or religious unbelief. The self-sufficient atheist is a devout fool who adheres to man made philosophy that is nothing more than a religion of unbelief. Secular Humanism was classified as a religion in TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
The atheist simply says NO GOD without any proof text, and despite massive evidence to the contrary. The atheist is forced to take the giant the leap of faith to maintain his religion that is unnecessary to the theist (Romans 1).

We have what you assert: “a religious zealot…in power!” 'He' is the U.S. Supreme Court who Christian conservatives worship, along with their godless brethren in total defiance of 2 Cor 6:14 “be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” The uncircumcised dog of Satan mates with Darwin’s monkey and spawns a brood of rebels not seen since the day of Sodom, and Noah. Christians slavishly worship their opinions as settled law of the land.

You say that “the founding fathers did not want a state religion,” but we have one called secular humanism. http://www.summit.org/resource/worldview_chart/ . It poses as neutrality while it sits at Satan’s right hand. Christians are NOT seriously “concerned about anyone who obtains a high governmental position and proceeds to implement laws based on their sects personal beliefs….” Christians sacrifice their spiritual, and American birthright upon the altar of the sovereignty of sinful man. Both birthrights were wrought in shed blood, so that Americans could exalt the sovereignty of a loving God.

If your aren’t angry yet, you will be, either at me, or the facts of the case presented in the following argument.

The very first word in the very First Amendment is CONGRESS! Why did they rudely point their collective finger in the face of Congress as they began with “SHALL MAKE NO LAW….” Congress is the predominate power in federal government. The Constitutional text agrees with Madison in Federalist 51, and Hamilton in Federalist 78. The three branches aren’t co-equal in power! They are co-equal in interpretive power, and coordinate in political power, but Congress dominates! The Founders didn’t institute a divine right of Presidents, or a divine right of judicial oligarchy. Congress can remove any President, or federal judge, and they can strip the federal courts clean to their appellate jurisdictional bone, or fillet that beast anyway they choose. Presidents and Judges can not remove the lowliest Congressional freshman. Opinions may have changed since initial ratification, but the Constitution with all it’s amendments has not altered one concept of Congressional dominance, notwithstanding inexcusable misconstruction of the 14th Amendment.

There is an oft omitted PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights that more than just a few love to hate. “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The States’ pointed their collective anti-Federalist finger right between the eyes of the most powerful branch in federal government and forbade any FEDERAL meddling with : “establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

Oh, but you say that FEDERAL includes more than Congress just mentioned. Who is responsible for keeping the President, and SCOTUS in check? Congress, THE BOSS, can fire ‘em all! And should have done it long ago! Chief Justice John Marshall proved this assertion beyond all reasonable doubt in Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833) Marshall was pedantically incessant: “These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.” He reiterated this all through that short opinion.

Matthew J. Franck, Chairman And Associate Professor Of Political Science, Radford University before the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, January 29, 1998 continues this argument:

“Whatever uncertainty there might be about whether the First Amendment is gathered into the scope of judicial review, there is none whatever about the proposition that, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, it was intended to restrain only the national government and not the states or their subdivisions. And, among scholars who do not hold a prior commitment to judicial activism, a second proposition is virtually settled as well: that the Fourteenth Amendment changed nothing about that fact.” ( See Richard G. Stevens, ''Due Process of Law,'' in Stevens, The American Constitution and Its Provenance (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997), 123–42; Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1997), 155–89; and Berger, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1989).
If you have gotten this far without convulsing in anger, you will not survive what follows from a Libertarian, and thoroughly Constitutional perspective.

Congress was not granted the power to prevent the sovereign states from setting up a state religion or censoring certain speech. This does not mean that states have a "right" to censor speech, but it does mean that the federal government is powerless to interfere with state laws just because they are unjust. The Constitution was designed primarily to establish, and strictly limit the power of, a central government. The states already existed and had their own state constitutions, which, along with the political process within the states, are the primary means of placing limits on state government power. http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella11.html

FLAME ME AT THE STAKE! After you carefully consider what has been at stake.

h-bomb

16th December 2005, 11:27

Joe_Liberty

16th December 2005, 12:40

Sure sounds good to me I am so tird of the same old crap from both parties.
Keeping posting information thanks

What state are you in? Use http://www.constitutionparty.org/view_states.php to find your state contacts.

Will

16th December 2005, 05:31

Joe_Liberty

16th December 2005, 05:54

Just as a point of clarification to Will's post - keep in mind that President Clinton was impeached, as was Andrew Johnson. Impeachment and removal are two different things. The United States Senate is to blame for not removing Clinton. Andrew Johnson came within one vote of being removed from office after he was impeached.

Camp Director

16th December 2005, 06:48

Aero:

Very few people are aware that, according to the Constitution, Congress is more powerful than either the President or SC. They either think that there is a balance of power between all three branches or that the SC is the most powerful branch. With the way the modern three branches of government act, the SC might as well be the most powerful branch. Roe v. Wade is the premier example of their power.Will, I have to agree with this. I have been drawing the structure of government as a sideways pyramid for a long time. At the top is Congress where all legislative authority is vested. At the center point is the executive who can do nothing without the Congress and the judiciary is at the bottom because it is dependent on the executive for the appointment of its judges and to Congress for its budget, the establishment and disestablishment of the lower courts and how many members constitute and the extent of the jurisdiction, in most cases, of the Supreme Court.

As for exercising their power to remove by impeachment any member of the government, the only way Congress is inclined to attempt it is in cases like Clinton's perjury about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Enough senators decided that perjury is not an impeachable offense that Clinton remained in office his full term. How do you expect Congress to actually impeach a president or members of the SC for violating provisions of the Constitution???Well said. Of course Star didn't try Clinton on what should have been the real charge, i.e., providing technical assistance to the Chinese military.

The case of Johnson's impeachment is a lesson in the abuse of that power. He was impeached for violating the tenure of office act. This law was passed to allow Congress to run the executive branch by remote control via its surrogates in Johnson's/Lincoln's cabinet after Lincoln's assassination. Johnson tried to fire the dictatorial War secretary Edwin Stanton who Johnson inherited and didn't want or like. Congress, seeing that Johnson was not going to be a mere puppet, indicted him for violation this unconstitutional law which stripped the president of the power to name his own choices as cabinet department heads.

bluebird

16th December 2005, 10:07

I'm all for States having rights that Congress or the Federal government does not have. I've posted before that if individual states decide by majority opinion (vote) that that State should be a particular religion -- so be it. The state voters have decided. They should to a great degree be able to govern themselves. I take exception to a "King" (Executive) of the Federal Branch and issuing roundups for those who do not buy into his (or his political party's) religious or non-religious views. And, I agree with you, the ACLU all but runs the Judicial Branch...sadly. Americans need to wake up and take back the rights that are being eroded daily.

MAC

17th December 2005, 12:06

Camp Director

17th December 2005, 01:02

Am I correct that a community or state has the right to establish its own moral 'standards'? Such as adult bookstores, adult entertainment, dry or wet city or county.

This has always been my understanding. Sometimes this is unofficial 'community standards' or there are laws on the books because the community voted thus and so.Before the 14th amendment and the doctrine of incorporation, yes. After, no. The first amendment now protects pornography makers and sellers, foul mouth radio hosts and a host of other miscreants whose activities once were prohibited by local ordinance. No more. Uncle Sam knows better.

How does one make the point to 'libertarian' minded people that cannot understand that? They call it government control and that government has no business in it but this is what the people in the community want in their environment, or rather don't want.

Do others see this 'community standards' as unconstitutional or infringement? Or is it good?Good question. The answer is educating yourself on the historical and philosophical background of the subject and then engage in discussion over time. There are no instant "wins."

RRHeustisJr

19th December 2005, 11:28

Am I correct that a community or state has the right to establish its own moral 'standards'? Such as adult bookstores, adult entertainment, dry or wet city or county.

How does one make the point to 'libertarian' minded people that cannot understand that? They call it government control and that government has no business in it but this is what the people in the community want in their environment, or rather don't want.

Do others see this 'community standards' as unconstitutional or infringement? Or is it good?

Hi MAC,

Libertarians don't want government involved in these "moral" issues, whether it's the federal, state or local government. They want no governmental control whatsoever in these areas. That is their ultimate goal: total "hands off".

Constitutionalists don't want the federal government involved because the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to reign in these issues. However, once you have eliminated the question of the federal government, then you must analyze what type of policy to support with regard to state and/or local governments. This then begs the question as to whether someone believes in Biblical principles of civil government or antinomian libertarianism. Those who believe in Biblical principles of civil government realize that local governments have a total right and duty to protect people from immorality such as smut joints, prostitution, sodomy, etc.

You asked, "How does one make the point to 'libertarian' minded people that cannot understand that?" My answer would be that the libertarian will never subscribe to Biblical principles of civil government because libertarianism at its core is based upon a belief that man is God and therefore his law is supreme.

Those who wish to promote Biblical principles must appeal to those who believe in Biblical principles, and then also try to persuade those who don't subscribe to the notion of Biblical principles to adopt a belief that an individual issue will benefit that person's state of being in the contemporary political world. For instance, Christians can support bans against prostitution based solely upon Biblical reasons; however, Christians can also try to persuade non-Christians that a support of bans against prostitution will benefit non-Christians because of _pick-your-reasoning_.....

Reed R. Heustis, Jr. <><
{ http://www.constitutionalists.us }
{ http://www.reedheustis.com }
Los Angeles County Central Committee
California State Central Committee
American Independent Party (California's Constitution Party)
* = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * = * =

Joe_Liberty

11th January 2006, 08:33

The Constitution Party presidential poll has been restarted for January at
http://www.thenextprez.blogspot.com/
Michael Peroutka won last month, but he is way behind this month, so go and vote for him.

Joe_Liberty

13th January 2006, 10:43

It appears that you can listen to the show online at http://www.wssathelight1570am.com/

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Constitution Party of Georgia ricardodavis@constitutionparty.com

MEDIA ALERT: On Saturday January 14th, Woody Holmes, the host of
"Moral Issues & Concerns" radio talk show, will interview Ricardo
Davis, state chairman of the Constitution Party of Georgia. Holmes
will inquire about the party's efforts in 2006, "Moral Issues &
Concerns" can be heard on WSSA-AM 1570 in Morrow (covers south
metro-Atlanta) from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m.

Holmes wants to hear from listeners on the current issues of the day:
the US Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, illegal immigration
and amnesty, election reform, the Patriot Act and the Bill of Rights,
the War in the Middle East, ever expanding federal and state budgets,
and the continued loss of manufacturing and professional service jobs
under bipartisan trade and economic policies. To express your opinion
or ask a question of the guest call 404-361-1570 during the show.

Davis noted, "I look forward to a lively interview with Holmes. Every
week events underscore the urgent need to achieve the party's goals.
The party is building a foundation today to support candidates at the
state and local level that will work together toward those ends."

Davis continued, "Here's a quick example from the 'Trust, but Don't
Verify' file. Did you ever wonder why so-called pro-life groups would
be quick to support a judicial nominee that in three our of four
cases supported Roe v. Wade, the non-personhood of the baby in the
womb, and a woman's 'right' to abortion? Why supposedly pro-life news
commentators herald 'Samuel Alito Has Pro-Life History On Abortion As
Appeals Judge' yet make no mention that Judge Alito once voted to
strike down a ban on partial-birth abortion while an Appeals Court
judge? Or how 'Justice Sunday III' supporter Jerry Falwell expresses
his blind trust in G.W. Bush and he had not done his homework when
confronted with specifics about Alito's pro-abortion rulings? When
the so-called social conservatives are more concerned about
supporting the President's agenda than stopping abortion-on-demand in
America, it is past time for a new movement to raise up statesmen and
judges who will be unyielding and unapologetic about stopping the
gruesome practice that has claimed 50 million lives since 1973!

Moral Issues & Concerns talk show covers issues such as the Ten
Commandments and Civil Government, Abortion, Homosexuality, Humanism,
Evolution, Christian Persecution, The Re-Writing of History and many
more subjects of interest to the Christian community. For more
information about Moral Issues &Concerns radio talk show, visit the
One Nation Under God ministry web site at
http://www.onenationonegod.com/. You can request a cassette tape of
this one hour interview directly from the One Nation Under God
ministry.

The Constitution Party was formed to elect candidates at all levels
of government who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our
goal to limit the federal government to those functions enumerated in
the Constitutional and to restore American law to its Biblical
foundation. For more information about the Constitution Party of
Georgia see http://www.gaconstitutionparty.org.
--

Joe_Liberty

31st January 2006, 09:55

What's funny, is the fact that Jim oberweis pretty much remouthed the word that I had said. In this debate, which really didn't function like a normal debate should go, I answered EVERY question first. Never once did I have the opportunity to answer after the other candidates gave their answer to the questions. All four Rublican Candidate followed me in answering the question posed by one of the panelists. The had the obvious advantage to rebut me, but never really used it.

I will be posting an email out later that talkes more about it. What is the most important thing to realize that I was in the provervial lions den where it was 95-98% Republican and everyone there was in support of their particular candidate up front. However, almost without exception everyone stated that if Topinka gets the republican nomination which it looks very promising that she will, they will support my candidacy. Also, I overheard one republican tell another one, "Stufflebeam is the perfect candiddate to support!"

So regardless what was reported, God is in control and I believe He has called me to become Governor of Illinois.

Randall C. Stufflebeam
Gubernatorial Candidate
Constitution Party of Illinois

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Liberty [mailto:joe_liberty@yahoo.com]

Subject: Re: CP in the Chicago Sun Times

Here is the letter I sent to the Sun Times using the form at
http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html

Regarding your story, "Oberweis compares health care to Soviets," I doubt very much that candidates Randall Stufflebeam and Andy Martin said absolutely nothing during the debate. However, that is exactly the impression your coverage leaves. How are Illinois voters supposed to make an informed choice when you provide several paragraphs of coverage on the views of some candidates and none on the views of other candidates? In the article, you even give the position of Judy Topinka, who didn't even bother to show up. That is the least you could do for Stufflebeam and Martin who were present.

----- Original Message ----
From: TA Holmes <ricardodavis@constitutionparty.com>
To: cp-currentevents@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 8:27:39 PM
Subject: [cp-currentevents] CP in the Chicago Sun Times

The Constitution Party's Randy Stufflebeam got mentioned in this
story about the Illinois Governor's race debate held on Sunday
afternoon.

Chicago Sun Times
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/debate29.html

Eaglet

31st January 2006, 10:52

Joe Liberty and all,

The online poll at thenextprez.com (http://www.thenextprez.com/)has been reset, too.

The Constitution Party presidential poll has been restarted for January at
http://www.thenextprez.blogspot.com/
Michael Peroutka won last month, but he is way behind this month, so go and vote for him.

MAC

1st February 2006, 02:37

I have nothing against Ron Paul, per se, as he is one of the best congress critters in D.C., but why is he even on the list for CP canidates for president? He is a Libertarian cloaked with the GOP shield to get elected. He may have [somewhat] the same interests as the CP does regarding constitutional governing but he has no interest in the CP itself as a political party and it standing right.

Jim Gilchrist for CP presidential candidate? No. Not if he isn't in here with us NOW working to build the party! Is he going to be working to build the party today and for the next 2 years till nomination time in 2008?

We see the ride Judge Moore took.

I believe enough is enough of trying to find a "name brand' candidate! I thought the party had finally stopped that strategy and realised it is from our own we seek our candidates. I think the "name brands" have only used us for what they could get out of us for themselves. If they want to be the CP presidential candidate then they should already be in the party working to build it and then seek the nominations of the office they desire.

My two cents... for whatever it is worth.

Joe_Liberty

10th February 2006, 10:27

Right now Michael Peroutka is way behind Republican Ron Paul and tied with Republican Alan Keyes.

http://thenextprez.blogspot.com/

Eaglet

10th February 2006, 04:04

There is also a poll about prospective party nominees at http://www.thenextprez.com/ .

Eaglet

11th February 2006, 12:05

Here are a couple of more tidbits:

Here is another online presidential poll:
http://mychan.searchirc.com/efnet/conservative/

Third Party Watch is publishing information on third party candidates for the 2006 elections each day (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/07/new-feature-candidate-of-the-day/):
http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/ (http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/)

Joe_Liberty

17th February 2006, 04:01

Unfortunately, this poll requires you to register in order to vote, but I found the process free, quick, and easy. As of this writing Randy is leading with 9 out of 13 votes. - Joe

Dear Friends, Family and Fellow Constitutionalists,

In researching the internet as I frequently do, I came across a new poll located at the following link:

http://www.soapblox.net/chicago/showDiary.do?diaryId=1108

Although they have me listed in the poll "for completeness sake," I appreciate the fact that they have me listed. This is far better than many polls which have excluded me. It at least shows an attempt at being fair. Please let them know that you appreciate this as well.

Please go to the site and vote! Let's show them just how complete adding me to the poll really is.

Below is the text from the link. It's interesting to note that they listed only those who are most likely to be on the ballot in November. When you read up on the candidates, you will realize that I will be the only Pro-life, Pro-family, Pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-1st Amendment, etc., etc.. on the ballot.

Randall C. Stufflebeam

Gubernatorial Candidate

www.RunRandyRun.com

StufflebeamRC@RunRandyRun.com

Jeffrey Butler

26th February 2006, 11:54

The previous conversation regarding taxation has been here.

FredFlash

6th March 2006, 07:41

Will,Is not the individual states the people's State? Is not the constitution of that State the people's Constitution?

You have stated very strongly that Judge Moore was wrong. With all due respect, the people's 1901 Alabama Constitution of the State of Alabama clearly acknowledged the Sovereign, God Almighty in its 'law of the State'. If you read its Preamble it reads: [I]We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Does every Alabama Civil Servant have the authority to use his government position to promote his religion? Does the local dog catcher have the authority to paint verses of the Koran on his vehicle? Does a police officer have the authority to issue religious advice with his traffic tickets?

Fred

deskjockey

7th March 2006, 04:03

Does every Alabama Civil Servant have the authority to use his government position to promote his religion? Does the local dog catcher have the authority to paint verses of the Koran on his vehicle? Does a police officer have the authority to issue religious advice with his traffic tickets?

Fred Fred, I’m not familiar with Alabama statutes. But, in the case of Moore the answer is yes, the statute did in fact give him solely that duty as top officer of the court. And let me ask, do you know what religion Moore is. I assume he is probably Muslim because they teach the 10 commandments. But then he could actually be Jewish, because the 10 Commandments seem to have some origin with Jews. Do you have something against Muslims and Jews? Anyway, I suspect the AL statutes probably don’t let every civil servant have that authority, but then that is merely a guess. In my state you can not even hold a givernment job unless you publicly profess your Christian faith and state you are a member of the Protestant Church (NC). Now I’m not saying they enforce the law, I’m merely stating what it is.

You know AL really isn’t that bad after all. Alabama 1901, Preamble, “We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution....” Who knows maybe this Moore character read the Constitution and merely fulfilled his job obligation with the Preamble in mind. You just never know what people are thinking. Maybe he was making a run for higher office and thought this was the ticket for notoriety. Who is to know what is going on in his head. Of course he could be promoting Islam as you consider. What I do suspect is that the dog catcher isn’t authorized to promote anything but dogs.

FredFlash

7th March 2006, 04:27

Dear deskjockey:

If you are not familiar with Alabama statutes, then how do you know that an Alabama statute did in fact give Roy Moore the authority you claim he had?

Roy Moore's religion is Governmentalism. He believes that the government has authority over religion.

Show me the North Carolina law that says you can not even hold a givernment job unless you publicly profess your Christian faith and state you are a member of the Protestant Church (NC).

*************************

North Carolina Constitution Of 1776 Did Not Favor Or Support Christianity

The religious test in the North Carolina Constitution of 1776 was not obtained from the consent of the governed. For that reason it was never enforced.

The 1776 test supposedly excluded Non-Protestants. However, Nathaniel Macon, a Deist, served in the State Senate in 1781, 1782, and 1784 and was elected in 1785 to the Continental Congress but declined to serve. He served 16 years as a Representative to the U. S. Congresses and was Speaker of the House of Representatives during the Seventh through Ninth Congresses. In December 1815 he was elected U. S. Senator. He was elected President of the North Carolina Constitutional Convention of 1835 and there gave a speech declaring that if a Hindu were to come to and aspire to an office to which merit would entitle him; his religion should not be a bar.

The avowed Deist Christopher Dudley served seven times as State Senator from Onslow County. Source of Information: W. E. Dodd, "The Role of Nathaniel Macon in Southern History' American Historical Review, Vll, p. 665.

Jacob Henry, a Jew, was elected to the North Carolina House of Commons in 1808. Source of Information: Debates of North Carolina Constitutional Convention of 1835 Pages 264-305.

Thomas Burke, a Catholic, served for three years (1779-1781) as a member of the Continental Congress from North Carolina and in 1781 was elected Governor of the State. Source of Information: Debates of North Carolina Constitutional Convention of 1835 Pages 270- 271.

William Gaston was a Catholic and was elected to the State Senate in 1799 and the House of Delegates in 1808 where he was chosen to be the Speaker of the House. From 1813 till 1815 Gaston was a Representative to the U. S. Congress and in 1834 became a Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. On 1840 he declined an offer to be a U. S. Senator.

Infidels had been members of each branch of the General Assembly according to delegate Judge Toomer at the Convention of 1835. Source of Information: Debates of Convention of 1835, 271-272.

View Debates of Convention of 1835 at http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/connor08/connor08.html

deskjockey

7th March 2006, 11:08

Dear deskjockey:

If you are not familiar with Alabama statutes, then how do you know that an Alabama statute did in fact give Roy Moore the authority you claim he had? Fred, the Moore guy came to my attention around the time of the court house scandal. I had listened to some legal scholars in AL debate the legal aspects of the case, and apparently they seemed to agree that the statute provided for the chief justice to decorate the court house. So that is how he got involved in doing whatever he pleased.

Roy Moore's religion is Governmentalism. He believes that the government has authority over religion. Fred, I can’t speak to another man’s beliefs, in this case Moore. However, I can understand your position and basis for such. But I think we must distinguish between federal and state givernment. Roy was officer of a state court not a federal court. For sure if it was a federal court, I’d been the first in line to get him impeached. But, I believe if his state demands everybody in AL must be Muslim then that is up to the voters of his state. If they don’t like the proposal I’m sure they’ll impeach him. But it is the Federal givernment that is bound by the Federal Constitution not the State Constitutions that our bound by the Federal Constitution, except to those enumerated powers surrendered. No respecter of religion was a Federal issue demanded by states to protect state religions and I cite NC specifically below.

Show me the North Carolina law that says you can not even hold a givernment job unless you publicly profess your Christian faith and state you are a member of the Protestant Church (NC). 1776, XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nc07.htm

FredFlash

7th March 2006, 11:58

Fred, the Moore guy came to my attention around the time of the court house scandal. I had listened to some legal scholars in AL debate the legal aspects of the case, and apparently they seemed to agree that the statute provided for the chief justice to decorate the court house. So that is how he got involved in doing whatever he pleased.

Fred, I can’t speak to another man’s beliefs, in this case Moore. However, I can understand your position and basis for such. But I think we must distinguish between federal and state givernment. Roy was officer of a state court not a federal court. For sure if it was a federal court, I’d been the first in line to get him impeached. But, I believe if his state demands everybody in AL must be Muslim then that is up to the voters of his state. If they don’t like the proposal I’m sure they’ll impeach him. But it is the Federal givernment that is bound by the Federal Constitution not the State Constitutions that our bound by the Federal Constitution, except to those enumerated powers surrendered. No respecter of religion was a Federal issue demanded by states to protect state religions and I cite NC specifically below.

1776, XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nc07.htm

Does the authority to decorate the court house include the authority to violate the law of the land and trespass upon the jurisdiction of God?

The Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to the States just like the House of Representatives intended it to do back in 1789.

Are you claiming that the provision you cited from the 1776 North Carolina Constitution is still in the N. C. Constitution?

Fred

deskjockey

8th March 2006, 02:05

Does the authority to decorate the court house include the authority to violate the law of the land and trespass upon the jurisdiction of God? Your questions affirm your premise. However, my guess is that the authority to decorate the court house probably did not give him an authority to violate “the” law. Of course the issue was, did he violate a law, or was he merely a victim of G W Bush. Regarding was his decoration authority permitted to trespass upon the jurisdiction of God, I can’t answer having not seen the statute nor even being aware that the AL court was a Covenant court and not a civil court.

The Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to the States just like the House of Representatives intended it to do back in 1789. I understand that there is what is known as the “living document” crowd that has taken an extremely expansive view of this amendment and everything else in the Constitution rendering worthless paper. If you search these threads, there is excellent commentary on the topic relating specifically to the 14th expansion. Never the less, even taking an expansive view, let us follow through to its conclusion. The First Amendment says specifically, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Notice the key words, “make no law”, “prohibiting”, “free exercise”. Under an expansive interpretation, the States also can make “no law” “prohibiting” so why are they prohibiting? The Bush deal shrewdly required the State, not feds, boot Moore. But under the expansive use, certainly the states also can make no law on religion. Yet when understanding “intent”, they mostly had done so with State religions and I mentioned the NC Constitution.

Are you claiming that the provision you cited from the 1776 North Carolina Constitution is still in the N. C. Constitution? Fred Don’t think I made the claim nor is it really germane to the topic. But to answer your question, it has been changed by removing the Protestant denomination test. Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

But to get to the real issue, I have argued, and I think ably that our Constitution is not a Covenant document but a nomocratic instrument. Reread the thread and my postings and Steve's. I state that we are formed as a Christian nation and that is precisely why this civil document (non Covenant) should be nomocratic.

I think where we may disagree is the claim that we are not founded as a Christian nation. And that is quickly debunked by the Mayflower Compact. Even if everybody became an atheist a day later, the purpose and intent was established in the document of intent.

The problem we have, as stated by maybe half our members, is that they want the Constitution changed to a Covenant document or believe it already is one.

FredFlash

8th March 2006, 02:55

Dear deskjockey:

What is a Covenant court?

If the Constitution is not a “living document” capable of growing and adapting should we give back the Louisiana Purchase and abolish the Air Force?

Roy Moore made up the law that authorized him to establish the duty which the people of Alabama owe to the Creator. Make no law means make no law legally or illegally.

What is you concept of a nomocratice instrument?

What exactly is you idea of a Christian nation?

Did the Mayflower Compact establish the system of government of the United States?

Fred

deskjockey

10th March 2006, 12:25

Dear deskjockey:

What is a Covenant court? Again, I am going to suggest you consider reading some of the other threads regarding much writing on this topic, especially by your friend Scott who is quite brilliant on the topic. There are two types of governments or Constitutions, nomocratic and teliocratic. A Covenant givernment being teliocratic is one that starts out, “God said” to his people, you shall. In such a form of givernment the courts are basically church law. We have this today in AmeriKa in the Catholic Church. The big issue over the homo scandal for that church was they had treated it as a covenant court issue not a civil court issue and therefore handled these things in house with Church trained lawyers in the church law not necessarily our civil law. The Pope told Bush to take a hike when they met and Bush said do something about the homo problem. For 2,000 years they believed they were apart and separate, actually superior to any civil court. Bush was not registering.

I think I may have provided legal theory of Thomas Jefferson regarding the issue of Covenant Church and civil law earlier in this thread when he studied British law that dealt specifically with the hierarchy of the two courts. Now if AL has a constitution that is Covenant and starts out, God says, you shall, then the state courts are a Covenant court. And although many state Constitution’s preamble start out mentioning God, honoring God, setting up givernment to his purposes or whatever else they might say, they still don’t start out, God said, but rather some form of we the people, in format. Even the religious test of NC being Protestant is still not the same as God said thou shall.

If the Constitution is not a “living document” capable of growing and adapting should we give back the Louisiana Purchase and abolish the Air Force? These are false alternatives. You might read the “living document” speech of Scalia given a couple months ago. To put it simply, a living document is no document. To your false alternatives, do you have a living mortgage on your house where the bank raises you rates whenever they get the whim? Do you have a living wage at work, to be lowered when your boss “feels” it is in the best interest of the shareholders. Do you have a living marriage, where your wife sleeps with your friends on weekends. The LA purchase was not done with the consent of Congress, no different then the IRAQ war was, nor half of the other things that are done. It is not a good example of living document, it is an example of tyranny and a total usurpation of the document. A living document is basically when you take the simple meaning of the words or the intent and give them new meanings. When you have two hundred years of stare decisis of “shall make no law” regarding religion to become separation of church and state which then has morphed into a hostility to anything Christian, you have living document behavior.

Roy Moore made up the law that authorized him to establish the duty which the people of Alabama owe to the Creator. Make no law means make no law legally or illegally. I’m not sure what you are saying in the first sentence. What law did he make up? The second sentence is not applicable to AL, but to the Federal Constitution. States have always reserved the right to make religious laws. We still have a huge amount of blue laws, many no longer enforced. As I have shown, NC still has a law of religious test. It is the Federal Givernment that can make no religious law, not the state.

What is you concept of a nomocratice instrument? Our Constitution is the perfect example. It tells us nothing. There is no, you must or you will, laws of morality or behavior. It is merely an operational document of how the Feds will function. A teliocratic, by contrast would have civil law, the you