• Home
  •  / 
  • Search Results for "Constitutionist News & Blog" Category
Join / Donate

Honesty, Integrity, and Judge Roy Moore

By Gary Welch, National Communications Director of the Constitution Party

The first principle of the Constitution Party states “We are committed to restoring honesty, integrity, and accountability to government”. Embodied in that statement are goals, commitments, and policies that will change how our government operates and the character of those that serve as government officials. It incorporates our commitment to having candidates and government officials that are honorable men and women who will be held accountable for their integrity, conduct, and actions.

On November 16th, the National Executive Committee of the Constitution Party voted to start a fundraising effort to assist Judge Roy Moore in his Senate campaign in Alabama.

Some may consider this a controversial decision because (a) it contradicts our standing policy of not endorsing or officially supporting any candidate from another party and (b) because the nature of the accusations against Roy Moore have convinced many (including some staunch conservatives) that supporting him would be violating that first principle of honesty, integrity, and accountability in government.

I feel that it is important that the Constitution Party explains its actions and uses this opportunity to explain how this applies to our unwavering dedication to restoring honesty, integrity, and accountability to government.

We start with the party’s position on the guilt or innocence of Roy Moore. Our official stance is the same of that of President Trump’s – we are not making any profession of the innocence or guilt of Roy Moore. We hold that there has not been enough time allowed to provide for the truth to be fully known. As such, it would be equally foolish to declare his innocence or guilt based solely on the facts that we currently have. By taking up the fundraising efforts for Roy Moore, we are not doing so because we are convinced on his innocence nor does it indicate our refutation of the claims that have been made. Instead, our decision to support him came from the following criteria:

  1. There has not been enough time to evaluate the evidence that has been presented. We have not heard both sides nor has Roy Moore been allowed sufficient time to defend against his accusers. The information that has been presented so far has been all one sided. The Washington Post had plenty of time to build its case in their article and to dig for evidence that supported their case. Judge Moore deserves sufficient time to provide evidence that supports his position or refutes the statements that have been made. The condemnations and actions by the media, government officials, and especially the Republican Party, have come too quickly without providing Roy Moore the opportunity to defend himself. We find the pronouncement of guilt was all too swift and done without giving him the time needed to mount a defense. The investigation and research into the accusations, the accusers, and the facts surrounding case will take time. We don’t know what new evidence or facts will come out from this, but we strongly feel that Judge Moore deserves sufficient time to provide a defense and he was not allowed this opportunity.
  2. Roy Moore has earned the right to be given the opportunity to defend himself. His actions and sacrifices has shown him to be an adherent to Christian principles and that deserves the decency of giving him the opportunity to prove his case. Character does matter, and past actions should be considered when determining innocence or guilt of a person accused of such a grievous crime. Again, we don’t feel that his past alone automatically makes him innocent, but it does warrant that we should carefully review the evidence and provide him with the opportunity to refute or disprove the allegations.
  3. We have some serious concerns about the motives and the actions of some of the participants in this scandal, mostly with the Washington Post and the GOP.
    1. First, the Washington Post’s assertion that they only knew about the scandal only recently is hard to believe. A scandal of this magnitude would have been available to any investigative journalist during the primaries. Where were the accusers during that time? Why were their concerns about Roy Moore not expressed and published back when Roy Moore was running in the primaries? The Washington Post says that they did not do any serious investigations on any candidate in Alabama until after the primaries. Really? The Alabama primary was one of the biggest political news event of the time. No one from the Washington Post was there to cover it? No one was asking the questions about Roy Moore that would shed any light on him as a suitable candidate? The timeline of when the Washington Post knew about the accusations would be critical in determining the motivation and the purpose of the article. Is it a “hit-piece” that is designed to derail the Republican nominee after the primaries to ensure a Democrat victory or is it just what the Washington Post declares it to be, something that came up out of nowhere as part of the coverage of the election? The past history of the Washington Post’s biased reporting should trigger some skepticism of the article, its purposes, and the agenda of the reporters that broke the story. At a minimum, there should be an investigation into how the Washington Post conducted its investigation. Who did they talk to? What did they decide to use or leave out of their story? When did they find out about this information? Their story requires us to accept that everything the Washington Post did was unbiased and coincidental to this race. We have a hard time accepting that.
    2. Second, the GOP’s reaction is very suspect. The history of the Republican Party in defending and staunchly declaring the innocence of their candidates (even when overwhelming evidence of their guilt existed) is legendary. Their moral outrage against Roy Moore sounds both hollow and contrived. We all know that the two major political parties do not act organically. Everything that they do is part of a coordinated effort that is orchestrated by their party leaders. So, the questions that we started asking all started with “Why?”. Why would they turn against Roy Moore just based on nothing more than accusations and hearsay? Why turn against their candidate during the middle of a campaign? Why are they sabotaging their own candidate and ensuring that a Democrat will win the election? Why the extraordinarily quick condemnation from party leaders and government officials (the accusations were barely out before the condemnations started)? Why use threats of unseating Judge Moore or expelling him from the Senate if elected? The answer of “because of moral outrage and to maintain the reputation of the GOP candidates” is laughable. Even very recent history has shown that they put party politics over morality and candidate reputation every day of the week.

Our questioning of the “why did the GOP do this?” led us to answers that this was an act of a corrupt party that was more concerned about maintaining the power base of the political elites even at the cost of an election. That a Democrat would win the election was worth the price for party leaders to maintain their control and power.

It is well known that Roy Moore was not the candidate that the Republican elitists wanted. His election was another blow to the party leaders that have taken the GOP to new lows and alienated their Republican base. Ordinary Republicans are starting to rebel against the direction that their party is taking and are fighting to elect true conservatives to office. Roy Moore was just another example of mainstream Republicans rejecting their party’s leadership choice and deciding to choose a candidate that represented their values, not the party elitists’.

The actions of the RNC (both in party leadership and government officials) clearly demonstrated to us that this was an act of political party that wanted to punish the Republicans of Alabama for daring to elect a candidate that would not “play ball” with the political elites. Roy Moore had made a name for himself in thumbing his nose at GOP leadership that failed to uphold the principles that they supposedly stood for. His election was just too much for them and they retaliated.

Which brings us to the main reason why we are now financially supporting Roy Moore. We feel that the GOP is attempting to invalidate the choice made by the people of Alabama. These latest actions are the acts of a desperate party that is trying to maintain their power over the people. Any acts of rebellion or non-compliance with the GOP leaderships’ agenda, must be dealt with severely and quickly. That they are violating their own principles, the fundamental principles of due process, and (most importantly) the will of the people of Alabama, compelled us to act and take extraordinary action.

Finally, we need to address our action regarding supporting a candidate from another party. That one was easy for us. Roy Moore does not have a party affiliation in our opinion. The RNC has clearly abandoned him. For now, he is now an “Independent” candidate that is acting on his own. Since the GOP has disowned him, he is free to associate himself with any party that he feels would help him in his efforts to change American politics and the proper role of government. As such, we feel that we are free to offer him our assistance as a party to continue his campaign and to provide him with the opportunity to defend himself and make his case to the people of Alabama and America.

Corrupt Politicians Come From A Corrupt Party. The Constitution Party calls on all Americans to examine the latest actions of the GOP and ask yourself if the GOP should be the party representing the cause of the conservative movement. Regardless of whether you personally feel Roy Moore is innocent or guilty, you must look at the recent actions of the GOP and consider their motives and agenda.

The Constitution Party stands for Honesty, Integrity, and Accountability in Government. Our party is based on these principles because they build the foundation for creating a free and prosperous society. We are not compromising on these principles by supporting Judge Roy Moore. Should evidence be shown to our satisfaction that the allegations against Roy Moore are true, then we will be the first to condemn and disavow him. This would apply to any candidate or leader within our party. At present, however, we feel that these are just allegations and accusations. They need to be thoroughly investigated and vetted. Those that support and believe in Roy Moore need time to carry out the process of mounting a defense so that we can base our opinion (and our votes) on truth and not innuendo.

We ask Americans from all over to help support us in this cause and to consider that maybe there is another choice in politics. When is enough is enough?

Please visit our website at www.constitutionparty.com to learn more about the Constitution Party or to support our efforts in raising funds for Judge Roy Moore’s campaign.  Click here to donate.

Message From the Chairman

Frank Fluckiger, National Chairman
Frank Fluckiger National Chairman

THEOCRACY and the CONSTITUTION PARTY

I have become increasingly concerned with the comments on Facebook and other Internet sources which seem to indicate that the majority of the national leadership of the Constitution Party, and particularly members of the National Executive Committee, are pursuing an agenda of promoting a theocratic government for our country. Though I cannot speak for each person individually, I can certainly speak for the large majority of the both the Executive and National Committee members.

The argument stems from the preamble of the national platform which states and I quote

“The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.”

Comment is also made of the platform statement “The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.”

Those who feel the party leadership is promoting a theocracy for our government would do well to give careful study to the writings and minutes kept by James Madison and other Founding Fathers who attended and participated in the Convention in Philadelphia that produced the Constitution. Thirty four percent of the quotes presented at the convention were from Biblical sources and yet that body of men did not even consider that their new government would be a Theocracy. So why then was the Bible so often quoted by these men in the Constitutional Convention?

They were among the wisest and most well-versed men in history to ever meet as one body and they fully understood that the principles taught in the Bible were the source of good and sound government. First and foremost, they understood that our rights came from our Creator and not from the laws of man. In addition to the 10 commandments, they were fully aware of the many other concepts of good government whose origin came from both Old Testament (Jewish history) and New Testament (Christian writings) Among those records were the concepts of Representative Government; the right of an accused to be heard by a jury of his peers; the understanding that men are innocent until proven guilty; the concept that the truth of a matter had to be witnessed by at least two and preferably more witnesses, Also established in those histories was the right to own and to protect one’s property; that the best government came from the bottom up and only those matters that could not be decided locally should be brought up to be considered at a higher level. The list could go on and on. These were based on the premise of self-government by a moral and virtuous people. These concepts are the basis of Common Law and the Laws of Nature. Again, the Founders clearly understood that the government they gave us could survive only among a virtuous and moral citizenry.

This necessitated that for the Constitution to be a successful form of government for a free and liberty loving people, we as a people must be a moral and virtuous people, a characteristic of a God-fearing people. The Founders fully understood the dangers of a state religion that controlled the governments in Europe, but they likewise understood the importance of religion in fostering and furthering the concepts of good government. One of the stipulations of the Northwest Ordinance of 1785 was that religion be taught in those territories. Now the teaching of religion in the public schools is forbidden. How far we have strayed from what the Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation!

Over and over again, the Founders recognized the hand of Providence in both freeing ourselves from British Rule and in the drafting and adopting of the Constitution. George Washington alone listed 76 times in which the hand of Providence intervened in behalf of the colonies. They readily understood that without such help, our nation would have never been possible. Why we as Americans cannot recognize that, and acknowledge the need for that same Providential assistance in restoring that government that the Founding Fathers bequeathed us is of grave concern to me.

The principles promoted by the party are good and praise worthy and in time they hopefully will be achieved. But for any of us to think those goals can be reached without each of us incorporating virtuous values in our individual lives is hoping for something that can never happen. Acknowledging the Hand of Providence in our party’s preamble is only fitting. The does not mean that the wording in the preamble cannot be changed. The party leadership is open to such a consideration, but to exclude reference to Providential assistance in the freeing of our nation from Britain and the establishment of the Constitution is a disservice to the Founding Fathers as well as the founders on the Constitution Party. That would be akin to turning our backs on history.

Promoting the sound concepts of good government given to us by the Founders is totally different than promoting a theocratic government. Whose interpretation of the scriptures is correct? That is something that the various theologians and religious leaders are free to discuss, but under no circumstances are they to be imposed on the citizens of our nation by the force of government. The Founders of our nation were totally opposed to that approach as are the majority of the national and executive committee members of the Constitution Party. These things are to be self-imposed and the Founders well understood it. The leadership of the Constitution Party is in full accord with this understanding.

Constitution Party National Communications Director Gary Welch – Constitution Party Talk Radio

Listen as Randy Stufflebeam discusses the Constitution Party’s “Three Pillars” with Constitution Party National Communications Director Gary Welch.

You can also learn about “The Three Pillars” on the Constitution Party website.

 

Listen to the entire interview [su_button
url=”http://www.blogtalkradio.com/constitutionally-correct/2017/06/02/constitution-party-talk-radio–episode-2-1″]HERE[/su_button]

Dr. Scott Bradley Discusses Constitutionality Of Missile Strike On Syria

In under 8 minutes Dr. Scott Bradley, PhD in Constitutional Law and 2016 Constitution Party VP Nominee, touches on the Constitutionality of the recent missile strike launched against Syria.

 

For those saying the President has the power to launch an attack:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States:

[The Congress shall have Power To…] Declare war…

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 & 2 of the Constitution of the United States:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…

 

For those citing that Commander-In-Chief = ability to unilaterally launch attacks in which Americans are not in imminent danger:

Thomas Jefferson, in 1801 as President:

He was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton:

The President is to be the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States.” In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: — First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.

 

For those insinuating that an Act, Treaty, Resolution, or international law warrants usurpation of the Constitution and carries the same weight as a Constitutional Amendment which changes the Constitution:

St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States:

“Let it be supposed, for example, that the president and senate should stipulate by treaty with any foreign nation, that in case of war between that nation and any other, the United States should immediately declare against that nation: Can it be supposed that such a treaty would be so far the law of the land, as to take from the house of representatives their constitutional right to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of such a declaration of war, and to determine and act thereon, according to their own judgement?”

 

Also… James Madison, Constitutional Debates

“Does it follow, because this power [treaty power] is given to Congress. That it is absolute and unlimited? I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.”

 

And Thomas Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice:

“By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are regulated by treaty and cannot be otherwise regulated. . . . It must have meant to except out of these rights reserved to the states, for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

 

Obvious logical flaws with support for the strikes…

Who did it, with proof, please? – People are so convinced that Assad conducted the chemical weapon attacks. Why would he? Assad has changed the tide of the war over the past couple of years and has finally even been winning the P.R. War. None of this matters because it isn’t Constitutional, but there’s no logic behind an Assad attack.

But the innocent children! – 1. Don’t we hate when liberals demagogue and use the heart-wrenching, doomsday, or Alinskyite tactics? Why would conservatives resort to them? 2. We killed 4 innocent children in those strikes. If this provokes a war, how many of our children will die in a war that we have no business being in? 3. Millions of innocent AMERICAN children are murdered at the hands of Planned Parenthood. Where is the outcry regarding the genocide at home? Isn’t Trump’s daughter lobbying for PP now? Would there be rage if it were Planned Parenthood being attacked due to what they do to innocent children and women daily, or is that ok?

Was the United States in imminent danger? – Were we on the brink, with verifiable intelligence, of being attacked by Syria? Even if someone states that we were, intelligence informed us about WMD’s in Iraq, none there. They told us that Benghazi was caused by a video. Instead, our Intelligence agencies were running guns from Benghazi to Syrian rebels, aka TO ISIS!

Are we now siding with ISIS, against Christians? – It is common knowledge that Assad is fighting ISIS and has been protecting the persecuted Coptic Christians for quite some time. Are we not assisting ISIS by firing missiles on the Syrian military? Are we fighting against Christianity in the Middle East?

Ohhhhh the Hypocrisy! – Donald J. Trump in 2013 after a previous, supposed chemical weapon attack by Assad on his people via Twitter: “The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!”

 

 

Previous quotes and citations extracted from Dr. Bradley’s “To Preserve The Nation Webinars at http://www.freedomsrisingsun.com
Summers Mill Belton, TX

Constitution Party of Texas EC Meeting and State Conference

From the Constitution Party of Texas website:

 

When:
10 June 2017 all-day
Where:
Summers Mill Inn
7441 FM 1123
Belton, TX 76513
Contact:
Constitution Party of Texas (Daniel New)
254-785-2617

Our State Conference will be in Belton on June 10th, same venue as last year, Summers Mill Inn.

Event
Jun 10 all-day

We have booked Summers Mill Inn for lodging for ten rooms for the night of June 9, and for the State Conference all day Saturday, the 10th of June.   Cost of the rooms are $96.12 apiece with all taxes included.  You can find a room in town at a nearby motel, for the night at that price or higher.

It is YOUR responsibility to book your room and pay for it – in advance.  I’ve asked them to pencil in these ten rooms as a guarantee, but as of today she still has a few empty rooms besides these.  After these it will be first-come, first-serve.

Call Summers Mill at (254) 939.6194, ask for Judy, have your credit card ready.  Or mail a check if you prefer.

Their website is http://summersmill.com/