|
What does the Constitution Party stand for? |
What does Kevin Craig stand for? |
||||
| In this column are the positions of the Constitution Party as set forth on a popular Constitution Party flyer and this CP webpage. | In this column are positions taken by Kevin Craig, candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in Missouri's 7th District. | ||||
The Constitution Party rejected me as a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in Missouri's 7th District, because the Party values a fence along the border to keep out immigrants more than it values the following:
|
I agree with all those stands, but do not find the word "fence" among the Federal Government's "enumerated" powers.
There will not be a candidate for whom voters in the 7th District may vote who stands for ALL of those issues. (Although The Libertarian Party candidate will stand for many of those issues, he will not stand for #1, #3, and #11. Nor will the Libertarian Party Candidate champion Bible-centered education [#12] as a matter of national commitment and direction, as long as "the nation" exists. The Constitution Party Platform says "The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations...." I agree with this goal; the Libertarian Candidate does not. Nor will the Democrat candidate. I can't find anything to connect the Republican incumbent to the Bible. He certainly would have made news if he had said anything remotely like this on the floor of Congress.) Voters will see an empty chair on the debate stage for "Constitution" and "Bible." |
||||
|
« Restoring America to "One Nation Under God" |
Any government that will not acknowledge itself to be under God is a government that believes it is God.
|
||||
|
« Returning to limited Constitutional government |
|
||||
|
« Protecting the Unalienable Rights to life for All, Including the Unborn, the Elderly and the Infirm |
|
||||
|
« Securing Our Borders and Enforcing Immigration Laws, with no Amnesty Under any Guise |
Why Anti-Immigration Laws are Unconstitutional The Constitution speaks of "Naturalization," which is the process whereby immigrants can become citizens. The Constitution does not speak of building fences around America. The Declaration of Independence -- America's "Birth Certificate" -- indicts as an act of "tyranny" British restriction of immigration into the United States:
I think it highly improbable that the Framers of the Constitution would give a power to the newly-created government which they had previously singled out as evidence of "tyranny." I can't imagine the horror of the Framers at the prospect of the Federal Government building a fence along the entire Southern border to close "the golden door" in the face of those "yearning to breathe free" and foreclosing state rights to "encourage their migration hither." Consistent with the spirit of the 4th Amendment, valid immigration laws should contain some measure of probable cause that a specific individual immigrant might present a danger to society;
The first "immigration" law (to be distinguished from a law regarding "naturalization," which is what the Constitution enumerates) passed by Congress was the racist "Page Act" in 1875 and the "Chinese Exclusion Act" in 1882. Ten years later, a church in New York was told they could not hire a pastor from Britain because of laws like this one, banning "imported labor." The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this interpretation because the Court acknowledged that this is a Christian nation. But the Court's view was repudiated in the 20th century in a case which was used as a precedent to exclude a Christian from the practice of law, which was used to bar me from the practice of law even though I passed the California Bar Exam. One can be perfectly logical in inferring a complete system of tyranny from just one unconstitutional law. I think it's very dangerous to make one particular interpretation of the Constitution the vetting standard for candidates, rather than the standard of "originalism" in interpreting the Constitution.
|
||||
|
« Ensuring the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms |
|
||||
|
« Restoring National Sovereignty, including Withdrawal from the UN and Opposition to the Proposed North American Union |
|
||||
|
« Maintaining a Strong national Defense |
Neo-conservatives include invasion of nations and the destruction of the largest population of Christians in the Arab World as part of a "strong national defense." (Iraq) This shows that the phrase "Strong national Defense" is meaningless. I believe "defense" means "preventing a successful attack." A century ago, the genius who gave us Alternating Current (the scientists of his day said it violated the laws of physics) also proposed a force field which would protect us from aerial invasion. Scalar Waves and Tesla Shields - Nikola Tesla - Father Of "Star Wars" That is true "defense." The purpose of the current tyrannical Federal Government is to protect itself, not The People, and to create and regulate a perpetual state of conflict and danger in order to profit from it and maintain political power. This "Strong national Defense" should not be "maintained," but rather abolished. The Constitution Party claims to be a Christian Party, but nowhere in their discussion of "national security" are Christ's teachings on the subject to be found:
|
||||
|
« Repealing the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) |
|
||||
|
« Eliminating all Government Spending for Unconstitutional Programs |
|
||||
|
« Protecting the Unalienable Rights of Liberty and Private Property |
|
||||
|
« Dismantling the Federal Reserve and Restoring Constitutional Money |
How Fractional Reserve Banking Steals from the Poor
From the Blog |
||||
|
« Promoting Pro-Family Policies |
|
||||
|
« Ending Federal Subsidies for and Control over Education and Welfare |
|
||||
|
« Restoring Control over Elections to State and Local Authorities |
|
||||
| From: About Us | My thoughts on the Constitution Party National Platform
My reply to Libertarian Party complaints against the Constitution Party |
