Steve G.

Steve Kubby: “Does the Constitution Party actually support the Constitution?”

In Libertarian on June 14, 2008 at 6:39 pm

The following article is posted with the permission of the author, longtime Libertarian activist Steve Kubby.

Does the Constitution Party actually support the Constitution?

Judging by their own Seven Principles, it is evident that the Constitutional Party does NOT believe in upholding defending the US Constitution, as it is currently written.

Take a look at their own words and decide for yourself:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

This seems reasonable and makes good sense — unless you happen to be a woman and you have the notion that you, not the State owns your body

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

Huh? This lofty definition of “Liberty” is toothless. REAL Liberty is FREEDOM from GOVERNMENT

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

Whoa! This sounds like the Constitution party wants to hijack the government to institute a right wing theocracy based upon fundamentalist interpretations of the Christian Bible

4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

What does this mean? Can the State still take your property if you are caught growing marijuana? Yeah, I thought so

5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

Many of the Founding Fathers intended that slavery remain legal and that women should never vote. Is that the intent we want

6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

WRONG! Neither states, nor local jurisdictions have ANY “Rights” whatsoever, under the US Bill of Rights. RIGHTS only belong to PEOPLE and cannot be separated, alienated or otherwise transferred to the State. Only “Powers” can be transferred to a state and that is the point to the 9th and 10th amendments.

7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances

The US government has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot protect the borders, provide for the defense of Americans, nor can our government avoid becoming entangled in foreign alliances. The Constitution provides an effective means for protecting Americans and it is called the Second Amendment.

  1. Why doesn’t Kubby do a similar examination of the Bob Barf?

  2. Well said, Steve!

    And Mike Nelson’s hardly in a position to demand anything of anyone, especially examinations of the constitution.

  3. I agree with Steve’s overall point here, and most of what he said hit the nail on the head, however, I think that there is one point that he made that is debatable and that is this…

    “1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;”

    “This seems reasonable and makes good sense — unless you happen to be a woman and you have the notion that you, not the State owns your body.”

    One could bring up the rights of the fetus and say that aborting the fetus is a violation of the right to life.

    The 5th amendments says that, “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”

    So the only way you can get around this is if you say that a fetus is not a person and does not have rights.

    I’m not saying that this is right or wrong, I’m just saying that it is debatable.

  4. On the other hand, the fetus cannot survive independent of the mother, and imposes upon her property (her own body) for its survival. Those arguing the fetus have a “right to live regardless of anything” also are arguing that the fetus has a superior claim to a woman’s body than a woman herself.

  5. a 6 month old baby can’t survive on it’s own. That is one of the weakest arguments supporting abortion.

    I understand the debate on if/when a fetus becomes a human, but to say that if you believe an unborn child/fetus is a human and killing it would be violating it’s freedom is not libertarian is crazy.

  6. “bmillerlib Says:

    June 14, 2008 at 11:41 pm
    On the other hand, the fetus cannot survive independent of the mother, and imposes upon her property (her own body) for its survival. Those arguing the fetus have a “right to live regardless of anything” also are arguing that the fetus has a superior claim to a woman’s body than a woman herself.”

    Going by this logic, a passenger on an airplane is inside somebody’s property, so is it OK for the airplane crew to throw a person out of the plane while the plane is in flight?

  7. And Mike Nelson’s hardly in a position to demand anything of anyone

    What was “demanded”?

    Looks like the only one demanding people do anything is none other than Ms. Miller herself via her latest post titled:

    “Why I’m Voting Barr-Root, And Why You Should Too”

    The very fact that this nutjob is supporting Barf is enough to scare anyone away from Barf.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: