Tuesday, October 07, 2008

How the Constitution Party Destroys Our Constitutional Rights

When I first decided to run for Congress in 2002, I had to decide whether I would run with the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. As a Christian, I like the fact that the Constitution Party attempts to honor Jesus Christ and the Bible. The Libertarian Party does not make any attempt to do this.

But after closely comparing the two party platforms, I became convinced that the Libertarian Party Platform more effectively advanced Christian principles than the Constitution Party Platform.

I believe Ayn Rand was a more effective opponent of socialism than Sarah Palin is, even though Palin is openly Christian and Rand was openly atheist. I believe an atheistic libertarian can be a more effective advocate of Christian social principles than a "Christian Democrat" or a "Christian Socialist," even if the latter claim to be Christian and the former does not.

When a political party explicitly claims to be Christian, it assumes a higher level of responsibility. It postures publicly in a way that non-Christian parties do not.

I despise "televangelists" who are unethical manipulators and fraudulent charlatans and cheat the poor in the name of Christ much more than I dislike atheists like Ayn Rand for unwarranted attacks on true religion. The damage done by the former is much greater than the damage done by the latter.

If a party claims to be Christian and advocates "liberation theology" or "socialism" of any kind, it advocates violence which is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

To be sure, a vote for the Constitution Party is (in my opinion, and generally speaking) more Christian than a vote for a Democrat or a Republican. But because of some significant flaws in the CP party platform, flaws which I believe are completely unChristian, I chose not to align with the Constitution Party, precisely because it holds itself out as Christian. (Never mind the irony that these flaws also make the Constitution Party unconstitutional on these points as well.)

Here are a few of my issues with the Constitution Party.

Imagine that you and I are next-door neighbors. We don't even have a fence separating our properties. We home school our kids together. Our families attend cultural events like concerts and games together. We have Bar-B-Ques together. We're almost like one big happy family.

Now imagine that I have a small business that I run out of my basement. It's becoming very profitable and I can hardly keep up with it. So I say to you, "Hey, you, how would you like to quit your present job and work with me in my business. I can pay you 2 or 3 times more than you're earning now." You accept my offer to work with me on my private property to feed your family.

There are at least three different facts that I can add to this hypothetical scenario that the Constitution Party says will warrant them sending armed, jackbooted federal thugs into my basement to initiate violence against us, arrest us both, and lock us in a federal prison to be sodomized by a psychopath. In each case the Constitution Party policy is both unChristian and -- ironically -- unconstitutional.

1. Immigration
Although you and I have chosen not to build a fence between our private property, the Constitution Party would impose a fence between us if I happen to live on the Mexican "border" and you happen to live on the U.S. "border." Even though our Creator gave us unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of profit in a small business run out of my basement, the Constitution Party would deny us those God-given rights.

I believe the Bible places a very high value on treating immigrants with the same level of justice and protection of rights as citizens. The Constitution Party does not. The entire concept of an "illegal immigrant" is entirely unconstitutional, as the Constitution gives the government no power to restrict the God-given rights to travel, work, or associate.

Doesn't the Constitution Party believe that rights come from God, and not from government? Yet they deny these rights to human beings created in the Image of God if they are fleeing a despotic government and the current federal government of the U.S. does not want them to enjoy these rights.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to deny me the right to associate with you or hire you, even if you're from Mexico. The federal government has no constitutional authority to deny you the right to access my private property, even if you're from Mexico. There were no passports in America before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

The Constitution Party is completely unChristian and unBiblical in its anti-immigrant position. The Bible says we are to affirmatively support immigrants. The Constitution Party is hostile to immigrants unless the the current lawless and atheistic federal government gives them permission to exercise their God-given rights. This issue alone made me choose the Libertarian Party.

The Constitution Party is closer to the Nazi Party than to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on this issue.

2. Drugs
Suppose the business I operate in my basement is selling medical marijuana. The Constitution Party would have federal SWAT teams invade my home, just after they finished invading Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's residence. The Constitution Party would sentence Peter McWilliams to death. The Constitution Party would impose unbearable pain on 17 year-old Owen Beck. None of this strikes me as particularly "Christian." All of it is as completely unconstitutional as the banning of alcohol was before the 18th Amendment to the Constitution (and is after the 21st).

Drug abuse is a spiritual problem, not a military SWAT-team problem. Nor is it a federal problem.

Note: I don't like "recreational drugs." I've never used them, never been in possession of them. Ever. While I promote Christian charity toward "illegal" aliens, I do not promote recreational drug use. But neither one of them should be criminalized by the federal government.

3. Pornography
Suppose the business I have going in my basement is the publication of a Christian marriage manual. It is pro-heterosexual and very frank. It isn't a "Little Miss Dotty Dimple" book, but is a little bit edgy, quoting from the Biblical book of the Song of Solomon. The book is not just pro-heterosexual marriage, but anti-homosexual. You and I have been guests on Dr. Dobson's program, Focus on the Family to talk about the book.

Now suppose that you and I are next-door neighbors in San Francisco. Homosexual activists have vandalized our homes because of our business. In a clever legal strategy, the ACLU has filed a suit against us to ban our book as "pornographic" and in violation of "community standards." The jury of homosexuals votes against us.

The Constitution Party supports giving the government the power to decide what is or is not "pornography" and what is "obscene." This government power carries with it the power to declare the Bible to be "pornographic." Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government any such power. This is more evidence that the Constitution Party is more "conservative" than Constitutional. More "conservative" than Christian.

I don't defend pornography. I can't say that I've never laid eyes on pornography, because I consider the lingerie ads in the Los Angeles Times to be pornographic. What I can say is that locking a pornographer in prison with a sociopath is not Christian. And all federal laws against pornography are unconstitutional.

These are just three reasons why I began my "political career" as a Libertarian; three reasons why I chose not to run as a Constitution Party candidate.

The Constitution Party has no future. It is as doomed as an "Articles of Confederation Party" would be. The Constitution is dead meat. The federal government is not -- in any meaningful sense -- observing the Constitution any more. Probably a majority of all political scientists would agree that we are no longer a "Constitutional Republic" under the Constitution of 1787, but we are an "Administrative State." Not a single person who signed the Constitution would say the Constitution has any relevance to what goes on in Washington D.C. Every single one of the Signers of the Constitution would take steps to abolish it and the tyrannical government whose existence the Constitution failed to prevent, despite its vaunted "checks and balances."

The Constitution Party believes that 95% of the federal budget is unconstitutional and should be cut. Great. But
• given the fact that virtually nobody in America knows anything at all about the Constitution or cares anything about it, and
• given the fact that the next item on the agenda of America's ruling class is to abolish the United States completely,
are we really going to get 95% of the federal budget cut by appealing to that old, outdated, archaic Constitution?

I don't think so.

I think the Constitution Party is sentimental and backward-looking.

I think we need a forward-looking movement. I think the next step in the progress that began with the American Revolution is to once again abolish the government over the American colonies, and this time, not replace it.

It was scandalous for America's Founding Fathers to think they could abolish the British rule over the colonies. It was even more scandalous to propose a government with no king at all. In a world full of kings, a nation with no king, based on "the consent of the governed," was as forward-looking as humanly possible at that time.

But more progress is now possible. The logic of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" suggests that there is no need for Washington D.C. in any area of social life and organization. There is no legitimate social function that must be performed by a government monopoly, and cannot be performed at a lower cost with higher quality by competing organizations in a Free Market.

It is this vision of "Liberty Under God" which can compete against the "Administrative State." This vision will attract more voters than the idea of going back to "three branches of government" in Washington D.C. America's future lies in traditional family values, and un-traditional social liberty.

• This vision of "Liberty Under God" is threatened less by individual homosexuals than by "conservative" Republicans who want "No Child Left Behind" in learning atheistic immorality in government schools.
• This vision is threatened less by pornographers and more by church-goers who support a "national security state" and the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent children in the Middle East.
• This vision is threatened less by dope-smoking losers and more by the shock-troops of the "War on Drugs."
• This vision is threatened less by hard-working immigrant families leaving a drug-cartel government in search of employment and more by anti-immigrant federal fence-builders and an armed migra.

My vision of a Christian libertarian theocracy is advanced more by the Libertarian Party than the Constitution Party. Adoption of the entire libertarian program will do far more to make America a Christian nation again than adopting the Constitution Party platform.


If there's any reason why you cannot in good conscience vote for Kevin Craig, the Libertarian Party candidate for Congress, then you should certainly vote for Travis Maddox, the Constitution Party candidate, rather than either candidate for the two major parties.


The Myth of "Constitutional Rights"

No comments: