GOP poops on Ryan plan

[compshmoe]

thats all.....

 

[frank mathews]

compshmoe = TROLL

 

[shagdrum]

 

[compshmoe]

just no spin hard facts, short and to the point, seems Ryans "roadmap" found itself a few potholes.

 

[Calabrio]

Could you provide at least one specific to comment on?
I don't think I'm being overly critical in saying this thread is a bit vague and simplistic.

 

[compshmoe]

Could you provide at least one specific to comment on?
I don't think I'm being overly critical in saying this thread is a bit vague and simplistic.

Oh, sorry, I thought you watched the news, or the subject line was self explanatory, well it seems roughly 80% of all americans disagree with the plan and now Republicans are running away from many parts of it.
http://quickhits.tumblr.com/post/5219123201/ryan-plan-flops-republicans-dither
http://griperblade.blogspot.com/2011/05/ryan-plan-flops-republicans-dither.html
http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/along-97261-kool-america.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/senate-gop-abandons-ryan-plans-medicare-changes/
http://dccc.org/blog/entry/another_...over_house_republicans_voting_to_end_medicar/

 

[Calabrio]

Oh, sorry, I thought you watched the news

I must have missed the story about the GOP defecating on a set of plans. You'd have thought that might have been the lead story.

or the subject line was self explanatory,

It explained a bit about you, that was about it..

well it seems roughly 80% of all americans disagree with the plan and now Republicans are running away from many parts of it.

So you're saying that change and that some elements of a plan that was designed to start debate isn't uniformly, whole heartedly supported by either the public or establishment career politicians in the GOP.

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[shagdrum]

This guy actually makes Johnny look intelligent!

I didn't think that was possible!

 

[compshmoe]

I must have missed the story about the GOP defecating on a set of plans. You'd have thought that might have been the lead story.


It explained a bit about you, that was about it..


So you're saying that change and that some elements of a plan that was designed to start debate isn't uniformly, whole heartedly supported by either the public or establishment career politicians in the GOP.

Thanks for stopping by.

start debate ? In a debate there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, when this crap plan was announced it was described as a line in which there was no backing down, UNTIL, they got theis asses handed to them in townhall meetings, now they come back and the rats jump ship, TO THE POINT that they write the white house a letter asking the president to stop putting down the plan and focus to whats important, in other words, let this go pleeease or we're gonna take our plan and sit in the corner and pout !!!

 

[compshmoe]

corporate swine

 

[shagdrum]

UNTIL, they got theis asses handed to them in townhall meetings

Back that claim up.

Oh, and ONE instance of Paul Ryan being booed does not constituted "having theis asses handed to them in townhall meetingS".

It is utterly amazing your double standard here. You have chastised others for not being able to look beyond mere propaganda but ALL you EVER do is regurgitate the tired liberal cliches/lies spouted by media matters, KOS, etc. and demonstrate a profound LACK of ANY actual understanding of what you are talking about or the positions you are demonizing.

 

[shagdrum]

...well it seems roughly 80% of all americans disagree with the plan and now Republicans are running away from many parts of it.

Where are you getting the 80% figure?

I have no doubt that is either a lie, a biased poll or you are too stupid and/or dishonest to accurately interpret the poll in question.

Most polls that estimate "all americans" (as opposed to registered voters or, more accurately, likely voters) are utterly worthless anyway.

 

[compshmoe]

Where are you getting the 80% figure?

I have no doubt that is either a lie, a biased poll or you are too stupid and/or dishonest to accurately interpret the poll in question.

Most polls that estimate "all americans" (as opposed to registered voters or, more accurately, likely voters) are utterly worthless anyway.

READ http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8183.pdf

 

[compshmoe]

Back that claim up.

Oh, and ONE instance of Paul Ryan being booed does not constituted "having theis asses handed to them in townhall meetingS".

It is utterly amazing your double standard here. You have chastised others for not being able to look beyond mere propaganda but ALL you EVER do is regurgitate the tired liberal cliches/lies spouted by media matters, KOS, etc. and demonstrate a profound LACK of ANY actual understanding of what you are talking about or the positions you are demonizing.

back it up as in.....the links I placed above a few comments ago???

double standards.... as in pointing out the fact that republicans say one thing, then do the total opposite? Is this propaganda or facts: republicans ran on creating jobs and they have not done one single thing to create jobs instead they attack the same old divisive ideological crap: abortion, gay marriage, union rights, tax break for the wealthy.....those aren't lies from the left or liberal cliches, those are facts in writting and on tape, Florida alone passed 18 different anti abortion laws this month. 16 other republican controlled states are all following the same playbook.

It's no strange coincidence that most of the people that are publicly defining marriage and moral rights and anti gay are republicans that later we find were cheating in their marriages, had gay lovers, and have more skeletons in the closet than Michael Jackson.

 

[shagdrum]

back it up as in.....the links I placed above a few comments ago???

And what evidence do they offer to back up your claim?

There has been a lot of hooting about ONE instance in which Paul Ryan was booed in the leftist blogosphere but it is still only ONE instance. Nevermind the fact that he got a STANDING OVATION at another one and called out a leftist at yet another town hall for astroturfing his events to create the illusion of strong opposition where there is none.

I know you like to ignore facts when it is convenient, but the TRUTH is that the left is blowing ONE instance WAAAAY out of proportion in an attempt to mislead and give the FALSE appearance of massive opposition in townhalls like Obamacare go in the late summer of 2009. As expected, you are mindlessly echoing that lie but can't actually defend it yourself. You really need to pull your head out of the left wing blogosphere and into the real world once and a while.

As to your personal double standards, your response was nothing but a dodge and an indirect admission that what I said was true; that you do have a double standard here. Instead of trying to show that you were did not double standard (or even simply denying the charge), your response was to try change the subject and justify your double standards though a childish "you too" argument. Just so you know, that is FALSE reasoning called Tu Quoque.

As to the polls, the ONLY one that supports your 80% claim is an ABC/WaPo poll. However, as is typical with their polls the sample is HIGHLY skewed, making the poll utterly worthless. Also, as presented by the biased articles you cite, the poll asks a loaded and misleading question. Ryan's plan does NOT "privatize" anything.

In fact, almost ANY poll involving ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, CNN or the AP uses skewed sampling. Really, the most reliable polling out there for a long time has been Rasmussen and your poll of polls conveniently ignored them.

 

[compshmoe]

And what evidence do they offer to back up your claim?

There has been a lot of hooting about ONE instance in which Paul Ryan was booed in the leftist blogosphere but it is still only ONE instance. Nevermind the fact that he got a STANDING OVATION at another one and called out a leftist at yet another town hall for astroturfing his events to create the illusion of strong opposition where there is none.

I know you like to ignore facts when it is convenient, but the TRUTH is that the left is blowing ONE instance WAAAAY out of proportion in an attempt to mislead and give the FALSE appearance of massive opposition in townhalls like Obamacare go in the late summer of 2009. As expected, you are mindlessly echoing that lie but can't actually defend it yourself. You really need to pull your head out of the left wing blogosphere and into the real world once and a while.

As to your personal double standards, your response was nothing but a dodge and an indirect admission that what I said was true; that you do have a double standard here. Instead of trying to show that you were did not double standard (or even simply denying the charge), your response was to try change the subject and justify your double standards though a childish "you too" argument. Just so you know, that is FALSE reasoning called Tu Quoque.

As to the polls, the ONLY one that supports your 80% claim is an ABC/WaPo poll. However, as is typical with their polls the sample is HIGHLY skewed, making the poll utterly worthless. Also, as presented by the biased articles you cite, the poll asks a loaded and misleading question. Ryan's plan does NOT "privatize" anything.

In fact, almost ANY poll involving ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, CNN or the AP uses skewed sampling. Really, the most reliable polling out there for a long time has been Rasmussen and your poll of polls conveniently ignored them.

Only one instance ? is that what FOX news is telling you? well then click here, then under the video or picture click on next page, then click on. You will see there's over 10 pages documenting reaction at townhall meetings to Ryans proposed abortion WITH PICTURES and VIDEOS !!! maybe that will keep your attetion.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/pict...all-meetings-over-budget-plan-20110426?page=1

 

[compshmoe]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/pict...all-meetings-over-budget-plan-20110426?page=1

 

[compshmoe]

Page 5 is really hillarious.....http://www.nationaljournal.com/pict...all-meetings-over-budget-plan-20110426?page=1

 

[Calabrio]

Let's refocus, what's your problem with the Ryan plan, Comp?
I don't mean line by line, regulation things, but the philosophy or principles associated with it? Where do you think the flaw in his approach is?

Do you even think it's necessary for the government to cut spending?

 

[compshmoe]

Let's refocus, what's your problem with the Ryan plan, Comp?
I don't mean line by line, regulation things, but the philosophy or principles associated with it? Where do you think the flaw in his approach is?

Do you even think it's necessary for the government to cut spending?

Its very simple, you cannot cut spending alone, you have to have REVENUE. End the tax breaks and corporate loopholes, example: If I work and can't afford to pay my rent or buy food sure i have to cut out UNNECESSARY spending and either get a second job or work more hours, why? for revenue. When Ryan and other republicans says we need to cut cut cut, but we wont get rid of tax breaks FOR ALL it's like saying::: OK I work and can't afford to pay my rent or buy food, so I'll cut my spending and cut my work hours too or quit my 2nd job to have less revenue.

If the problem in Republicans' eyes is the defecit then why do they cut cut cut and not put the money they save from the cuts back into the budget? why do they turn around and take the money they're saving from the budget (lets say a million dollars) and letting it fly out for corporate tax breaks ( for a million dollars)?? I know, you'll say its not as simple as that, cutting on spending and giving it away as a tax break is a lie, blah blah blah, look at the graph and tell me its not cut and dry http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html

Cutting on education, cutting on healthcare for the needy, cutting on healthcare for the elderly; cutting on jobless benefits, cutting on food stamps, whose backs are they cutting spending on? the people who can afford it? no, thats off the table, it's cuts on the safety net, and keep the cuts in revenue. Even David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget for Ronald Raegan's said "I think the biggest problem is revenues. It is simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn't part of the solution. It's a measure of how far off the deep end Republicans have gone with this religious catechism about taxes." http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ticize-off-the-deep-end-republican-budget.php

 

[compshmoe]

"Paul Ryan, the Republican Party’s latest entrant in the seemingly endless series of young, prickish, over-coiffed, anal-retentive deficit Robespierres they’ve sent to the political center stage in the last decade or so, has come out with his new budget plan. All of these smug little jerks look alike to me – from Ralph Reed to Eric Cantor to Jeb Hensarling to Rand Paul and now to Ryan, they all look like overgrown kids who got nipple-twisted in the halls in high school, worked as Applebee’s shift managers in college, and are now taking revenge on the world as grownups by defunding hospice care and student loans and Sesame Street. They all look like they sleep with their ties on, and keep their feet in dress socks when doing their bi-monthly duty with their wives."

-Matt Taibbi
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

 

[Calabrio]

Its very simple, you cannot cut spending alone, you have to have REVENUE.

I would first point out that the government takes in A LOT of revenue.
The problem is, they spend more than they take in. And in the past couple years, they've spent MUCH more than is collected.

Here's a little known economic fact, federal revenue as a % of GDP is pretty stable, regardless the tax rate. So the best way to increase revenue is to increase the GDP, not increase taxes.

End the tax breaks and corporate loopholes,

Honest question-
Why should corporations pay taxes?
They pay sales taxes on all investments. They pay payroll taxes. And they pay property taxes. All of the employees pay income taxes, including the executives. And a sales tax is collected every time their product is sold.

So why tax the corporations? The cost of the tax is simply factored into the cost of the good or service and passed on to the customer. All corporate taxes do is increase the cost of doing business, and right now, the United States has the highest corporate taxes in the world.

Shouldn't we support policy that makes it MORE inviting for a company to operate inside the country? We constantly complain about outsourcing, but if it were less expensive to do business, wouldn't you see even more INsourcing? And how much money would be generated when property was purchased, facilities were built, employees were paid, and inventories purchased?

example: If I work and can't afford to pay my rent or buy food sure i have to cut out UNNECESSARY spending and either get a second job or work more hours, why? for revenue.

I think we need fundamental and radical tax reform in this country.
I think the progressive system we have in place is corrupt and inefficient. It gives too much political power to Washington, and tax breaks and rebates are some of the tools used.

But in your examples, you are not SPENDING less.
You just think you can cease more.
That DOES NOT WORK.

And to make matters worse, the financial situation isn't stable, it's worsening. The baby-boomers are retiring. Interest rates are increasing. The value of the dollar is crashing. And the world is changing.

When Ryan and other republicans says we need to cut cut cut, but we wont get rid of tax breaks FOR ALL it's like saying::: OK I work and can't afford to pay my rent or buy food, so I'll cut my spending and cut my work hours too or quit my 2nd job to have less revenue.

You use the term "tax cuts" like there is a static number where tax rates normally rest and that they are currently artificially low.

You also seem to be arguing that the cuts are immoral and that we should just raise taxes to afford them, for the moment.

We can not have any fiscal reform or fiscal responsibility without reforming the entitlement programs. It's simply NOT POSSIBLE.

If the problem in Republicans' eyes is the defecit then why do they cut cut cut and not put the money they save from the cuts back into the budget?

You say "Republican" like it's a homogenous term.
Ron Paul is a Republican. So is John McCain.
Which one are you speaking to?

why do they turn around and take the money they're saving from the budget (lets say a million dollars) and letting it fly out for corporate tax breaks ( for a million dollars)??

That challenge is too broad to be answered directly or specifically.
In general, tax cuts generate economic activity.
High taxes stifle economic activity.

Corporate taxes and loopholes often time reflect the bipartisan corruption and exercise of political power built into the system. It demonstrates why we need to institute a new, much simpler, tax system.

look at the graph and tell me its not cut and dry

It's not cut and dry.
Even if you think it's cut and dry how the government could steal money from some people to redistribute it to another, this falls into the critical mistake of using static analysis. There are economic consequences to changes in the policy that will have profoundly negative affects on the economy.

Very simple example, if you simply eliminate the interest rate deduction in order to fund the "low income housing program," what will happen to the already crashing real estate market? If it costs more to own a non-homesteaded piece of property, how many fewer will be bought? How many will be put on the market for sale? How much less will all of the homes be worth? And this will continue to domino.

With all the houses for sale, the demand for new construction will fall? How many more tradesmen will be out of work? Carpenters, roofers, electricians, landscape companies, pavers, ect..... And what about the city and state tax revenues? As property values fall, as foreclosures climb, revenues fall, cities and states have to cut their budgets and reduce services.

Did that work out like you'd hoped?

Cutting on education, cutting on healthcare for the needy, cutting on healthcare for the elderly; cutting on jobless benefits, cutting on food stamps, whose backs are they cutting spending on? the people who can afford it?

First of all, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES?

It doesn't.
If you want the government to provide those services, DO IT AT THE STATE LEVEL. The states have the authority to do that, if they so desire. If the programs work, they will be an example for the other 49 states. If they don't, they'll be warning.

But you miss the point.
We can't afford all of this. No matter how good they make you feel. No more how effectively they absolve you of the personal responsibility to take care of your family, or be an active member in your community, we do not have the ability to finance this federal socialist system. And the situation gets worse the longer we wait.

You can't cease enough earnings to perpetuate the system as it currently stands. We don't need to find new ways to pay for these mistakes, we need to change them. Find a way to take care of those who are dependent on the current condition, as best we can, and change the expectations for everyone else.

The federal government can't be there for you from cradle to grave.
Not if you want to be free and certainly not permanently.

Again, if you value the idea of liberty, can you explain to me where in the constitution the federal government was given the authority or the responsibility for all of the programs that you are endorsing?

 

[compshmoe]

""First of all, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES?""






WELL since you asked...... you must take the good with the bad.........



" We believe the major issues we face today are best solved by a renewed allegiance to the original intent of these founding documents.

Preamble
Sanctity of Life
Bring Government Back Home
Character and Moral Conduct
Congressional Reform
Conscription
Constitutional Convention
Copyrights and Patents
Cost of Big Government
Crime
Defense
Domestic Federal Aid
Drug Abuse
Education
Election Reform
Electoral College
Energy
Environment
Executive Orders
Family Foreign Policy
Gambling
Government/ Private Partnership
Gun Control
Health Care and Government
Immigration
The Judiciary
Money and Banking
Personal and Private Property Security
Pornography
Religious Freedom
Social Security
Statehood
State Sovereignty
Tariffs and Trade
Taxes
Terrorism and Personal Liberty
Veterans
Wage and Price Control
Welfare

 

[compshmoe]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preamble
The Constitution Party 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 hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

•That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
•That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;
•That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
•That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and
•That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.



Sanctity of Life
The Declaration of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
The Preamble of the Constitution states a purpose of the Constitution to be to:
"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution "to ourselves and our Posterity". Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.
The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of these United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation's Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government - legislative, executive, and judicial.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the FACE Acts as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment.

In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.

Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.




Bring Government Back Home
The closer civil government is to the people, the more responsible, responsive, and accountable it is likely to be. The Constitution, itself, in Articles I through VI, enumerates the powers which may be exercised by the federal government. Of particular importance is Article I, Section 8 which delineates the authority of the Congress.
The federal government was clearly established as a government of limited authority. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Over time, the limitations of federal government power imposed by the Constitution have been substantially eroded. Preservation of constitutional government requires a restoration of the balance of authority between the federal government and the States as provided in the Constitution, itself, and as intended and construed by those who framed and ratified that document.

We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not Constitutionally delegated to the federal government.

We stand opposed to any regionalization of governments, at any level, which results in removal of decision-making powers from the people or those directly elected by the people.

 

[compshmoe]

Character and Moral Conduct
John Adams, 2nd President and signer of the Declaration of Independence warned:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

He also counseled:
"The people have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge - I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers." Our very Constitution is threatened when we permit immoral conduct by our leaders.
Public respect and esteem toward public officials has fallen to a shameful level. The Constitution Party finds that a cause of this national state of disgrace is the deterioration of personal character among government leaders, exacerbated by the lack of public outcry against immoral conduct by public office holders. Our party leaders and public officials must display exemplary qualities of honesty, integrity, reliability, moral uprightness, fidelity, prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude, self-restraint, courage, kindness, and compassion. If they cannot be trusted in private life, neither can they be trusted in public life.

It is imperative the members and nominated candidates representing the Constitution Party and its state affiliates recognize the importance of demonstrating good character in their own lives.




Congressional Reform
"The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". - US Constitution, Article 6, Clause 3

With the advent of the 17th amendment, a vital check on Congress was removed. Since then, Congress has usurped power relatively unchecked, where today, very few members of Congress make it through a single session, without violating their oath of office to the Constitution.
The Congress of these United States has become an overpaid, overstaffed, self-serving institution. It confiscates taxpayer funds to finance exorbitant and unconstitutionally determined salaries, pensions, and perks. Most members of Congress have become more accountable to the Washington establishment than to the people in their home districts. Both houses of Congress are all too often unresponsive and irresponsible, arrogantly placing themselves above the very laws they enact, and beyond the control of the citizens they have sworn to represent and serve.

We seek to abolish Congressional pensions.

It is time for the American people to renew effective supervision of their public servants, to restore right standards and to take back the government. Congress must once again be accountable to the people and obedient to the Constitution, repealing all laws that delegate legislative powers to regulatory agencies, bureaucracies, private organizations, the Federal Reserve Board, international agencies, the President, and the judiciary.

The U.S. Constitution, as originally framed in Article I, Section 3, provided for U.S. Senators to be elected by state legislators. This provided the states direct representation in the legislative branch so as to deter the usurpation of powers that are Constitutionally reserved to the states or to the people.

The Seventeenth Amendment (providing for direct, popular election of U.S. Senators) took away from state governments their Constitutional role of indirect participation in the federal legislative process.

If we are to see a return to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away, then it is also vital that we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and return to state legislatures the function of electing the U.S. Senate. In so doing, this would return the U.S. Senate to being a body that represents the legislatures of the several states on the federal level and, thus, a tremendously vital part of the designed checks and balances of power that our Constitution originally provided.

We support legislation to prohibit the attachment of unrelated riders to bills. Any amendments must fit within the scope and object of the original bill.

We support legislation to require that the Congressional Record contain an accurate record of proceedings. Members of Congress are not to be permitted to rewrite the speeches delivered during the course of debates, or other remarks offered from the floors of their respective houses; nor may any additional materials be inserted in the Record, except those referred to in the speaker's presentation and for which space is reserved.




Conscription
US Constitution, 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Conscription deprives a person of liberty without due process of law. This is clearly prohibited by the 5th amendment. Conscription is an involuntary taking of a person's labor-which is a form of property-without just compensation as provided by the eminent domain provisions of the 5th amendment.
Compulsory government service is incompatible with individual liberty.

We oppose imposition of the draft, the registration law, compulsory military training or any other form of compulsory government service.

We support a well-trained and highly organized volunteer state home militia, and voluntary Reserve Officer Training Corps (R.O.T.C.) military training in our schools, colleges, and universities.




Constitutional Convention
We affirm the original text of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We affirm that the nation's Charter, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution contain the foundational law of the federal union. We condemn, therefore, all legislative, executive, and judicial action that departs from the texts and intent of the Charter and the Constitution and their original meaning.
We oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional convention, for any purpose whatsoever, because it cannot be limited to any single issue, and such convention could seriously erode our Constitutionally protected unalienable rights.




Copyrights and Patents
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing" copyright and patent protection for authors and inventors.
We oppose the unconstitutional transfer of authority over copyright and patent policy from Congress to other agencies, domestic or foreign. We favor more vigorous efforts in both domestic and foreign markets to protect the interests of owners in their copyrights and patents.




Cost of Big Government
James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).
A legitimate and primary purpose of civil government is to safeguard the God-given rights of its citizens; namely, life, liberty, and property. Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped.

Budget considerations are greatly impacted by the ever rising national debt. Interest on the debt is one of the largest expenses of government, and unless the interest is paid, the debt will continue to grow as interest is added to interest. If we are to get rid of the debt, a time needs to be set within which the debt will be funded, and then pay it off within that period. Whatever the payoff period may be, three things must happen within that time.

•The annual reductions have to be made without fail.
•All interest must be paid as it accrues; and
•The government must not spend more than it takes in during the payoff period.
One of the greatest contributors to deficit spending is war. If the country is to get rid of debt, these United States cannot become gratuitously involved in constant wars. Constitutional government, as the founders envisioned it, was not imperial. It was certainly not contemplated that America would police the world at the taxpayers' expense.

We call for the systematic reduction of the federal debt through, but not limited to, the elimination of further borrowing and the elimination of unconstitutional programs and agencies.

We call upon the President to use his Constitutional veto power to stop irresponsible and unconstitutional appropriations, and use his Constitutional authority to refuse to spend any money appropriated by Congress for unconstitutional programs or in excess of Constitutionally imposed tax revenue.

The debt could be more rapidly eliminated if certain lands and other assets currently held by the federal government were sold, and the proceeds applied to the debt. This policy should be employed, and funds from the sale of all such assets should be specifically applied to debt reduction.

We reject the misleading use of the terms "surplus" and "balanced budget" as long as we have public debt. We oppose dishonest accounting practices such as "off-budget items" used to hide unconstitutional spending practices.

We call for an end to the raiding by the federal government of the Social Security, Railroad Retirement and Medicare funds. We believe that over a protracted period the Social Security system may be privatized without disadvantage to the beneficiaries of the system. However, the program has been in place since the 1930s, and workers and their employers were taxed for the program and paid in good faith. The government promised to deliver the benefits, and must meet this commitment.

We call for the abolition of the Civil Service system, which is perceived to confer on government employees a "property right" regarding their jobs.




Crime
St George Tucker was the pre-eminent constitutional scholar of the American founding era. He published View of the Constitution of the United States in 1803 as a comprehensive review of the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights. Felonies not enumerated within the United States Constitution are, in Tucker's view, left within the jurisdiction of the state.
. . . the very guarded manner in which congress are vested with authority to legislate upon the subject of crimes, and misdemeanors. They are not entrusted with a general power over these subjects, but a few offenses are selected from the great mass of crimes with which society may be infested, upon which, only, congress are authorized to prescribe the punishment, or define the offense. All felonies and offenses committed upon land, in all cases not expressly enumerated, being reserved to the states respectively. (View of the Constitution of the United States, p. 210-211)
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 Clause 6: "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;" US Constitution, Article III Section 3 Clause 2: "The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason" Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Crime, in most cases, is to be dealt with by state and local governments. To the degree that the federal government, in its legislation, in its judicial actions, in its regulations, and in its executive branch activities, interferes with the ability of the people in their communities to apprehend, judge, and penalize accused lawbreakers, it bears responsibility for the climate of crime, which has grown more destructive with each passing year.

We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes and to require restitution for the victims of criminals. Federal involvement in state and local criminal justice processes should be limited to that which is Constitutionally permitted.

All who are accused of crimes, petty to capital, shall have a trial by jury upon request, and the jury shall be fully informed of its right to nullify the law. Furthermore, we oppose defendants being charged and tried by both state and federal jurisdictions under different laws for the same alleged criminal act, thus violating the Constitutionally secured prohibition against double jeopardy.

We are opposed to "hate crime" legislation and to enhanced penalties for so called hate crimes. We recognize that a real result of the designation of "hate crime" is to extend federal jurisdiction to crimes which would otherwise be in the province of the states.




Defense
The very purpose of Government, as defined in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, is "to secure these [unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men", "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

To fulfill this obligation, the Preamble of the Constitution states one of the duties specifically delegated to the Federal Government is to "Provide for the common defense".

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 11 - 16 give Congress further direction and authority in this area, including the power "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide and maintain a Navy".
It is a primary obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense, and to be vigilant regarding potential threats, prospective capabilities, and perceived intentions of potential enemies.

We oppose unilateral disarmament and dismemberment of America's defense infrastructure. That which is hastily torn down will not be easily rebuilt.

We condemn the presidential assumption of authority to deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Under no circumstances would we commit U.S. forces to serve under any foreign flag or command. We are opposed to any New World Order, and we reject U.S. participation in or a relinquishing of command to any foreign authority.

The goal of U.S. security policy is to defend the national security interests of these United States. Therefore, except in time of declared war, for the purposes of state security, no state national guard or reserve troops shall be called upon to support or conduct operations in foreign theatres.

We should be the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provisioner of ours alone.

We call for the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We urge the executive and legislative branches to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation. We call for the deployment of a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible.

We believe that all defense expenditures should be directly related to the protection of our nation, and that every item of expenditure must be carefully reviewed to eliminate foreign aid, waste, fraud, theft, inefficiency, and excess profits from all defense contracts and military expenditures.

We reject the policies and practices that permit women to train for or participate in combat. Because of the radical feminization of the military over the past two decades, it must be recognized that these "advances" undermine the integrity, morale, and performance of our military organizations by dual qualification standards and forced integration.

We fully support well regulated militias organized at the state level. Further, we fully support and encourage the restoration of unorganized militia at the county and community level in compliance with our patriotic and legal responsibilities as free citizens of these United States.

Under no circumstances should we have unilaterally surrendered our military base rights in Panama. The sovereign right of these United States to the United States territory of the Canal Zone has been jeopardized by treaties between these United States and Panama. Inasmuch as these United States bought both the sovereignty and the grant ownership of the ten-mile-wide Canal Zone, we propose that the government of these United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity, and renegotiate the treaties with Panama by which the ownership of the canal was surrendered to Panama.

It should be a priority goal of the President and Congress to insist on enforcement of that portion of the 1978 Panama Canal Neutrality Treaty which prohibits control of the entrances to the Panama Canal by any entity not part of the Republic of Panama or these United States of America. By this standard, the award of port facilities at the entrances to the Panama Canal to Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong company closely linked to the Chinese Communist People's Liberation Army, must be overturned. Similarly, Congress and the President should take advantage of Panama Canal treaty provisions to negotiate the return of a U.S. military presence at the Isthmus of Panama. At a time when the U.S. Navy is one-third its former size, it is essential that rapid transit of U.S. military vessels between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans be assured.




Domestic Federal Aid
The 10th Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution assigns all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

Domestic federal "aid" not authorized by the Constitution is not only illegal, it is immoral.

We call upon the states, therefore, to decline to accept all monies from the federal government for any purpose not specifically and clearly articulated in the Constitution, and reject all federal mandates and regulations which are unconstitutional, thus restoring the intended balance of power between the states and their creation, the U.S. Government.




Drug Abuse
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.




Education
Since the Constitution grants the Federal Government no authority over Education, the 10th Amendment applies:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. The law of our Creator assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents. Education should be free from all federal government subsidies, including vouchers, tax incentives, and loans, except with respect to veterans.

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

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

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

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




Election Reform
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing* Senators." (*original spelling from Constitution) The Constitutional balance of power on this matter has been destroyed by the 17th amendment. The States no longer have a representative at the Federal level. (See "Congressional Reform" plank.)
The Constitution Party seeks the restoration of an electoral process which is controlled at the state and local level and is beyond manipulation by federal judges and bureaucrats. The federal government has unconstitutionally and unwisely preempted control in matters of district boundaries, electoral procedures, and campaign activities.

The Voting Rights Act should be repealed. The Federal Election Campaign Act, including its 1974 amendments, and the Federal Election Commission should be abolished.

Each citizen should have the right to seek public office in accordance with the qualifications set forth in federal and state constitutions. Additional restrictions and obligations governing candidate eligibility and campaign procedures burden unconstitutionally the fairness and accountability of our political system.

To encourage free and fair elections, all candidates must be treated equally. We call for an end to designated "Major Party" status that gives an unfair advantage to some candidates by providing ballot access and taxpayer dollars, while requiring others for the same office to gather petition signatures or meet other, more stringent criteria.

We call for a repeal of all federal campaign finance laws (i.e. McCain-Feingold) due to their violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In order to avoid election fraud, we urge an end to electronic or mechanical voting processes and a return to the manual counting process overseen by, and accountable to, voters resident in each precinct where the votes are cast.




Electoral College
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states, in part: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." This established our Electoral College.
Although the Constitution does not require the states to adhere to any specific manner in electing these electors or how they cast their votes, it suggests, by its wording, that prominent individuals from each congressional district, and from the state at large, would be elected or appointed as electors that represent that district. Under this arrangement, a voter would vote for three individuals, one to represent his district and two "at large" representatives to represent his state. These electors, in turn, would then carefully and deliberately select the candidate for president. Under this system each congressional district could, in essence, select a different candidate. The candidate with the most electors nationwide would become the next president.

This was the general procedure used until the 1830's, at which time all the states, except for South Carolina, changed to a "general ticket."

The "general ticket" system is still in use today. Inherently, it causes corruption by the inequitable transfer of power from congressional districts to the states and large cities at the expense of rural communities.

The Constitution Party encourages states to eliminate the "general ticket" system and return to the procedure intended by the Framers.




Energy
James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).
We call attention to the continuing need of these United States for a sufficient supply of energy for national security and for the immediate adoption of a policy of free market solutions to achieve energy independence for these United States. We call for abolishing the Department of Energy.

Private property rights should be respected, and the federal government should not interfere with the development of potential energy sources, including natural gas, hydroelectric power, solar energy, wind generators, and nuclear energy.




Environment
James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).
It is our responsibility to be prudent, productive, and efficient stewards of God's natural resources. In that role, we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and to replenish the earth and develop it (e.g., to turn deserts into farms and wastelands into groves). This requires a proper and continuing dynamic balance between development and conservation, between use and preservation.

In keeping with this requirement, we wholeheartedly support realistic efforts to preserve the environment and reduce pollution - air, water, and land. We reject, however, the argument of the perceived threat of man-made global warming which has been refuted by a large number of scientists. The globalists are using the global warming threat to gain more control via worldwide sustainable development.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution limits the federal power of eminent domain solely to the purchase of private property with just compensation for public use, such as military reservations and government office buildings - not for public ownership, such as urban renewal, environmental protection, or historic preservation. Under no circumstances may the federal government take private property, by means of rules and regulations which preclude or substantially reduce the productive use of the property, even with just compensation.

We call for a return to the states and to the people all lands which are held by the federal government without authorization by the Constitution.

We also call for repeal of federal wetlands legislation and the federal Endangered Species Act. Moreover, we oppose any attempt to designate private or public property as United Nations World Heritage sites or Biosphere reserves. We call for an end to this United States participation in UN programs such as UNESCO, Man and the Biosphere, and the UN Council on Sustainable Development. We oppose environmental treaties and conventions such as the Biodiversity Treaty, the Convention on Climate Control, and Agenda 21, which destroy our sovereignty and right to private property.




Executive Orders
Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly restricts the power to make laws: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States".

Presidential Executive Orders are clearly "legislative powers".
We oppose the use of Presidential executive orders that make law or otherwise usurp the Constitutional authority and responsibilities of the legislative and judicial branches. This Constitutionally subversive practice must be stopped by Congress. All unconstitutional executive orders must be repealed.




Family
No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations, as affirmed by the 10th amendment, delegating to the people as our founders understood the family as necessary to the general welfare. We affirm the importance of Biblical scripture in the founders' intent as eloquently stated by Noah Webster: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitution and laws… All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts in the Bible."
The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.




Foreign Policy
"Europe has a set of primary interests, which have to us none, or very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities. "Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" (George Washington's Farewell Address)

"I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson-First Inaugural Address. Bergh 3:321. (1801.)

"America has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings....She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." (John Quincy Adams, Speech Delivered in Washington DC 04 July 1821)

"In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do....Our policy in regard to Europe...is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers..." (James Monroe, Monroe Doctrine)
National Sovereignty:

These United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars. We are opposed to the negotiation or ratification of any treaty, agreement, or partnership that would deprive United States citizens of their rights protected by the United States Constitution. We are also opposed to any union whether political or economic, of these United States, Mexico, and Canada (NAU).

To this end, we shall:

•steadfastly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court under United Nations auspices;
•call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations;
•bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory; and
•propose that the Constitution be obeyed to prohibit the United States government from entering any treaty, or other agreement, which makes any commitment of American military forces or tax money, compromises the sovereignty of the United States, or accomplishes a purpose properly the subject of domestic law. In this connection we specifically denounce the agreement establishing the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and any other such trade agreements, either bi-lateral or regional in nature. All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution, since the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.
American troops must serve only under American commanders, not those of the United Nations or foreign countries.

Pacts and Agreements:

Since World War II, these United States has increasingly played the undesirable role of an international policeman. Through our involvements abroad our country is being changed from a republic to a world empire in which our freedoms are being sacrificed on an altar of international involvement. These United States is now committed by treaty to defend foreign nations in all parts of the world, and by agreements other than treaties to defend more. Therefore, we call upon the President, and Congress, to immediately commence a systematic withdrawal from these treaties and agreements, each of which holds the potential to plunge America into war in some far-flung corner of the earth.

NATO, for instance, serves no defensive purpose for these United States, and this country should withdraw from it.

Unconstitutional, Undeclared Wars:

Since World War II, these United States has been involved in tragic, unconstitutional, undeclared wars which cost our country the lives of many thousands of young Americans. These wars were the direct and foreseeable result of the bi-partisan interventionist policy of both Democrat and Republican administrations.

The Constitution Party is opposed to the continuation of the same interventionist policy, with that policy's capacity to involve our country in repeated wars.

We demand that:

•never again shall United States troops be employed on any foreign field of battle without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by the United States Constitution;
•Congress refuse to fund unconstitutional, undeclared wars pursuant to presidential whim or international obligations under which American sovereignty has been transferred to multi-national agencies.
Foreign Involvement:

The Constitution Party has consistently opposed American involvement in conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Central and South America. These United States has no interest in these areas which would justify the sacrifice of Americans on foreign battlefields - nor is our country properly cast as a merchant of death in international arms races.

We propose that these United States:

•repudiate any commitment, express or implied, to send U.S. troops to participate in foreign conflicts, whether unilaterally, under NATO auspices, or as a part of the United Nations "peace-keeping" operations; and
•cease financing, or arming of belligerents in the world's troubled areas.
We support the principle of the Monroe Doctrine, which expresses U.S. opposition to European adventurism in the Western Hemisphere.

We call upon the Congress to immediately terminate American military presence in all foreign countries where such U.S. presence constitutes an invitation for this nation to become involved in, or further participate in, foreign wars.

Foreign Aid:

Since World War II, these United States has engaged in the greatest international giveaway program ever conceived by man, and is now spending billions of dollars each year to aid foreign nations. There is no constitutional basis for foreign aid. These expenditures have won us no friends, and constitute a major drain on the resources of our taxpayers. Therefore, we demand that:

•no further funds be appropriated for any kind of foreign aid program;
•United States participation in international lending institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, be ended;
•the Export-Import Bank be abolished;
•all government subsidies, tax preferences, and investment guarantees to encourage U.S. businesses to invest in foreign lands be immediately terminated; and
•all debts owed to the United States by foreign countries, or foreign entities, be collected.



Gambling
James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.




Government/ Private Partnership
"…what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? …a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address - Wednesday, March 1, 1801
America was founded on the economic principles of the "free enterprise" system. An individual was free to operate his business under the law without government intervention and regulation. This economic system is being replaced by public (government) - private partnerships. This system is called fascism. The Constitution Party is opposed to public-private partnerships and is for a return to the true "free enterprise" system that once made our nation great and economically prosperous.