Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How long have you been around?
A: In 1992, a coalition of independent state parties united to form the U.S. Taxpayers Party. In 1999, at its national nominating convention for the 2000 elections, convention delegates chose to change the party name to the "Constitution Party," believing that the new name better reflected the party’s primary policy approach of enforcing the U.S. Constitution’s provisions and limitations.
Q: Who have been your presidential candidates?
A: In 1992, the U.S. Taxpayers Party’s presidential candidate, Howard Phillips, was on the ballot in 21 states, with Albion Knight Jr. as his running mate. In 1996 the party achieved ballot access in 39 states, with Howard Phillips as its presidential nominee and Constitutional scholar Herb Titus as its vice-presidential nominee. Howard Phillips was elected to be the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee for the 2000 elections, and Dr. J. Curtis Frazier was selected as his vice-presidential running mate. In 2004, the Constitution Party nominated Michael Peroutka as its presidential candidate and Chuck Baldwin as his vice-presidential running mate.
Q: Are you liberal or conservative?
A: Neither. We are constitutionalist, which means that we support limited government under the Constitution. We also support the principles of Christian-based morality upon which our American republic and civilization have been built. We therefore oppose not only efforts to undermine constitutional government, but also the ongoing campaign to strip America of moral virtue.
Q: Why does America need a Constitution Party, if we already have a Constitution?
A: For several generations now, constitutional government has been under attack, especially at the federal level. An overwhelming majority of our Congressmen, judges, presidents, and other federal officeholders routinely ignore constitutional limits placed on their power. As a result, there are now very few areas where government is not involved in our lives, a radical and alarming departure from our almost-forgotten tradition of limited government and very broad individual freedoms. Because of this anti-Constitutional revolution, we are dangerously close to losing republican government altogether, and our remaining freedoms along with it. Both major parties, in spite of their rhetoric, have made their contempt for the U.S. Constitution very plain, and would have us believe that the principles it represents are outmoded. America therefore needs a new party to re-enshrine the Constitution, the only alternative to creeping despotism.
Q: Will I waste my vote if I support Constitution Party candidates?
A: In recent elections, millions of conservatives did not vote because they did not care for either of the major candidates, so there already exists a natural constituency of principled voters who don’t care for the “lesser of two evils” game played by the two dominant parties. Also, strong third parties often influence electoral outcomes by drawing crucial votes from Republican and Democratic candidates.
A person’s vote is truly wasted when he does not use it to express his actual beliefs. How can we expect to have principled leaders if we do not have a principled electorate?
A vote for the Constitution Party is a vote for the Constitution and an investment in America’s restoration.
Q: Are you for or against the War in Iraq?
A: We oppose the War in Iraq, both because it was embarked upon (like every other U.S. war since the Second World War) without a constitutionally-mandated declaration of war, and because it is an offensive, not a defensive war, aimed at the subjugation of a foreign regime that posed no threat to us. We believe, with the Founders, that American military forces should be used only for national defense, not to settle the quarrels of other nations, and that America’s aggressive global military posture is making us more enemies than friends. We are also opposed to all wars embarked upon under the authority of the United Nations, and are very disappointed that President Bush has repeatedly invoked UN Security Council resolutions as his primary legal justification for our invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Q: What is your stand on abortion?
A: We are 100% opposed to abortion, with no loopholes or exceptions.
Q: Do you believe in free trade?
A: No. We believe that trade across international boundaries is desirable, but we also support tariffs on foreign imports as a primary source for raising revenues for the federal government. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides that duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. The United States relied on a tariff-based revenue system during most of the nation's history. “Free trade” in the modern sense of the term actually means “international trade managed and regulated by international bodies like the WTO and NAFTA,” and is therefore completely incompatible with our national sovereignty. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others these Constitutional powers. We oppose, therefore, the unconstitutional transfer of authority over U.S. trade policy from Congress to agencies, domestic or foreign, which improperly exercise policy-setting functions with respect to U.S. trade policy.
Q: I agree with most of your positions, but aren’t I better off holding my nose and voting for the Republican candidate, who is at least not as bad as his liberal Democrat opponent?
A: We believe that this “lesser-of-two-evils” approach to voting is morally unjustified. Your vote should be based on principle, not expedience. For generations, Americans have held their noses and voted for the lesser of two evils, hoping that those they elect will vote in a principled manner, even though the electorate does not. If we compromise our own principles at the polls, we have no right to be indignant when those we elect do the same in Washington.
Q: How does the Constitution Party differ from the Libertarian Party?
A: A brief summary of the foundational differences between the Constitution Party and other political parties can be found in this information from the Constitution Party of Utah website
http://www.cputah.org/html/about_us.html#Differences
Both parties agree on the need for a federal government that operates strictly within constitutional limits. But we differ with the Libertarian Party on a number of issues, such as open borders and legalized drugs, both of which we strongly oppose. Most importantly, the Constitution Party is the only truly pro-life political party in the United States, whereas the Libertarian Party does not believe the federal government should protect the lives of the innocent unborn.
Q: How can I get some Constitution Party bumper stickers and other party promotional materials?
A: One of our party members in Wisconsin started Live Free or Die Campaign Supply to handle promotional materials for the national party. Please visit their website at
to obtain the items you desire, or call Tim Farness at (877) 201-2441
Q: What is the Constitution Party's position on capital punishment?
A: We strongly oppose the taking of innocent life, via practices such such as abortion or euthanasia. The "Crime" plank of the CP platform (found by clicking here:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Crime
addresses our party's position on capital punishment or the death penalty.
Our support of a State's option to impose the death penalty is limited to those who have been convicted of capital crimes. This is consistent with protecting "innocent" life because the death penalty would only be applied to those who have proven to be a threat to innocent life.
The second sentence of the pro-life plank of our platform states, "The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood." Please notice the word "innocent" in this sentence. This is a key word in understanding how the CP platform can be both Pro-Life on one hand, yet allows for the execution of a convicted criminal when it comes to administering justice for a capital crime.
Stiff penalties, up to and including death, are for the protection of the lives of all "innocent" citizens from the actions of the few dangerous members of our society that have been found guilty by a jury of their peers. However, our platform position stresses that the decision whether or not to permit the death penalty should be left to the local and state governments.
Q: Why are some state party names different?
A: In 1992, a coalition of independent state parties united to form the U.S. Taxpayers Party. In 1999, the U.S. Taxpayers Party changed its name to the Constitution Party. Most state parties since then have changed their names to “Constitution Party,” but the following four are unable to do so: the American Independent Party (California), the Concerned Citizens Party (Connecticut), the Independent American Party (Nevada), and the U.S. Taxpayers Party (Michigan).