What is the Constitution Party strategy?

Simply put, our strategy is to grow to win. We have the ideals, the platform, and the message to restore Constitutional government, and we need only greater numbers to achieve this goal. Our current emphasis is on building state parties and on organizing activism at the local level in all 50 states. The national leadership of the Constitution Party is committed to providing tools at the local and state level, including instruction manuals, candidate-training seminars and “in the field” assistance. Properly equipped candidates will get our message out and win races.

This electoral season, we have very good prospects for winning some major races across the country. The Constitution Party and its affiliates are preparing the best field of candidates yet, and are expecting to run the best-funded, best-organized, best-publicized campaigns our party has ever run.

What are the differences among all the parties?

The bottom line of any political party’s platform is its philosophy of what the role of government should be. Both major parties legislate as if government is omnipotent and can solve all problems. As a result, our federal government has become immensely more powerful and more centralized, and many Americans have become more and more dependent on government, especially the federal government, in almost every aspect of their lives.

The Constitution Party is the only party that both acknowledges the sovereignty of God and is committed to returning our country to government under the Constitution.

The Constitution Party affirms the original Constitutional framework of federalism (sovereign states) and separation of powers, and calls for the repeal of all laws and the abolition of all government programs not authorized by the Constitution. Other parties call for reducing the size of government, but none of them are committed to Constitutional principles per se.

The Constitution Party will hold candidates elected to office accountable to the platform. Other parties allow candidates to act contrary to their platform and suffer no consequences.

The Constitution Party has not, nor will ever, take funds from the government, believing such actions to be unconstitutional. The two major parties advocate campaign finance reform yet take money from taxpayers who may not agree with their platform.

The Constitution Party intends to repeal the federal income tax and cut enough spending to operate the government without it. Furthermore, the Constitution Party supports a tariff-based revenue system, as envisioned by the Founders and authorized in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Other parties propose cosmetic tax reductions or other kinds of confiscatory taxation, like a “flat tax,” to continue to fund the bloated federal government. Other parties are also uniformly hostile to tariffs and duties, and support the entanglement of the United States in various agreements to eliminate tariffs and to open our borders under regional or global authorities like NAFTA and the WTO.

Don’t we already have a conservative party?

Taxing and Spending – Both Republicans and Democrats continue to expand the power, size, and cost of the federal government. Both major parties pay lip service to smaller government, but because neither party believes in Constitutional government, their promises have little substance.

Right to Life – Although the Republican platform purports to be pro-life, the GOP gives financial support to candidates who favor even the most heinous form of abortion, so-called “partial birth abortion.” Being pro-life is increasingly optional in the upper echelons of the GOP, as Republican leaders who claim to be pro-life campaign on behalf of Republicans who support abortions without limitations.

National Sovereignty – Both parties have supported weapons treaties and alliances which severely damage U.S. security. Communist China has been rewarded for its hostility towards the U.S., which has included espionage and threats of nuclear war, with Permanent Normal Trade Relations status.

There has been no significant opposition to activity in UN operations where U.S. forces are under foreign command. Both parties approved payment of billions of dollars in alleged UN debts. President Bush made a show of defying the UN Security Council prior to the invasion of Iraq, but he repeatedly cited previous UN Security Council resolutions as his ultimate authority for going to war. The current Republican administration, all rhetoric to the contrary, is fully committed to continued membership in international organizations like the UN, the WTO, and regional trade blocs like NAFTA and the planned FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). All of these organizations severely curtail American sovereignty, and are intended by their promoters as steps toward regional and world government – notions which are completely incompatible with American independence.

Judicial Appointments – Roe v. Wade (1973), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992 – strengthened Roe), and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000 – overturned laws against partial birth abortion) were all decided with large majorities of judges appointed by Republican presidents on the Supreme Court. Republicans have given little more than lip service to appointing judges who will uphold the Constitution; only one Clinton appointee out of 374 was rejected by the Senate. President Bush’s recent Supreme Court appointees have yet to be tested on issues like abortion, but some of their past rulings suggest that they, like many other Republican appointees, may turn out to be much less conservative than advertised.

Gun Control – All campaign rhetoric to the contrary, the Republican majority in Congress has done little to counteract the erosion of the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.

Education – Both parties continue to drastically increase the budget of the Department of Education, a department that has no constitutional legitimacy whatsoever. One of the more prominent features of President Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” has been a renewed emphasis on federal involvement in education, as showcased in the “No Child Left Behind” program.

Why not reform the GOP instead of forming a new party?

The GOP has no intention of restoring Constitutional government – No matter how pleasing the rhetoric of the latest GOP conservative running for office, restoration of constitutional government is not part of the party platform, nor is it on the GOP agenda in Washington. Most federal departments, agencies, and regulatory authorities operate unconstitutionally, because they are involved in activities not authorized by the Constitution. The GOP platform often opposes aspects of unconstitutional government, but does not embrace the comprehensive principle of reducing the federal government to within Constitutional limits.

Hundreds of government programs exist to help politicians reward and strengthen their supporters. Republican officeholders are no different from any others in taking advantage of such programs. Using programs like matching campaign contributions, politicians of both parties force citizens (via taxation) to support their own campaigns. They also reward organizations like universities and other selected non-governmental institutions with government monies, because their activities help support political agendas. This means that hundreds of billions of dollars in research grants, subsidies, and other forms of federal largesse help to purchase votes and political leverage. Only by reducing the federal government to within Constitutionally-defined limits will we put an end to such graft and influence-peddling.

The GOP leadership is committed to “moderation,” not genuine reform – Those Republicans who sincerely desire reform are never placed in party leadership positions. GOP conservatives in Washington always come up against a glass ceiling, and find themselves excluded from committee chair positions and other influential posts in Congress.

The national party leadership typically confers endorsements and financial support on so-called “moderate” candidates, often working actively to sabotage the campaigns of genuine conservatives supported by the grassroots.

The GOP is completely unwilling to nominate a constitutionalist for President, a key office responsible for many policy decisions and the appointment of numerous other influential individuals.

Compromise is Standard Operating Procedure – With its “big tent” philosophy, the GOP has become a house divided against itself, the agenda of the national party leaders being completely at odds with the beliefs of many in the grassroots. The GOP is composed of people on both sides of definitive issues like abortion, special rights for homosexuals, and entitlements for big corporations, with liberal postures on such issues usually dominant in the ranks of party leadership. Both the Republican-led Congress and recent Republican presidencies have been a net loss for conservative constitutionalists.

Can a new party win?

History Says “Yes” – The Republican Party was itself a “third party” in 1854 when it was founded. In 1856 it was defeated with John C. Fremont as its first presidential candidate. Just four years later, however, the Republicans defeated the incumbent party, the Whigs, running a man named Abraham Lincoln. In a four-way race, Lincoln won the electoral college vote and the presidency despite not being in the ballot in nine states and receiving only 38% of the popular vote (by comparison, Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992 with a paltry 43% of the popular vote). In 1992, the Constitution Party (then called the U.S. Taxpayers Party) secured ballot access in 21 states. In 1996, the USTP gained ballot access in 39 states, representing 80% of Electoral College votes. In 2000, the Constitution Party gained access in 41 states.

Voters Say “Yes” – Surveys show a steady, 15-year increase in the public’s desire for a third party. Three separate, independent surveys [footnote: Vanishing Voter Project, Harvard University, 12/1999, Rasmussen Research, www.portraitofamerica.com, 3/2000. John Zogby International, 9/1999] reveal that 40% or more of the public would consider voting third party. The question is not “Will there be a viable third party?” but “Will the third party that emerges be one that represents genuine conservatives and constitutionalists?” In a presidential race with more than three candidates, one third of the vote can mean victory. Meanwhile, promising campaigns coast to coast promise to place CP candidates in state legislatures and, before long, in Congress.

Will I waste my vote?

In 1996, 2000, and 2004, millions of principled conservatives did not vote because they did not care for either of the major candidates. Therefore, the conservative vote is already split between the Republican Party and those who will not vote for a “moderate.”

A person’s vote is truly wasted when he does not use it to express his genuine beliefs. Politicians think they have a mandate when they are actually perceived as the lesser of two evils. A ballot cast without holding one’s nose is the noblest possible exercise of the voting franchise.

The major parties offer a choice between driving our country over the cliff at 50 miles per hour or 70 miles per hour. If the fear of voting for a third party is not overcome, there will never be hope for change or for a genuine choice besides the lesser of two evils. A vote for the Constitution Party is a vote for the Constitution and an investment in the restoration of the country.

The United States of America was founded in the belief that people are accountable to God for the principles they stand for and the people they elect to office. As George Washington said at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, “If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.”

More concern with winning and maintaining power than in standing by principle has resulted in compromise by those in office and by those electing them. It is time to do what is right and leave the results to God.

Why are some state party names different?

In 1992, a coalition of independent state political parties united to form the U.S. Taxpayer Party. Since then, the other 50 states have built state parties and some have adopted the national party name. At its convention in 1999, the national party changed its name to the Constitution Party, in order to reflect the full breadth of its concerns. Most states have since changed to “Constitution Party,” but several, including the California American Independent Party, the Nevada Independent American Party, and the Connecticut Concerned Citizens Party, have kept their original names.