Talk:Constitution Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitution Party (United States) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


Archive
Archives
#Aug 2003 - Dec 2006


[edit] moving transient/historical sections

I was considering moving certain transient and historical elements (office holders, electoral results, etc.) to a separate article and retaining only a summary here. I feel this article goes into too much detail. What do you think? Yea/nay? Any insights based on other party articles, or from other wikis? ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


I think it would be a good idea to remove the recent election results. Maybe leave the '06? I recently revised these.

[edit] Drugs?

The page doesn't mention the party's policies on drugs. Anyone? Ppe42 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected this oversight. Thanks. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Far-right

This party is listed as Far Right on that page. Is it? Nssdfdsfds 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's what the mainstream press would label it, so you can certainly find citations to reference it. Sad that abiding by the law of the land (the Constitution) makes you extremist... Not sure that adding a "position" to that infobox template was a good idea, since it is redundant with (and less informative than) ideology, and it is just an opening for obviously pejorative terms (e.g. "far right"). ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's sad that people like yourself support making the law of the land something only the most far-right fringe desires. There is no non-perjorative label for these policies, and "far-right" is the least bad option. 125.175.156.47 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Moore & Alan Keyes

Moore has drawn the attention of some CP members and has spoken at a couple events, but AFAIK he has not made any advances toward the party himself. That is, he has no formal attachment to the party whatsoever. Should he even be noted in this article? Same deal for Keyes. CP members tend to like him, but how does that signify any affiliation with the party? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Both are clearly affiliated with the party. See the CP site.
Don't be lazy—provide a reference. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
WRT Alan Keyes, try http://www.renewamerica.us/news/070108concord.htm Jhobson1 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Patriot Party

Does the American Patriot Party belong in the "See also" section as a similar party? I don't think they even have an abortion stance. Tim Long 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

If I'm not mistaken, constitutionalist with a lowercase c indicates someone who holds a philosophy of respect for the Constitution, which an uppercase C indicates a member of the party. Shouldn't we then capitalize the C on the "Category:(State) constitutionalists" categories? And shouldn't we also remove them from people who have left the party, like Michael Peroutka? Tim Long 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There was some confusion about whether "people by political stance" categories were philosophical, partisan affiliation, or both. For now the category seems to be for partisan affiliation so you are probably right. Personally I don't think it's a big deal, and I don't know that any admins would want to bother with fixing case when there are other things to do. As for removing the category from former members, how is that handled for other parties (particularly regarding prominent members)? ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amendents

I have looked over the party's website, and I can find no reference to a goal of revising the First Amendment, or repealing the Eighth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth or Twenty-First or Twenty-Sixth. I realize, looking at the history section, that this has been a matter of some debate/deletions in the past. I propose that whoever has added these claims provide some sort of evidence or citation to support them, or that this section be deleted permanently. 24.168.65.83 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The platform section does need more citations, in general. I am unsure what, specifically, you are referring to here, however. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Christtrekker: The portions I mentioned above were deleted a few weeks ago, so no matter. On a related topic, there is a reference to the party supporting the right of states to secede from the union without federal interference. This statement cites the party website, which makes no such statement. All it talks about is getting the federal government out of ageas that are arguably the purview of states or private business. Again, this seems to be inaccurate, and I think it ought to be changed.38.117.162.35 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Directly from the referenced page: "We acknowledge that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary." ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Damnit. I must have missed that line. Oh well, nothings perfect. Nice way to twist around one sentence. So, what I can't figure out is if the guy who wrote that wiki part is a Cofederate apologist or an arsonist.98.165.6.225 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfM nomination

The U.S. state subcategories of Category:Members of the Constitution Party (United States) are being considered for merging into their parent category. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. szyslak 09:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-abortion violence movement

Does anyone have any evidence that anti-abortion activists refer to themselves as part of an "anti-abortion violence movement"? I've never heard of that phraseology and it sounds biased.

Silverstarseven (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound biased. It is certainly not true among mainstream anti-abortion activists. Where in the article did you see this statement? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I've also noticed that the Constitution party is the only one of the top five political parties by members to have a criticisms section. Either all five of the U.S political parties need this section, or none of them should have it. There is no reason to treat this party differently than the rest. I'm in favor of removing this section, as I doubt that it will be added to the other four topics without months of hassle.

Silverstarseven (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having the section removed. Let's see what other people say. The claim about the Iranian revolution appears to be a bit outlandish. The claim about the party being linked to dominionism is quite true and would only be a concern to people who don't like dominionism. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur. The CP shouldn't be treated any differently than other parties. I will remove that section. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vice-presidential candidate

Who is the Constitution Party's vice-presidential candidate for 2008? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)