What would a Constitution Party (religious-right) America be like?

I’ve already started threads on:

What would a Libertarian America be like?

What would a Green America be like?

What would an America First America be like? (Pat Buchanan’s paleoconservative America First Party)

As you will see, I’m trying to box the whole compass of American third-party politics.

Next: The religious-convervative Constitution Party (founded as the U.S. Taxpayers Party in 1992, changed name in 1999). From its [

You can read the whole platform [url=http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php]here.](]website:[/url)

The party’s policies seem very similar to those of the America First Party and it is not implausible they may merge at some point; the differences are a matter of emphasis. (In 2004, America First endorsed Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka for president.) But since they remain separate at present we shall treat them separately for these hypothetical purposes.

Suppose the Constitution Party somehow won a majority in Congress and all state legislatures, plus the presidency and all governorships – or, even without that much electoral success, somehow got into a position to get every single item on its agenda enacted into law.

What would America be like then? What would be the political, social, and economic effects of a consistently Constitution Party policy regime?

Have you read The Handmaid’s Tale? :eek:

I’m not a fan of this party, and I’ve read the book you mention, but have no idea how you get from the former to the latter.

I saw the movie, and I don’t either.

I’m an atheist. Although I’ve heard of them before I don’t know much about this constitution party you mention. But based on the points outlined in the OP I’d much prefer living under thier rule than either the current democrats or republicans.

So can I assume that divorce will be illegal? And fertility tests will be required before marriage? If a man dies without children, will his brother be forced to marry the widow and give her children as divinely instituted? If a woman is not a virgin when she gets married, will she be stoned at the village gates as divinely instituted? Although that conflicts with #1 on the platform, so they may be in a bind.

If they were elected, things would be pretty much the same. Their priorities would be the same as any party’s priorities when they gain power, to wit: 1) staying in power; 2) lining their pockets. Big business and lobbies would buy their votes just the same as any other parties. Think about it, have republicans lived up to their principles while in power? So what makes you think Constitutionalists would?

Looks like a great place to live if you conform to the party’s ideal. God help you if you’re gay (or practice any kind of “offensive sexual behavior”) or if you like porn (from their platform on pornography: “We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.”) or if you want a small business loan (they don’t like “fractional reserve banking”).

I can see some of their goals being laudable, but the ones most likely to get enforced and publicized will be some anal-retentive martinet “cracking down” on local bookstores in the name of preserving morality while bigger, more complex, less exciting issues like defense and banking get neglected. Frankly, it kinda looks like it has the potential to resemble Taliban-run Afghanistan; the individuals are free to do whatever they want, as long as a morality inspector doesn’t object and come in swinging a club.

Those things would be the case under a Dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist regime. Whether the CP would go quite that far is debatable.

Is it that hard to figure out where they’re comming from? No SSM, no recognition of gay parterships of any kind. Think about what a “family” meant 50 years ago.


I don’t get it, either. Several of the quoted points in the OP seem to run directly counter to that (states’ rights, property rights, etc.)

This party makes me a little nervous due to their views of social policies, but some of the rest of it, such as the ones I mentioned above, I am all for. Hard to imagine how we would go from what we have now to that, however.

Unfortunately, I see a number of inconsistencies that appear attractive on the surface to a traditional conservative, are really just invitations for abuse. For instance, I share their opinion that power should be returned to the states for that which is not expressly granted the federal government. But then, I come ambiguities along these sorts of “libertarian-esque” views and the “theocratic” views.

Look at the platform on pornography, specifically “…laws against obscenity to maintain…separation between that which is truly [free] speech and that which only seeks to distory and destroy.” How can we objectively decide where that line falls? Surely there is art of the naked human form, and surely there are nude pictures that are “grotesque” and not meant artistically… but, that’s still a HUGE grey area. What about scantly clad individuals? What about “artistic” pornography? Considering this isn’t explicitly in the power of the federal government, this determination SHOULD be left up to the states, and I imagine this would lead to 50 different definitions, causing all kinds of commercial nightmares for everything from pornographic magazines and Men’s/Women’s magazines to television/movies.

Of course, this overlooks the fact that the constitution explicitly states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. This to me seems to mean that, even if “only seeks to distory and destroy”, it should still be allowed.

Similarly, they face a contradiction between the same two with their “Sanctity of Life” platform. No where is any such power granted to the federal government, yet they would ban it nationwide.

Bottom line, I think there will be an even greater amount of difference between state laws than there is now, and based on this ambiguity of law definition, it could lead to what would essentially boil down to a crapshoot for legal precedences and such, especially with regard with regard to touchy subjects like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Well, we already have anti-pornography laws, so I suspect they just want to tighten them up. Again, probably to like they were back in the “good old days”.

All you have to do is define a fetus as a human. Abortion was banned in most states for quite some time. I see no reason it couldn’t easily be done again if that’s what people want.

I really think these guys are the “let’s return to the 1950s” party. You know, back when everything was good and pure and wholesome. Or, maybe a return to what things were like before Substantive Due Process, The New Deal, and all those other modern evils. I wonder if they’re cool with Seperate but Equal…?

Well, that’s just it. They’re aiming, in the main, to revive the “Christian consensus” culture America had from its founding until the 1960s.

Sure looks like it. I don’t see why people seem to think that would be a hard thing to do as a practical manner. It worked before, so we could make it work again if we wanted to. It would be hard to convince a lot of people that they wanted to do it, but the laws and jurisprudence are already there-- you just have to weed out all the new stuff.

:eek: Missed that part! The whole financial system of the Western world has been based on fractional reserve lending since the Renaissance! Do away with it and it won’t just be small business loans – there’ll be no investment banking . . . no home financing . . . practically no banking of any kind, as we understand it. Just pay the “bank” to keep your cash in a safety deposit box. Does this party include any economists?!

Regarding the “coin money” thing, see this thread.

Hey, you’ll need the stability that comes from outlawing seigneurage after you dismantle the Federal Reserve. It’s win-win!

I’m kinda curious how they feel about legalized prostituion in Nevada, that being a state expressing self-determination in legislation and all.

:confused: “Seigneurage”?

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

Do they have a plank advocating the “Eat Yourself Slim” diet?

Excuse me, French term (which gets passed by my Canadian-based Google) for what is typically (though not frequently, since it’s a fairly obscure word) rendered in English as “Seigniorage”, i.e. the profit the government makes when they issue a banknote labeled “One Dollar” when the production and distribution of it cost them only five cents or so. The economic platform of the CP wants to do away with this and if the government issues a one-dollar bill, then by gum you should be able to trade it in for $1 worth of gold on demand.

I can understand suspicion of what may seem like a “phantom” economy (i.e. a banknote that says it has a value of $100 but is actually just a small piece of paper; a bank that says it has $100 million in assets, but doesn’t actually have a Scrooge McDuck-sized money vault out back) but the value of such items is the economic strength of the nation and the trust that it won’t all go to hell in the near future. In the name of fighting uncertainty, the CP would introduce MASSIVE uncertainty, years of chaos and economic shrinkage, all to get back to some idealized gold-based economy that was abandoned precisely because it didn’t meet the needs of the expanding nation. It’s like they think 1929 was last week, or something.

Gold is now worth $618.00 per ounce, so $1 worth would be . . . well, don’t sneeze while you’re counting it. :rolleyes: